Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I have 10 minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the views of my colleagues, but there is no shared sacrifice in this budget proposal. When the conferees came out of conference committee, tax cuts for wealthy people and very large and profitable corporations, tax cuts which go overwhelmingly to very wealthy people, ballooned from about $170 to $245 billion. Under this budget, if you have an income of over $350,000, you get a break of $20,000 a year. If you do not, you are pretty much out of luck. In fact, under this budget, on average, working people will pay a very large price. Mr. President, at the same time that we are putting into effect these tax cuts which flow disproportionately to the wealthiest citizens in this country, we are calling for draconian cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, child nutrition programs, and student loans. At the same time that we have a $20,000 a year break per person in tax cuts over the next 7 years, we are asking Medicare recipients to pay about $3,200 per person. By the year 2002--oh, yes, the cuts are backloaded, so it gets steeper--they will pay about $900 additional dollars per year for Medicare. Mr. President, without system-wide health care reform, reform of the Medicare and Medicaid programs will not work. We have had this discussion in the Chamber before, and I have challenged my colleagues to debate this. With Medicare, we are talking about $270 billion in cuts and Medicaid $182 billion--in my State of Minnesota, about $4.7 billion in Medicare and over $2 billion in Medicaid. First of all, let us consider the average income profile of people on Medicare. Let us stop assuming that elderly people are greedy geezers, as some critics have said. The median income for male beneficiaries is about $16,000 a year; female, about $8,000 a year. Households with people 65 years of age and over pay about four times more in medical care costs right now than those under 65 years of age. What we are going to be doing with $270 billion in Medicare cuts is calling on the beneficiaries--and that is what it is, an insurance program for elderly people--to pay more out of pocket in copays and deductibles, and for many people they will not be able to, and will have to go without care. But above and beyond that, make no mistake about it, this will lead to major cost-shifting. We went through this before, I say to my colleagues, when we debated health care policy, and the cost shifting will go on like this just as it has. In the metropolitan areas, where the providers can shift the cost to the private health insurance, they will do so because Medicare will not cover the reimbursement for the cost of delivering care, and then private health insurance companies raise the rates of those who receive private health insurance, and then employers have more trouble covering people, and then we continue the trend of employers dropping people from coverage. That is precisely what is going to happen. This is a shell game. Someone is going to pay for this. Second, Mr. President, in rural Minnesota--and I come from a State where rural communities matter and count--many of our care givers will not be able to continue to operate, because 75 and 80 percent of their payment mix right now is Medicare, because of the disproportionate number of elderly people, disabled people, low-income elderly people, that live in our communities. Finally, Mr. President, I come from a State where with Medicare we go through the HMO's. A Medicare per-person reimbursement over $350 goes to RHMO's, whereas in Kings County, NY, it is $600 per enrollee. I am speaking as a Senator from Minnesota. We have cut the fat. We kept the costs down in Minnesota, and now we have this slash-and-burn approach to health care policy? The effect of this will be severe in my State. And the effects of this will be cruel to Minnesota's elderly. Mr. President, let us talk for a minute about another major problem with this budget, and that is the $182 billion of cuts in Medicaid. Let us talk about Medicaid. Actually per person, which is the way we ought to do it in terms of the number of people who are beneficiaries, we are going to go from about 7 percent per year increase to about 1.3 percent per person. Seventy percent of Medicaid, I say to my colleagues, is for nursing home expenses. And people are not in nursing homes and receiving Medicaid unless they are, by definition, low income. Who is going to pick up the cost? How are these nursing homes going to make up the difference? Are there going to be fewer staff? Are we going to provide people with even less care? Or is it going to be our county governments and our State governments that pick it up? And who is going to pick up the cost for covering children? Medicaid happens to be an important safety net program that covers many children within this country, children who would otherwise go without care. Mr. President, this budget also hits farmers disproportionately hard. It instructs the Agriculture Committee to effect $48.4 billion in cuts over 7 years; from the commodity programs we are talking about $12 billion a year. So I am assuming we are talking about $35 billion of cuts in nutrition programs in 7 years, food stamps, school lunch, school breakfast, and the Women, Infant and Children program. Mr. President, I had an amendment on this floor that said that the Senate will take no action that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. Three times I lost. The fourth time it was passed by unanimous consent. I guess I am going to have to bring this amendment back on the floor. Why do you think we expanded the Food Stamp Program? It is the most important safety net program in this country. Yes. There are imperfections, and some reform might be necessary, but the fact of the matter is, we expanded the food programs after we saw the hunger and malnutrition in the late 1960's and we saw children with scurvy and rickets and distended bellies. And the Food Stamp Program has been enormously successful in removing that hunger and malnutrition. Are we going back to that again? How generous we are sometimes with other people's suffering. And I am told that this is shared sacrifice? I do not buy it. Mr. President, I was a college teacher before I ran for the Senate. And I am saddened, and angered, that now some in this body are moving to cut the student financial program. This budget would slash about $10 billion in student loans. Students in Minnesota, I say to my colleague, in Minnesota, some of whom sell plasma at the beginning of the semester to buy textbooks. I meet students who work 35 and 40 hours a week while going to school. That is why it takes them 6 years. Now we want to eliminate part of the exemption on the loans? Mr. President, I do not see the shared sacrifice. I see huge amounts of tax cuts, $245 billion, in the main, going to those people in our country who already have the economic resources. I do not see any real effort to take on corporate [[Page S 9382]] welfare. We have got a joint tax committee, Mr. President. We have got a joint tax committee that tells us that we have, roughly speaking, over 400 billion in what are called ``tax expenditures,'' some of which are justified, like the mortgage interest and charitable contribution deduction, both of which serve important public purposes, but others of which are loopholes and outright tax giveaways. Is it too much to ask that we might look at some of those giveaways as sources of deficit reduction? Tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, oil companies. Are we going to ask any of those large corporations and financial institutions to be a part of this tightening of the belt? I do not see any standard of fairness here. Mr. President, at the same time that it calls for slashing Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans, this budget calls for increases of about $58 billion over the next 7 years in the Pentagon budget, an increase of $58 billion over the next 7 years, in the post-cold-war period. I was in a debate the other night with a colleague in the House who said we needed to eliminate legal services for the poor, all in the name of deficit reduction. The total cost of legal services for the poor is $400 million. It is not even 40 percent of the cost of one B-2 bomber. Mr. President, I do not see the standard of fairness. What we have done here is we have massive tax cuts, with almost all the benefits flowing to the most affluent citizens. We have draconian cuts in Medicare and Medicaid which will not work on good health care policy. And, in addition, we cut financial assistance for students for higher education, and we cut into nutrition programs for the most vulnerable citizens. But we do not touch corporate welfare or ask military contractors to be a part of this at all. And when it comes to health care, we do not have any health care reform, any system of wide cost containment. Mr. President, I will introduce a resolution soon which will then be recrafted as an amendment to the first appropriate legislative vehicle to express the sense of the Senate that by the end of the 104th Congress the Senate should pass health care legislation to provide all Americans with coverage at least as good as what the Senate provides for itself. That sounds familiar because we are back to health care. This does not meet the Minnesota standard of fairness. And I hope before it is all over we get back to some shared sacrifice. This budget I believe is unconscionable. It signals an outrageous and historic abandonment of our commitment to vulnerable Americans, our commitment to farmers, our commitment to the elderly and to children and to college students. It signals a rejection of our commitment to the common good of all, not the special interests of the relatively few in America who are wealthy and powerful , and who will benefit enormously from the tax breaks in this budget. It is an abandonment of our commitment to some modicum of economic and social justice, and it should be roundly rejected by this body. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I address my comments once again to the reservations I have regarding an important piece of legislation that by my measuring is moving way too fast through this body, a piece of legislation that I believe may end up hurting legitimately aggrieved citizens; a piece of legislation that, although I believe it is necessary in some form and earnestly want to give it my support, I nonetheless find it difficult to support, given its present form. I am referring, Mr. President, to S. 240. Mr. President, I have heard the charges--about unethical lawyers looking for deep pockets and hunting for a fast buck, about the tremendous number of meritless suits--some 300--that are filed and settled each year regarding alleged securities fraud. I have had extensive discussions with Minnesota-based companies, many of them new high-technology firms, about the pressing need to plug the legal loopholes that allow companies to be intimidated by unethical attorneys. And I have heard the arguments of my respected colleagues that this bill, S. 240, is the best way to stop such baseless strike suits. First, with regard to this problem of strike suits, Mr. President, I do not think you will find anyone in this Chamber who believes in their heart that such lawsuits are in any way good for the country. Nobody is arguing on behalf of such behavior. My cautious opposition to this bill--in its present form--should not hide the fact that I consider such actions to be the equivalent of blackmail, and detestable in the extreme. But Mr. President, there are swindlers and fraudulent securities setups out in the markets, and there are people who are legitimately hurt by such schemes. I have one report that in my State of Minnesota alone over the past decade, more than 25,000 Minnesotans have recovered $28\1/2\ million in money that was cheated out of them in stock and securities fraud; $28\1/2\ million, Mr. President, and that is just the money that was reportedly recovered. So it certainly would appear to me that in addition to the real problem of the meritless strike suits, there is another real problem--that of ongoing investment fraud. The task of this bill in my view should be to balance these two needs: To create tighter protections for honest companies who are forced to pay the equivalent of extortion to unethical attorneys, while maintaining the protections that have existed for 60 years for legitimately aggrieved investors. Does this bill accomplish this delicate balancing act? In my view, no, it does not. It is in my view reckless, not because of how it handles the problem of strike suits, but how it knocks down existing protections for those who have had their savings cheated out of them. One of my colleagues has in fact characterized this bill as addressing ``recklessness''--and I must say that I agree that this bill does deal with recklessness. But I must say that we part company on how and why we reach those conclusions. It is not just the subject of this bill that is recklessness--this bill itself is, by my measurement, reckless in how it turns back 60 years of protections that serve big and small investors alike. On the surface I admit this bill appears to have very little to do with the average American family. It appears to deal with high-rolling bond salespeople and securities attorneys and CPA's who live and die by the smallest twists and turns of the financial markets. But scratch the surface and who do you find under this bill? Hard-working honest American families, that is who, Mr. President. After all, is it not retirement plans that fuel the economy? Isn't it the typical American family that has provided the capital needed by so many innovative startup firms simply by investing their hard-earned savings in stocks and securities? Is it not this great majority of our country that with $1,000 here, $5,000 there, a pension fund over there, have built the mightiest success stories that make up the American landscape? Of course it is. But now we are presented with this bill--a complex piece of legislation by anyone's accounting--that will take away some of the protections that have served these millions and millions of investors so well and for so long. Mr. President, I liken this bill to using a sledgehammer to cut a slice of bread: if a little reform of the law is good, then an all out attack on the law must be better. I did not agree when we took a sledgehammer approach in the case of product liability reform, and I don't agree now. There are hundreds of strike suits filed each year--but there are also thousands of legitimate cases of fraud as well. This bill should balance the two; it should make necessary corrections it seems to me to plug up the legal loopholes that allow unethical lawyers to collect while retaining important, existing investor protections. But is this the approach my colleagues have chosen? Do they propose to discreetly close loopholes, or judiciously plug up the cracks that have allowed the unethical attorneys to target big dollars? No, Mr. President, No, they do not. Instead my colleagues would hammer away at time-tested protections, saying in effect: ``No more. No more lawsuits. Unless you have overwhelming evidence, unless you lost millions, unless you have a sophisticated understanding of securities law, unless you catch the misdeed within a certain limited period, you can no longer sue to recover the money from the swindlers and cheats who robbed it from you.'' I am sure some of my colleagues would object to such a characterization of this bill--but, Mr. President, actions speak as loud as words. We have had many attempts on the floor to make this bill better, to more finely tailor its language and scope to address the problem of strike suits. For example, we had an amendment on the floor that would have extended the period in which wronged investors could file a suit against those who committed the fraud. That sounds like a good protection to me--and it was an amendment that I supported. But did it pass? The answer is no. And let me emphasize: we have had numerous opportunities to amend this bill, make it better, more closely tailor it to the problems that exist, and I have supported those amendments. But Mr. President, those amendments have been consistently rejected. Under this bill, investors who bring a legal challenge run the risk of facing a court order to pay the entire court costs, thus discouraging many people from bringing suit who have been defrauded. The bill also takes away the right to sue many of those who aid and abet in the fraud; effectively immunizing from private action lawyers, accountants, and countless others who may have assisted the primary wrongdoers who committee securities fraud. Another example: This bill provides for extended immunity from private fraud liability for those corporations that release overly optimistic information when they have their first sale of stocks. This extended immunity does not protect investors; rather it is all but an open invitation for crooked corporations and swindlers to promise the Sun, Moon, and stars in their forward-looking statements, only then to take the money and run once it becomes clear that the corporation will never deliver what it promised. And those individuals, or private pension funds, or counties that invested and lost money on such a basis-too bad. Under this bill they are simply out of luck. Individuals aren't the only ones who will be left with no protections under this bill; counties and municipal governments and public institutions will have fewer protections as well. I have heard several references to Orange County, CA, made on the floor during debate, but Orange County is not the only one hurt by losses from derivatives investments. In Minnesota alone: Dakota County, $2.5 million lost; in Chanhassen $4 million lost; the Minnesota Orchestral Association, $2 million lost; the University of Minnesota, $13-million lost; and Mr. President this is only a partial list. It is no wonder that groups like the Municipal Treasurers Association, the National Association of County Treasurers and Finance Officers, and the National League of Cities are but a few of the organizations opposing this bill as it is currently written. Mr. President, we have heard the name of Charles Keating--perhaps one of the most famous of swindlers in recent memory--invoked many times on the floor during this debate. Some people say that under this bill, thousands of people would never have been able to recover one thin dime from Mr. Keating. I have also heard some people say that claim is not true, and that this bill will not affect individuals' rights to collect what has been taken from them. But Mr. President, the fact that we have so many great and respected legal minds disagreeing so harshly over what this bill will actually do should be the issue here. And until I, and the rest of my colleagues, can be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this bill will not hurt middle America, and will not swindle them out of their chance to prosecute the swindlers, there can be question. I cannot and will not support any measure that hurts those good, honest people who have entrusted us with their best interests. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Advanced Medical Devices Access and Assurance Act of 1995 which would ensure that seniors can participate in clinical trials that involve investigational medical devices. It signifies a bipartisan first step toward addressing patient concerns about access to the latest technologies. It also addresses the medical research community's concerns about its ability to continue clinical trials and keep our Nation at the forefront of state-of-the-art medicine, and industry's concerns about being forced to ship all of its resources and brainpower overseas. Minnesota's patients, researchers, and world-famous medical device industry have a clear stake in both the upcoming Medicare and FDA reform debates. Researchers and industry need to know that the Government will create a favorable environment for innovation, thus propelling this country's leadership position into the 21st century. And, Minnesota's patients need to know that they will have access to the best technologies and the latest treatments and that, when appropriate, these will be covered by their health insurance policies. Unfortunately, access to leading-edge technologies and next generation medical devices for seniors--the population for whom they are often most appropriate--has recently been jeopardized by the Medicare Program's refusal to pay for them in clinical trials. A next generation device could be a pacemaker that enables a person to lead a more normal life than a traditional pacemaker. It could be a pacemaker that would last longer than an older model and be more reliable. Next generation devices are medical devices which are undergoing clinical trials, yet which have a precursor device which has been approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration [FDA] as safe and effective. Medical devices--unlike drugs--are continually updated and improved incrementally even after they are approved by the FDA. But currently, Medicare just flat-out denies payment for the surgery or illness if an investigational device is used. Medicare will pay for the costs associated with the hospital stay and procedure only if the soon-to-be-obsolete device is used and not the newest model. Therefore, even though the patient potentially benefits from receiving a modified and updated pacemaker and clinical studies are necessary to prove what works and what does not, hospitals and physicians are being forced to exclude seniors from clinical trials. Providers and manufacturers would rather more their studies to Europe where everybody has health insurance than confront reimbursement practices that discourage participation in clinical trials. But patients want the leading-edge technologies available in the United States as quickly as possible. Some may surmise that Medicare has refused to pay for this technology because of safety concerns. But any next generation device involved in a clinical trial has already received approval from the FDA to test the device in humans. During a study of an FDA-approved investigational device, physicians and hospitals follow strict procedures. Hospitals and physicians must have the informed consent of the patient in order for the patient to be eligible to participate in the investigational device studies. And the manufacturer of the device is prohibited from promoting or commercializing the device or charging a price that exceeds the amount necessary to recover its costs. So how much would it cost the Medicare Program to pay for the most advanced technologies? Currently, Medicare pays a lump sum for surgeries and hospitalization based on the illness of the patient. If you need a pacemaker and choose to be a part of an FDA-approved clinical trial, it shouldn't matter to the Medicare Program whether you get the next generation model of the pacemaker or the current model--as long as the FDA has approved the clinical trial and you gave your informed consent to participate. In other words, Medicare should pay the hospital a lump sum based on the illness of the patient regardless of which device is used. This legislation provides a commonsense solution that protects patient safety, access to high-quality health care, and Federal dollars. For the sake of Minnesotans, we must meet these standards during the broader Medicare and FDA reform debates.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate for about the last 40 minutes or so. I have decided to not speak in the language of statistics or charge/countercharge. I sit on the Labor and Human Resources Committee and had an opportunity to hear Dr. Foster and go through this hearing with him. I have heard some language from my colleagues, mainly on the other side, about appealing to the better angels of our nature, about values, about mainstream, and about competency. So let me try to, within my own way, within a very short timeframe, set the record straight. Dr. Foster, during the committee hearing, was articulate, thoughtful and able to maintain his sense of humor. And more importantly, the committee and the American people came to see a compassionate, humane, caring theme--Dr. Henry Foster, the same Dr. Henry Foster known to his friends, to his family, and to his community and, more importantly, to his patients. Sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. We went through the debate on the I Have a Future Program over and over and over again in committee. The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned the Carnegie Foundation report. There is not one Senator here that should ever argue anything other than the question of why children have children is complicated and none of us really knows the answers, though we are all struggling to find those answers. But Dr. Foster at least tried. During the hearing, every time I heard a criticism of this program, I asked my colleagues, ``Could you point to another program that had more success? Could you point to a more worthy attempt? If we want to talk about values and how you live your life, can you point to a doctor who has been more there with young people, who has cared more about this problem of teenage pregnancy, who has cared more about the problem of substance abuse, who has cared more about the problem of violence in the lives of all too many young people in America, who has cared more about the problem of HIV infection and AIDS?'' Mr. President, I must tell you that during the committee hearing--and I suspect on the floor of the Senate as well--there will be no answer to the question I just raised. The silence will be deafening. Mr. President, Dr. Henry Foster does appeal to the better angels of our nature. I heard one of my colleagues earlier talk about the standards being competency, credibility and mainstream values. Competency? This is an Africa-American man who has a whole life of accomplishments. This is an African American man who has contributed enormously to communities and to our country. And mainstream values? What is more consistent with mainstream values than to take your professional ability and to use that ability in such a way that you give to the most vulnerable citizens in our country, you take your professional ability as a doctor and give it to communities and you serve people? Mr. President, the key to a successful and effective Surgeon General is, will that Surgeon General have rapport with the people of our country? There is no question in my mind that Dr. Foster will. Dr. Foster, if you are watching this debate--and for all the people in the country that are watching the debate--Dr. Foster, be proud. This personal attack is all about politics in the worst sense. Be proud of your life. Be proud of what you have done. I believe, as a Senator from Minnesota, Dr. Henry Foster will serve our country very well. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring an amendment to eliminate the penalties on States that do not require the use of motorcycle helmets. I do not support efforts to force States to institute helmet laws, particularly States like Minnesota that already have effective motorcycle safety education programs. I would have preferred to join in an alternative amendment that would have repealed current requirements that States enact helmet safety laws and replaced it with a requirement that States enact helmet safety education programs. However, that alternative amendment, which had been prepared by one of my colleagues, was not actually offered. I am therefore supporting the amendment before us, and as I pointed out, Minnesota does have a motorcycle safety education program. Mr. President, Minnesota had a mandatory helmet law for 10 years-- 1968-1977. Proponents in favor of this law stated, ``A mandatory helmet law will dramatically reduce motorcycle fatalities.'' During the 10- year period Minnesota had a mandatory helmet law, fatalities did not go down per 10,000 registered vehicles. In fact, fatalities continued to increase almost every year. Mr. President, Minnesota has not had a mandatory helmet law for 10 years. Our 1993 fatality rate plummeted an incredible 72 percent in spite of doubling the number of licensed motorcyclists. Since the inception of Minnesota's Rider Education and Public Awareness programs, motorcycle fatalities have been reduced 54 percent. Mr. President, the Minnesota legislative body has analyzed and debated the helmet law issue many times in the 18 years since the helmet law was repealed. Legislators have repeatedly concluded; Minnesota does not need a mandatory helmet law.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I have been accurate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am trying to say it is kind of an academic point for the bottom 80 percent of the population, who really feel an economic squeeze as to whether or not, for a while, it was a little better and then much worse. The fact is that this is what has happened in the United States in the last few decades. And that's why the vast majority of people are under tremendous economic pressure. The second point. There is an interesting correlation between what my colleague from Michigan talked about and the debate we are now having on the deficit, which is to say that my colleague is quite correct that we actually had a very deep recession in 1982. Those were not good years. And then we had a recovery, although it was a recovery supported by a politics and economics of illusion, because it was based on debt. That, of course, was the proposition that we could slash the revenue base, which we did with what was euphemistically called the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, and dramatically increase the Pentagon budget and other expenditures. And all of that would lead to high levels of productivity, high levels of great jobs, middle-class jobs. And in addition, if we wanted to go back to the speeches given then, it would lead to reducing the deficit and eliminating the debt. That was a politics of illusion. A politics that prompted an explosion of the debt during that period from under a trillion, as I remember, when President Reagan took office, to where we are right now, well over $4 trillion. Mr. President, what we have seen happen is the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, we have piled up record debt, and the interest on that debt robs us of our capacity to invest in ourselves. And, on the other hand, we have not been able to invest in the economy and in education in such a way that we have an economy that produces the kinds of jobs that people can count on, thus leading to a disappearing middle. In that context, I say to my colleague--and I will yield for a question from the Senator from Illinois--it simply baffles me why Senators would want to eliminate a law that now provides wage earners in the construction industry--who are paid right around $25,000 or $30,000 a year, with assurance that they will get a decent wage. Why are we now trying to depress people's wages? Why are we now trying to repeal a piece of legislation that has been so important to workplace fairness and fair wages? Why in the world are we trying to pass a piece of legislation that will depress wages? We can have this academic debate over and over again as to when it went up, down, or who is to blame. But that is the central question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, I used the figure 40 percent earlier, 38 percent or 40 percent; that is correct. About 40 percent of Davis-Bacon contracts are highway related. When you consider all of the billions of dollars that we spend on highway construction, I think that's a lot. I mean, 40 percent of Davis-Bacon, 40 percent of prevailing wages in communities across our country, 40 percent that affects these families that are most hard pressed is not an insignificant percentage.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is precisely the point, I say to my colleague. Mr. President, the most fundamental flaw of all with this provision in the bill is that it depresses the wages of the very families that are the most hard pressed in this country. I say to my colleague, we are not talking just about the poor, we are talking about middle-income working families, around $25,000, $30,000, a year.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Illinois that if we repeal Davis-Bacon as it applies to highway construction, or even beyond that--which has everything in the world to do with making sure that we do not depress prevailing wages in our communities--what you are really going to see is a drop in incomes for the middle 20 percent, the second 20 percent, and the bottom 20 percent.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Certainly not. If you look at average wages in the construction field, it is about $25,000-$30,000, or thereabouts.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Given the few remarks of my colleague from Rhode Island, it probably would be important for me to clarify the situation. Mr. President, I agree that the underlying bill, this highway bill, is extremely important to the country. The debate is really not about the underlying bill. The debate is about Federal prevailing wage standards under the Davis-Bacon law, and an effort to repeal Davis- Bacon, at least in relation to the highway construction work that is done. What is attached to this bill is an amendment to repeal the Davis- Bacon law in relation to highway construction work. That is what is unfortunate. So those of us who are taking on this issue in this debate are not doing it, if you will, Mr. President, of our own choosing. That is to say, we are more than willing to have a full-scale debate about the importance of the Davis-Bacon legislation first passed in 1931. We do not believe that this debate should be taking place right now. We do not think this amendment to repeal Davis-Bacon should be a part of this piece of legislation. That is really the debate. The debate is not about the underlying bill at all. My colleague from Rhode Island will certainly find me to be very supportive of much of his work on the underlying bill. But in a letter of May 2, I and other colleagues indicated that we intended to engage in extended debate on this bill if this Davis-Bacon repeal amendment was adopted, so no one should be surprised by our presence here today. I would like to talk first about the Davis-Bacon piece of legislation, just to summarize it for those who are watching this debate, and then talk about what I consider to be the larger question, the larger issue that is before the Senate, and therefore before the country. First, on Davis-Bacon, Mr. President, back in the early thirties, this piece of legislation was passed and the basic idea was as follows: Where the Federal Government is involved in construction contracts, we want to make sure that wages that are paid to those workers are consistent with the prevailing wage of the community. In other words, the Federal Government is the big player here, and it is kind of right out of Florence Reese's song ``Which Side Are You On?'' Either the Federal Government is involved on the side of the contractor in paying wages below the prevailing level of the community or the Federal Government--being a Government that cares not just about the largest multinational corporations in the world, not just about the people who have the financial wherewithal, but a Government that cares about wage earners, cares about working families, and says we will make sure that our involvement is to assure that the wages paid to working people--in this particular case we are talking about highway construction workers--is consistent with the prevailing wage. Mr. President, I would just simply tell you that proposition is based upon a standard of fairness in which I think the vast majority of the people of the United States of America believe. Second, Mr. President, the importance of Davis-Bacon, which is why this piece of legislation has been with us for well over a half a century, is that by making sure you have some kind of prevailing wage standard you also have higher quality labor and higher quality work that is done. And when it comes to the highways and to the bridges and to our physical infrastructure, it is pretty darned important to the people of Minnesota and Michigan and Rhode Island and Virginia and elsewhere that the highest quality work is done. That is part of how we measure benefit and how we measure cost. So, Mr. President, what is at issue is not the underlying bill. What is at issue is that within this piece of legislation is this one provision which would repeal Davis-Bacon as it relates to highway construction work, which I understand is about 40 percent of the work covered by Davis-Bacon. This is no small issue. This is no small issue to working people; this is no small issue when it comes to wages; this is no small issue when it comes to fair working conditions; this is no small issue for the Senate; and it is no small issue for people in this country. I have to tell you, Mr. President, that the larger issue, what is really at stake I think can be shown rather graphically by this chart. If you look at historical trends in real family income--and the source of this is the Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce --if you look at real family income, what you get between 1950 and 1978 is something like this. For the bottom 20 percent of people in our country, real family income in 1993 dollars went up 138 percent. Now, in our country I think people say that is the way it should be. The bottom 20 percent, their family income goes up 138 percent. The second 20 percent goes up 98 percent. The middle 20 percent, family income goes up 106 percent. The fourth 20 percent --now we are getting toward the top--111 percent, and then the top 20 percent, real family income goes up 90 percent, between the years 1950 to 1978. That is sort of the American dream, Mr. President. That is what people care about, that is real growth in family income. And during this period, we see a trend that is very consistent, with the kind of standard of fairness that people in the country believe in. Now, Mr. President, we look at 1979 to 1993, and what we see is a country growing apart. As a matter of fact, more recent reports that have come out have shown that we have the greatest gap in income in wealth than we have ever had since we started measuring these things. So, Mr. President, we see that between 1979 and 1993, for the bottom 20 percent, real family income goes down by 17 percent; the second 20 percent real family income goes down by 8 percent; the middle 20 percent real family income goes down by 3 percent; the fourth 20 percent real family income rises by 5 percent; and for the top 20 percent, real family income goes up by 18 percent. So, Mr. President, what is really going on here is a debate about where the Federal Government fits in and what kind of public policy throughout the country is responsive to working families. This is the squeeze that people feel within the country, and I say to my colleague, and I say to people who are watching this debate, at the very time that real family income is going down, at the very time that the bottom 80 percent of the population feels this squeeze, what are we doing? Some are trying to overturn a piece of legislation that has served this country well and served working families well. We are now trying to bring down wages in our communities, and we have a Congress which, up to date, has been unwilling to even raise the minimum wage. So this debate is all about fairness. This debate is all about what matters to people in the country more than any other issue: a good job at a good wage.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will finish up, too. I just would like to make two final points. I would like to say to the Senator from Illinois that I would add another reason as to why people have a fair amount of healthy indignation about taxes. Part of it is they want to make sure what they pay for works. But, if I could say this to my colleague from Illinois, there is another reason why people have a tremendous amount of skepticism about taxes. That is, ordinary citizens have a sneaking suspicion that they end up paying, but that there are a whole lot of other people who do not pay their fair share. That is called tax fairness. I make it clear, as I look at these proposals to reduce the deficit, including the President's proposal, the President's proposal is less harsh but we can do much better when the reconciliation bill comes out. Corporate welfare, deductions and loopholes and tax giveaways for energy companies and pharmaceutical companies--these are folks who have enormous clout here. They ought to be asked to tighten their belts too. I can tell you right now that has not so far been on the table in any real way in any of the proposals. I intend to make sure it is. Second, I say to my colleague, he is absolutely right about some of the large military contractors. It is one thing to have a strong defense. It is another thing to be spending money on weaponry that is obsolete, wasteful, has nothing to do with a strong defense at all. Why in the world is that so sacred? It has a lot to do with who has power. Why are the people we are asking to tighten their belts also the people who have little economic or political clout? Why are we making the cuts in some of these areas but then leaving other areas untouched? Finally, I say to my colleague, when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, you cannot do it without health care reform. But I have not heard that yet. I would like to see the administration push harder on it. I will. You have to have universal coverage and systemwide cost containment. If that means you have to put a limit on insurance company premiums to cost of living times percentage of increase in population, you would save huge amounts of money. It is much fairer. But when it comes to those people and those interests we seem to not be willing to ask them to be a part of this national sacrifice. So, I do not disagree with my colleague about the importance of deficit reduction and getting to the point where we balance the budget. But I would like for it to be done on the basis of some standard of fairness, not based upon the path of least political resistance. Which takes me back full circle to my remarks about Davis-Bacon. This effort to repeal Davis-Bacon, which is what this is all about, in a bill we all think is important, is an effort to do nothing less than to depress the wages of middle-income and working families in America. It should be defeated. It should be identified for what it is and it should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for more than 30 seconds.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. I want to respond to the Senator briefly, and will be pleased to yield to the Senator from Michigan for a question in a moment. I wanted to say to my colleague from Illinois, what is puzzling about this effort to repeal Davis-Bacon, is that we now have reached a point where our official measurement of unemployment is becoming almost meaningless because it is so incomplete. You go State after State, and you have a figure of, say, 3 or 4 percent unemployed. That does not say anything about what kinds of jobs and what kinds of wages. It does not measure those people who are discouraged workers. It does not measure those people who are underemployed. The key point, I think, is that what we find in many of our States with an officially defined ``low level'' of unemployment is a shockingly high level of families, as much as 50 percent, have incomes of under $25,000 a year. That is the squeeze people feel. Why in the world we would be trying to repeal a provision that tries to keep the prevailing wages in communities at a higher level as opposed to depressing wages is what confuses me, and that is what I am so opposed to. I am ready to yield the floor, but I will be pleased to yield for one more question from the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, actually I think we interpret our history a little differently. As a matter of fact, if we were to just take the period of the 1980's, and we were to take the Reagan and Bush administrations, what we saw--talking about real income going up--what we saw in this period, which the Senator views as such a heyday for wage earners, was a massive redistribution of income up the wage scale, leaving low- and moderate-income people behind. This is what was called trickle down economics. It is simply not the case, that middle-income and working families found themselves benefiting from the decades of the 1980's. This was a decade of sharp income inequality, a decade with a rise in poverty, a decade of fewer jobs people can count on. We still feel the squeeze. I cannot understand why in the world some of my colleagues now want to repeal a piece of legislation that at least makes sure that those people who work get decent wages, and the wages are not depressed for people in the communities.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I might say to my colleague from Rhode Island, I had some remarks prepared, and intend to speak for awhile, but I wondered, if he wanted to start off, he can.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to yield the floor in a while, but let me just say to my colleague, in the spirit of collegiality, because I like debating my colleague from Michigan because he is so thoughtful, and the country would be a lot better off with more thoughtful debate. First, I did not actually talk about political parties. I did not talk about President Reagan or President Bush. I did not talk about political parties. And for the families----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague that I am not familiar with the year-to-year variation thereof. But I think, as a matter of fact, what happened in the United States, in the last decade and a half, is what's been called the deindustrialization of America. We have seen, in the United States of America, what Robert Kuttner and others have called a ``disappearing middle class.'' We have seen in the United States an economy that is producing some jobs, but not the kind of jobs that families can count on, because they do not pay a decent wage or, I say to my colleague from Michigan, do not provide a decent fringe benefit. So the point is that as you look at this period of time from 1979 to 1993, we are now in a period where the vast majority of families-- really if you get right down to it, the bottom 80 percent--have been under an enormous squeeze.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Virginia, Mr. President, that before he came in, I first defined Davis-Bacon, I talked about the purpose of Davis-Bacon, the public interest accomplishments of Davis- Bacon, and I then went on and said this amendment dealt with highway construction as it applies to Davis-Bacon and gave the figure 40 percent. What I will now say to my colleague is that we are talking about something larger than just the highway construction workers and we are talking about a larger question than just Davis-Bacon. What we are talking about is, if you look at the most recent years, an enormous squeeze on really the bottom 80 percent of the population. So that is really the issue here, and that is what I am now trying to pinpoint. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his questions. So, the reason I am on the floor with Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts and Senator Simon from Illinois is, A, Davis-Bacon passed in 1931. Why? To make sure that when the Federal Government is involved in these contracts, we are on the side of making sure that the wages that are paid to those workers are at least consistent with the prevailing wages of the community and we do not get involved or we are not on the side of employers who depress wages for people in the community. B, we support the underlying bill, but this provision should not be a part of this bill. We ought to have a separate debate on Davis-Bacon because of the significance of this. When you are trying to overturn a piece of legislation that has been a part of the political and social landscape of this Nation for over 60 years and has been a part of fundamental economic justice and has been consistent with the idea that people ought to make decent wages on which they can support their families, you do not put it in as part of a highway bill. You deal with the whole legislation separately, and then you have that debate. And then C, what I am now trying to do in this presentation is point out again, if I can ask for the first chart, what is really the larger context. This is what I think American politics is all about in many ways. From the years 1950 to 1978, the vast majority of people in this country--and this is the American dream--saw a real increase in real family income, and from 1979 to 1993, we have seen a growing apart in this Nation. That is a fact. And for the life of me I do not know why in the world colleagues would be so anxious to repeal a law that is so consistent with economic justice, economic opportunity, fair wages and opportunities for working middle-income families in America. Mr. President, people in the country feel an economic squeeze. People are worried about whether or not there are going to be good jobs. Let me just present some alternatives to what I think this effort is all about, and I certainly hope my colleagues will support us in blocking this effort, because this effort to repeal this provision of Davis- Bacon that applies to highway construction workers does not take us into the 21st century. In fact, this takes us back to the 19th century. Let me present an alternative formulation. You say you want to have welfare reform, and we need to reform that system. We are going to have a debate on welfare reform, and hopefully not on something that is called welfare reform, but is really an effort to punish women and children. Here is real welfare reform: A good education, good health care, and a good job. If we want to reduce poverty in America--say, for example, the poverty that exists 10 blocks from where we are right now in Washington, DC, or the poverty in Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or Virginia, the answer is a good education, good health care, and a good job. Mr. President, if you want to reduce violence in this Nation--and we all do--you hold people accountable that commit these crimes, no question about it. But, Mr. President, talk to any judge, police chief, or sheriff, and they will all tell you the same thing: We also have to reduce violence by focusing on a good education, good health care, and a good job. Mr. President, if you want to have a stable middle class, people need a good education, good health care and a good job. If you want to have a democracy--we have a democracy--that is why we love this country and why I love being in the U.S. Senate, you have to have men and women who can think on their own two feet and understand the world and the country and the community they live in. The only way that can happen is a good education and a good job. Mr. President, this effort to repeal the part of Davis-Bacon that affects the highway program is mistaken. This takes us back to the 19th century, not forward into the 21st century. I simply contend that the future for our country is twofold. First, we need to understand that our real national security is to invest in the skills, intellect, and character of young people. The real national security is to make sure we focus on a good education for our citizens. The real national security is to make sure we focus on good jobs at decent wages. This effort is mistaken. This effort turns the clock back, and that is why, in every way possible, those of us on the floor today intend to defeat this effort to repeal the provisions of Davis-Bacon. I will yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, why do I not defer to the manager, and I will speak later on, because I have extensive remarks on Davis-Bacon. So I will defer to the manager of the bill and then be back in this debate later on. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thought, with the permission of the Senator from South Carolina, I might speak for 6 minutes or so before the final vote. Mr. President, this debate we have had on this bill has opened all eyes to the dazzling possibilities provided by our new, emerging information technologies. I will quote from some of the speech that I gave several days ago during this debate. I can imagine workers in rural Minnesota telecommuting to and from work as far away as New York or Washington without ever having to leave their homes or families. Or schoolchildren in a distressed Minneapolis school district reading the latest publications at the Library of Congress via thin glowing fiber cables-- Mr. President, this really excites me as a teacher. or rural health care providers on the iron range consulting with the top medical researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester to better treat their patients. Mr. President, all of this is before us. I felt like this bill presented to each Senator a daunting--an exciting but also daunting-- responsibility. The concern that I have has to do with whether or not we can make sure that there will be true competition, and that this technology and information will truly be available to everyone in the Nation, not just the most privileged or the most wealthy. What has disappointed me the most--and the Senator from South Carolina has to be one of the colleagues I most respect here in the Senate even when we disagree--is that over and over again where there have been amendments to I think assure competition and to also protect consumers--I am not just concerned about the alphabet soup corporations. I am also concerned about the people that live in Ferguson Falls or live in Virginia, Minnesota, or live in Minneapolis or St. Paul or Northfield. I was hoping that at least we could build in more protection for consumers and more guarantees that there would in fact be the competition that we all talk about. While I fully appreciate the potential of this legislation, I am really worried about where we are heading because I think there is going to be entirely too much concentration of power. I would just simply build on the remarks of my colleague from Arkansas. The media is the only private enterprise in the United States of America that has first amendment protection. The reason for that, though we did not have the same kind of communication technologies we have today back in the days of Thomas Jefferson, was that the Founders of our Nation understood the importance of the media and the importance of information. And the importance of it was to contribute to an informed electorate. We are talking about something very precious here. I see a piece of legislation that will lead to way too much concentration of power, way too much concentration of power in a very, very important and decisive area of public life in the United States of America. That has to do with radio and television, and information, and who controls the flow of information. So, Mr. President, I was hoping that some of the amendments that were introduced on the floor of the Senate that I think really would have provided the consumer protection, that would have provided regular people--I do not mean in a pejorative sense, but I mean in a positive way--with some protection and which would have assured some competition as opposed to more and more concentration of power, more and more very, very vital and important areas being taken over by just a few conglomerates. It did not happen. I think we are making a mistake if we pass this piece of legislation. I will therefore, vote against it. [[Page S8457]] I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.