Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague, someone whom I consider to be a good friend and someone I admire as a legislator and a Senator. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, the Children's Defense Fund, a wonderful organization--and thank God there is such an organization with a strong voice for children--has issued a report, ``The State of America's Children.'' I would, for my State of Minnesota, like to release some statistics from this report on the floor of the Senate and then I would like to talk about what these statistics mean in personal terms for my State and for the politics of the country for this Congress. Minnesota's children at risk--this report was issued today by the Children's Defense Fund: 60,615 children lacked health insurance in the years 1989 to 1991--over 60,000 children lacking health insurance; 27,462 reported cases of child abuse and neglect, 1992--27,462 reported cases; 116 young men died by violence, 1991; 48 children were killed by guns, 1992. Only 71.4 percent of 2-year-olds were fully immunized, 1990--30 percent of children not fully immunized. This is my State of Minnesota and, in my humble opinion, that is the greatest State in the country; 35 percent of 4th grade public school students lacked basic reading proficiency, 1992. Those are Minnesota's children at risk. Mr. President, on the back of this report released today by the Children's Defense Fund, there are the following statistics, which I have read on the floor of the Senate before, but this is a new report, new data: Every day in America, three children die from child abuse. Every day in America, 15 children die from guns. Every day in America, 27 children--a classroomful--die from poverty. Every day in America, 95 babies die before their first birthday. Every day in America, 564 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. birthweight, less than 5 pounds 8 ounces. Every day in America, 1,340 teenagers give birth. Every day in America, 2,217 teenagers drop out of school--each day. Every day in America, 2,350 children are in adult jails. Every day in America, 2,699 infants are born into poverty. Every day in America, 3,356 babies are born to unmarried women. Every day in America, 8,189 children are reported abused or neglected. Every day in America, 100,000 children are homeless. Every day in America 135,000 children bring guns to school. Every day in America, 1.2 million latchkey children come home to a house in which there is a gun. Mr. President, I would like to, from this Children's Defense Fund report that came out today on the state of America's children, talk about what this means with Minnesota children at risk. A Nation that would rather send someone else's child to prison for $15,496 a year, or to an orphanage for over $36,000 a year, then invest in $300,000 worth of immunization and $100,000 worth of prenatal care to give a child a healthy start, $1,800 to give that child a summer job to learn a work ethic, lacks both family values and common and economic sense. Mr. President, let me just add that as long as we are going to be talking about a budget deficit and addressing that budget deficit, I think it is time that we also address a spiritual deficit in our Nation. I have brought an amendment to the floor of the U.S. Senate four times which has been defeated. I will bring it back on the floor this week, especially with the rescissions bill over here. I commend Senator Hatfield, and others, for their fine work in at least restoring some of the cuts for some programs that are so important. I know that I met with citizens back in Minnesota about cuts to the Low Energy Assistance Program. In my State of Minnesota, over 100,000 households, 300,000 individuals, I say to my colleagues, 30 percent elderly, members of household, 40 percent child, over 50 percent someone working; this was a grant of about $350 that enabled somebody to get over a tough time, with 40 percent using it only 1 year. People were terrified. I will thank Senator Hatfield and others for not zeroing out that program. As I look at these cuts that are before us, Mr. President, I would like to raise some questions not about the budget deficit but about the spiritual deficit. Minnesota children at risk. I will have this amendment on the floor and I will ask one more time for my colleagues to go on record that we will not pass any legislation, take any action that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children in America. That amendment has failed in four separate votes, though the support for the amendment is going up; the last time it received 47 votes. Mr. President, I want to ask the following question: Who decides that we are going to cut child nutrition programs but not subsidies for oil companies? Who decides that we are going to cut the Headstart Program but not subsidies for insurance companies? Who decides that we are going to cut child care programs but not tobacco company subsidies? Who decides, Mr. President, that we are going to cut educational programs for children, but not military contractors? Mr. President, some people are very generous with the suffering of others. And it is time that we understand that we should not be making budget cuts based on the path of least political resistance, making cuts that affect citizens with the least amount of clout that are not the heavy hitters and do not have the lobbyists. There needs to be a standard of fairness. I will insist on that during this debate. Mr. President, if you will allow me 15 seconds for a conclusion, over and over again on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I will, if you will, shout it from the mountain top. There will not be any real national security for our Nation until we invest in the health and the skills and the intellect and the character of our children. That is what this debate is about. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues for their generosity and graciousness.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, despite the flurry of efforts in the 103d Congress, many of us were deeply disappointed that healthcare reform legislation failed to be enacted. The American people, however, still are concerned about this issue, and feel that reform of our healthcare system should be a high priority for this Congress, although most feel that small steps, rather than giant leaps are now best. While we debate these issues in Congress, however, the number of uninsured continues to grow, particularly children, and health care costs, although moderating, may only be doing so transiently. The private sector has not waited for Congress to act, and has been rapidly transforming the healthcare delivery system for those Americans who are fortunate enough to have access to, and the ability to pay for coverage. The proliferation of managed care systems has been extraordinary, although their ability to control healthcare costs in the long run, particularly as older, sicker patients join, remains to be proven. Health plan standards were included in many of the compromise bills that emerged during the 103d Congress. There was wide, bipartisan agreement that there should be Federal standards to level the playing field in the rapidly changing healthcare delivery environment. Such standards would assure fairness for consumers and providers, while still encouraging health plans to pursue innovative approaches to providing high-quality, cost effective care. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources recently conducted a 2-day hearing on healthcare reform. We heard witnesses who eloquently described the successes of our Nation's largest employers in negotiating with providers and health plans, and holding down the growth of health costs. These large businesses have developed demanding purchasing and performance standards that they use to select plans and develop provider networks. Unfortunately, however, small employers and individual purchasers often lack the expertise and resources necessary to navigate through the health plan maze. In order to ensure that health care of the highest quality is available to all consumers, it is essential that all health plans be required to meet minimum standards. Discussions of these safeguards got lost in the tussle over larger and more contentious issues during the healthcare reform debate last year. I believe now more than ever, especially with talk of restructuring Medicare and Medicaid being framed along the lines of restraining the growth of costs while maintaining choice and quality, that provisions to ensure that consumers are adequately protected and informed are absolutely imperative. With these thoughts in mind, today I am introducing the Health Care Quality and Fairness Act of 1995, which is designed to assure fairness and choice to patients and health care providers. Its scope would include all health plans including those that are self-funded, not just HMO's or managed care plans. Its major provisions include: Protection of consumer choice by requiring an employer to offer a choice of at least three types of health plan--managed care, point-of-service, and traditional insurance. Currently, only about half of all Americans who get their health insurance through employers are offered more than one plan. Evidence suggests that employers are increasingly limiting their employees' choice of health plans, while this bill would assure adequate choice is provided; Establishment of an Office of Consumer Information Counseling and Assistance to perform public outreach and provide education and assistance regarding consumer rights with regard to health insurance. This effort would build on an existing Medigap model that has been highly successful in a number of States; Development of health plan standards, including utilization review activities, credentialing of health professionals, and handling of grievances by providers or consumers. These standards would ensure fairness in the interactions between health plans, consumers, and providers; Requirements for health plan solvency standards to be developed to protect employees and individual purchasers from being left high and dry; Provision of information on plan coverage, benefits, loss ratio, satisfaction statistics, and quality indicators to assist consumers in making wise purchasing decisions; and Insurance market reforms including guaranteed issue and renewability, prohibitions on preexisting condition exclusions, and risk adjustment. Insurance reform, if carefully crafted, would stabilize premiums for small employers and individual purchasers and prevent plans from excluding those who most need coverage. This legislation has broad support among provider groups, including the American Medical Association and the Advocates for Practitioner Equity Coalition which includes nonphysician provider groups like the American Optometric Association, the American Podiatric Medical Association, the American Occupational Therapy Association, and consumer groups, including Consumers Union and Citizen Action. Together these groups hope to form a partnership to work with health plans to assure that fair, high-quality care is delivered, utilizing the standards enacted in the Health Care Quality and Fairness Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of this amendment to subject a host of special interest tax breaks and loopholes to the President's expedited rescission, or line-item veto authority provided for in this bill. This amendment would give the President the same authority to rescind new special interest tax breaks that he would have under the bill to cancel new direct spending. The logic of the amendment is simple, and straightforward: We should treat tax breaks just as we treat direct spending in the Federal budget. In all of our debates on budget priorities, there has been too little discussion about a particular kind of spending that enjoys a special status within the Federal budget: tax breaks for special classes or categories of taxpayers. Many of the benefits from these breaks and loopholes go to corporate or other wealthy interests in our society. If we are going to give the President line-item veto authority over direct spending programs, then we should give him the same power to veto special interest tax breaks and tax loopholes. That is what this amendment would do; it would cover all new tax breaks, hold them up to scrutiny, and subject them to potential rescission, or cancellation. This is not the first time in this session of Congress that I have raised the issue of closing special interest tax loopholes as a part of our deficit reduction efforts. A couple of weeks ago my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, Senator Bradley, and I offered a sense-of- the-Senate resolution as an amendment to the proposed balanced budget amendment which said that tax expenditures ``should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny in the budget as direct spending programs'' in our efforts to balance the budget. That proposal received 40 votes from my colleagues on our side of the aisle. We have argued for months, and will continue to argue, that savings from restricting special interest tax breaks must be a key part of our efforts to further reduce the deficit. Let me make a simple point here that is often overlooked. We can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code, through what are called ``tax expenditures,'' as we can through the normal appropriations process. Spending is spending, whether it comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a tax break for some special purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, a deduction, or accelerated depreciation for this type of investment or that. Some tax expenditures are justified, and should be retained. But some are special interest tax breaks that should be eliminated, or loopholes that should be plugged. These special tax breaks allow some taxpayers to escape paying their fair share, and thus make everyone else pay higher taxes. They are simply special exceptions to the normal rules, rules that oblige all of us to share the burdens of citizenship by paying our taxes. They also limit State revenues because many State income taxes are tied to the Federal tax rules. It seems only fair that if the President can use the line-item veto authority to cut special-interest spending programs, then he should also be able to cut special-interest tax breaks which will cost the Treasury billions of dollars in lost revenues. Special-interest tax breaks are simply a subcategory of the larger group of tax provisions called tax expenditures. The Congressional Joint Tax Committee has estimated that tax expenditures cost the U.S. Treasury over $420 billion every single year. And they also estimate that if we do not hold them in check, that amount will grow by $60 billion to over $485 billion by 1999. That is why tax breaks must be on the table along with other spending as we look for places to cut the deficit. Now, not all tax expenditures are bad. Not all should be eliminated. Some serve a real public purpose, such as providing incentives to investment, bolstering the nonprofit sector, encouraging charitable contributions, and helping people to be able to afford to buy a home. But some of them are simply tax dodges that can no longer be justified. At the very least, all of these should undergo the same scrutiny as other Federal spending. If we are going to allow the President to line- item veto specific spending programs, then we should also allow him to veto specific tax breaks that subsidize a targeted class of taxpayers. The particular language of this amendment has a long history, and has often been supported in the past by Members on the other side of the aisle. This language is taken directly from the so-called Contract With America about which we have heard so much recently. On pages 32-33 of the commercially available version of the contract, when discussing the line-item veto, it says, ``Under this procedure, the President could strike any appropriation or targeted tax provision in any bill.'' Thus we are offering an amendment first outlined in the provisions in the Contract With America. In addition to being part of the contract, a similar amendment was offered on the House floor by Representative Michel, the former House minority leader, to a previous version of the line-item veto legislation. Gaining bipartisan support, this amendment was adopted in 1993 in the House during consideration of a version of the line-item veto bill. The language of this amendment also appeared in the original version of Senator Domenici's expedited rescission bill which he introduced in January of this year. Therefore this language simply fulfills a promise made by many of those on the other side of the aisle, including those who wrote the Contract With America. Although there are many things in that Republican so-called Contract With America which I oppose, I agree completely with the contract when it says that we should give the President the power to veto all new special tax breaks and loopholes, and not just those new tax breaks that affect fewer than 100 taxpayers, as included in the bill the committee reported. Tax attorneys will have a field day if we adopt that arbitrary 100 taxpayers limit on the President's authority to line-item veto tax expenditures. This is a sham, which some have estimated would cover only a tiny percentage of all tax breaks currently in the Code if it had been in law when they were established. How would we decide which special tax breaks will benefit fewer than 100 taxpayers? Even if a specific provision is intended to benefit only a small group of people or corporations, crafty tax attorneys will always find ways to expand the group of intended beneficiaries. In addition, as I understand the situation, no Federal agency currently keeps track of how many taxpayers benefit from individual tax expenditures. This is perfectly understandable, because many tax expenditures are exclusions from income, rather than deductions which must be reported to the IRS. How do we calculate how many people exclude income from taxation, when of course those taxpayers do not even report this excluded absurdly narrow. But the language of the Dole substitute is even more unclear on tax expenditures than the 100 taxpayer language used by the committee. The backers of the Dole substitute claim that their bill would allow the President to veto special interest tax breaks and loopholes. But the language of the Dole substitute uses a very confusing and vague definition of ``targeted tax benefits'' subject to the President's line-item veto. The substitute defines ``targeted tax benefits'' as those provisions which are estimated as ``losing revenue within the periods specified in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget'' and which have ``the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers when compared with other similarly situated taxpayers.'' What does this definition mean? What does a similarly situated taxpayer mean in this context? Should we bring in high-priced tax attorneys to help us understand the effects of this language? Under this definition, could Congress give special tax breaks to a specific industry such as the oil and gas industry, and shield these tax give- aways from the President's line-item veto because all companies within the favored industry would be allowed to claim the same special interest tax break? Under current law, U.S. citizens working overseas can exclude $70,000 per year from their U.S. income taxes. If Congress were to foolishly increase this exclusion to $80,000 per year, would that change be subject to the President's line-item veto authority under the substitute? Of if Congress were to give new special tax breaks to American companies operating overseas, such as we already do under current law, would that change be covered by the language in the substitute? How would this language affect companies doing business in Puerto Rico, who enjoy special tax breaks under current law? The existing Tax Code is riddled with numerous special tax give-aways to an entire industry. Would the President be allowed to line-item veto new special interest tax loopholes for any given powerful industry under this language? We need to clarify this confusing provision in the Dole substitute, because on its face it only applies to a very limited number of these tax breaks. If the President is to be given the power to veto spending provisions, then he should also be given the power to veto certain especially egregious special interest tax breaks, especially those which favor an entire protected industry such as the oil and gas industry. The writers of the Republican Contract With America understood this point, even if the majority party in the other body voted to abandon this section of the contract. We should restore the original contract language, as our amendment would do. By giving the President the power to line-item veto any new tax expenditure provisions, we could save billions of dollars. For example, do we really need special tax breaks for Mount Rushmore coins, or tax rules that allow people to rent out their homes for 2 weeks each year without paying tax on that income? Both of these tax breaks have been proposed in the past, and the latter actually became law. A line-item veto which at least covers new tax breaks might prevent measures like these from slipping into the Tax Code in the future, where they could go unexamined for years or even for decades. Our amendment is the latest in a series of legislative initiatives designed to call attention to this problem and to prompt Congress to reexamine tax loopholes. There are many existing special loopholes buried in the current Tax Code which need to be reconsidered. While this measure only subjects new tax breaks to Presidential veto authority, many of us will certainly want to revisit specific tax loopholes that are already in the Tax Code during the reconciliation process. But for now, our amendment provides for a mechanism to cover all new tax breaks in the same way that it covers only new spending. I think we ought to signal today that the standard of fairness we will be applying will include closer scrutiny of these tax breaks. It is only fair, since these special tax breaks for certain companies and industries force other companies and individuals to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. Some of these tax breaks allow privileged industries such as the oil and gas industry to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. All distort, to one degree or another, economic investment decisions, usually in favor of companies with the highest paid lobbyists in Washington. In many cases, doing away with these special tax breaks for certain industries would allow a more efficient allocation of economic resources. I think it is a simple question of fairness. If Congress is really going to make the $1.48 trillion in spending cuts and other policy changes that would have to be made to balance the Federal budget by 2002, then those on the other side of the aisle should make sure that wealthy interests in our society, those who have political clout, those who can hire high-priced lobbyists to make their case every day here in Washington, are asked to sacrifice at least as much as regular middle- class folks whom you and I represent. We should represent those who receive Social Security or Medicare or Veterans' benefits, and not just those special interests who can afford to pay high-priced hired guns to lobby for them. I am amazed to learn that many in the majority party in the other body are proposing expanding corporate welfare tax loopholes at the very same time that they are slashing Government spending on programs for the poor, for children, for education, and for the most vulnerable in our society. They have proposed tax cuts for the wealthy which, according to the Treasury Department, total over $700 billion, and at the same time they refuse to subject a broad range of new tax breaks to potential cancellation by the President. And these are the ones who call themselves deficit hawks? By refusing to extend the line-item veto authority given to the President under this bill to industry-wide tax breaks and loopholes, members of the majority party are trying to protect their wealthy and well-connected friends. And they are doing so at the expense of principles that they often espouse: economic efficiency and market- based allocations of capital. As I have observed, often these special tax loopholes and tax breaks distort economic decision-making, causing corporations and individuals to shift their resources in order to take advantage of these loopholes. I think now is the time to put a stop to further massive spending on special interest tax loopholes. We should allow the President to be able to line-item veto these costly special interest tax breaks. A basic standard of fairness requires that we examine special interest tax breaks along with the one-third of all Federal spending which is currently covered by the legislation before us. Some will charge that by closing tax loopholes and restricting special interest tax breaks we are somehow proposing to raise taxes. But the opponents of covering these tax breaks in the line-item veto legislation need to understand that the current system forces middle class and working people to pay more in taxes than they otherwise would have to pay. While some are paying less than their fair share in taxes because of these special tax subsidies, others are being forced to pay more in taxes to make up the difference. Closing tax loopholes is not raising taxes. Allowing these tax breaks to continue forever without close scrutiny is part of the reason why taxes on the regular middle class taxpayer are higher than they otherwise could be. Of course, these subsidies are hidden in the Tax Code because it would be too hard to get the votes in Congress, in the full light of day, to directly subsidize these industries--especially under current budget constraints. It is a simple matter of fairness. In our attempts to reduce the Federal deficit, all sectors of our society must make some sacrifices. Specific industries and the wealthy are the ones who often benefit most from the special interest tax breaks and loopholes. If we do not treat tax expenditures the same as direct spending provisions, the wealthy will avoid making any sacrifices as we cut spending programs for the middle class and the poor. Just because some special interest has the means to hire a high-priced tax lobbyist to get a special tax break written into legislation does not give them the [[Page S4305]] right to avoid sharing in whatever sacrifices are necessary to reduce the budget deficit. The General Accounting Office issued a report last year, and have issued several others on tax expenditures. It was titled, ``Tax Policy: Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny.'' I commend it to my colleagues' attention. It makes a compelling case for subjecting these tax expenditures to greater congressional and administration scrutiny, just as direct spending is scrutinized. The GAO report reminds us that spending through special provisions in the Tax Code should be treated in the same way as other spending provisions. The GAO noted that most of these tax expenditures currently in the Tax Code are not subject to any annual reauthorization or other kind of systematic periodic review. They observed that many of these special tax breaks were enacted in response to economic conditions that no longer exist. In fact, they found that of the 124 tax expenditures identified by the Budget Committee in 1993, about half were enacted before 1950. Now that does not automatically call them into question. It just illustrates the problem that once enacted, special tax breaks are not looked at in any systematic way. Many of these industry- specific breaks get embedded in the Tax Code, and are not looked at again for years. Giving the President the authority to cancel special interest tax breaks would prevent egregious ones from creeping into the Tax Code in the first place. This amendment simply says that new tax expenditures should be treated the same as new spending programs for purposes of the line-item veto. It might prompt us to rethink some of our spending priorities. When we begin to weigh, for example, scaling back the special treatment for percentage depletion allowances for the oil and gas industry against cutting food and nutrition programs for hungry children, we may come out with quite different answers than we have in the past about whether we can still afford to subsidize this industry through the Tax Code. CBO estimates that eliminating this tax break would save $4.9 billion in Federal revenues over 5 years. We must allow the President to veto new special interest tax expenditures, despite the vague and confusing language in the Dole substitute. It looks to me like those who oppose our amendment are saying that they will not ask for much, if any, sacrifice from wealthy corporate and other special interests in our society who have enjoyed certain tax breaks, benefits, preferences, deductions, and credits that most regular middle-class taxpayers do not enjoy. The Republican contract promised to give the President the authority to line-item veto all these special tax breaks, but that language was deleted by the Senate Budget Committee. That language has also been deleted from the Dole substitute. I think we need to restore the original language of the expedited rescission bill. At a time when we are talking about potentially huge spending cuts in meat inspections designed to insure against outbreaks of disease; or in higher education aid for middle class families; or in protection for our air, our lakes, and our land; or in highways; or in community development programs for States and localities; or in sewer and water projects for our big cities; or in safety net programs for vulnerable children; or to eliminate the School Lunch Program, we should be willing to weigh these cuts against special tax loopholes that could cost hundreds of billions each year. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a tribute to Jeff Griffith, one of my former staffers who died recently here in Washington, DC be printed in the Record. Jeff was one of the original members of my Senate staff, and I was deeply saddened by his death. While I know his family, friends and former colleagues will miss him terribly, as I will, I hope we will also remember his many accomplishments, and his passion for justice. The tribute was offered on my behalf at the funeral service this past weekend.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, just so colleagues are clear before they cast this vote after listening to my colleague from Georgia--the Executive order does not resemble Somalia. It represents a lawful exercise of Presidential authority. The Federal Procurement Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1949, expressly authorizes the President to proscribe such policies and directives not consistent with the directives of this act as he shall deem necessary to effectuate the decisions of such act. And from Roosevelt to Johnson to Nixon to Carter to President Bush, we have seen such orders issued. So let us just be clear as to what is at issue. Second of all, Mr. President, we are, of course, not talking about S. 55, which was on the floor last session. But again, for the record, for the people in the country, that piece of legislation which prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking workers was filibustered. It was blocked. So it did not pass. This is an Executive order by the President which applies to situations where the Federal Government has a contract with an employer for over $100,000 worth of business and that employer permanently replaces workers. This does not cover workers who were temporary replacement workers. We are talking about permanent replacement. That is all we are focusing on. It is really a very simple proposition that we are voting on here today. I say to my colleagues, who take another position on this issue, that I wish their characterization of labor-management relations had some relationship to reality because, if it did, I would be taking a different position in this debate. But the General Accounting Office reports that since 1985, employers have hired permanent replacements in one out of every six strikes and threatened to hire replacements in one out of every three. Mr. President, I just simply have to tell you that all too often, what happens is either employers require major and unreasonable concessions of the union, then force people out to strike, then replace them with workers unsympathetic to the union, and then move to decertify the union. That is called union busting. And, in many ways, that is the issue that is before us because either that happens or, because the United States happens to be the only country among the advanced economic countries in the world that enables employers to carry out this practice, many other wage earners just simply are forced to live with outrageous concessions that are asked of them with sometimes very deplorable working conditions in terms of health and safety, much less wages, because they know, if they do anything about it, they will be permanently replaced. Mr. President, the issue here is which side is the Government on? In the debate last week, while I was on the floor, I happened to remember Florence Reese, from Appalachia--which is my wife Sheila's home, in Kentucky--and her famous song, ``Which Side Are You On?'' What the President's Executive order essentially says is, while many of us feel so strongly about this, if the Government is doing business with a company where the labor-management dispute causes the permanent replacement of striking workers, we ought not to use taxpayers' money to subsidize that kind of management practice. Which side is the Government on? Are we on the side of union busting? Are we on the side of depressing wages? Are we on the side of forcing people out on strike and then permanently replacing them? Are we on the side of unsafe working conditions? Or are we on the side of working people, wage earners, and their having some leverage and ability to bargain for themselves and, yes, if necessary, to go out on strike-- though no one likes to go out on strike--so that they are just not crushed? Mr. President, that is the issue. Should the Government use taxpayers' money to support companies which permanently replace their workers in the labor-management dispute? It is that simple. That is the issue before us. That is why so many of us have taken such strong stands. Finally, Mr. President, I know my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has been eloquent, powerful on the floor, on this issue. I think right now, in the 104th Congress, that so much of the debate and so much of the agenda is too abstract. There are no faces. There are no people. Now, we look at these decisions on the House side. And we are talking about in Minnesota the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. Let me tell you that in a cold-weather State like Minnesota--and I imagine Massachusetts--this is cruel for the elderly poor, for children, to just cut that out; and going after the Summer Jobs Program. We have had the debate here on school lunches, school breakfasts, and child nutrition programs. But are we going to do more for loopholes, deductions, and more by way of capital gains tax for large corporations and wealthy people? People--we cut one place. And those people have the least amount of clout, those most vulnerable citizens, and then we skew it to the very top of the population. That is why this debate on the Kassebaum amendment has a significance. It has to do with the heart and soul of this 104th Congress. It has to do with where we stand. It has to do with who we represent or who we do not represent. I can just say to my colleagues that I have seen all too often--I said this before on the floor of the Senate--people forced out on strike. I have seen people permanently replaced. I have seen the devastation of families. I have seen the devastation in communities. We had testimony in the Labor and Human Resources Committee from ministers, from business people, and others who talked about the divisiveness of all of this. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I feel a real commitment to people whom I represent. To me, one that stands out in my mind more than any other is C.F. Industries, where workers were forced out on strike who did not want to go out on strike. I do not think they would mind my saying that they had a real sense of trepidation. They did not want to go out on strike. They were worried what was going to happen to them. But the company's offer was something they could not accept. The concessions that were asked of them went sort of directly to their sense of dignity about themselves. So there they were, outside on a Sunday morning. I went out there with the president of the AFL-CIO in the pouring rain. Their children were there. People who had essentially been permanently replaced were devastated. I do not think that should be a part of what the United States of America is about. This amendment which deals with this Executive order by the President just deals with an Executive order that is a significant step in the right direction. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I this amendment is profoundly wrong in its impact on working people and families. I think it is profoundly wrong in terms of the message that it stands for as to what we are about. I think the Government ought to be on the side of regular people, ought to be on the side of wage earners, and ought to be on the side of working families. I think that is really the large significance of this vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Iowa will be here in a moment. I will be pleased to yield the floor to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. President, I would like to just quote from page 1 of a General Accounting Office report published a few years ago on striker replacement in the last 20 years. It is a summary to give some context for my remarks and my response to the Senator from Kansas. The number of strikes in the United States during the 1980's was about one half what it was during the 1970's. More specifically, strikes declined about 53 percent in the 1980's compared with the 1970's. They estimate that in strikes reported to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in 1985 and 1989, employers announced they would hire permanent replacements in about one-third of the 17 percent of all strikes in each year. They generally found little difference in the use of permanent replacements by employers in large force strikes. Mr. President, is this Executive order meeting a real need? Yes. Is there a precedent for it? Yes--ample precedent. One more time I say to my colleagues that I believe there is a larger significance to this amendment than may originally be apparent. This amendment goes to the very question of workplace fairness. This amendment goes to the very heart of the Contract on America's assault on working families' ability to rely on jobs that pay decent wages with decent fringe benefits. This amendment is an attempt to undo an Executive order, I think, which is narrow in scope and which makes it clear that the Federal Government will not be on the side of companies which permanently replace striking workers. The Federal Government will not be on the side of union busting. The Federal Government will not, through taxpayers' money, support unfairness in the workplace. The Federal Government will side with regular working people. The Federal Government will side with working families. And while I believe that this Executive order represents a lawful exercise of Presidential authority, I think it also represents something more. It represents a commitment by the President of the United States of America to many, many, many working families in our country. Please remember, when I say working families, I mean union and nonunion, I mean the vast majority of people in this country who in fact are employed. At this point, Mr. President, if the Senator from Kansas does not have a question for me, I yield the floor. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to make it clear that when it comes to time agreements--and I think this is a sort of fundamental difference we have. This is a central, central, central question. One more time, I say, with all due respect to my colleague from Kansas, first, I think the significance of this amendment goes beyond the Executive order. I think it cannot be contextualized to what I consider to be really sort of assault on working families and middle- income families in America. Second, I choose to define the issue differently. Each Senator has to make his or her own decision. But I believe this is a question of whether or not the Federal Government will be on the side of a practice which, unfortunately, has become all too common during the decade of the 1980's and early 1990's, which is essentially demanding concessions of a work force that you know they cannot make, forcing them out on strike, hiring permanent replacements, decertifying the union, and busting the union. So the question is, is the Government of the United States of America going to use taxpayer dollars to encourage that practice, to be on the side of that kind of practice--the practice of union busting, of breaking unions, of driving many, many honest, hardworking people essentially out of work because they are replaced? I do not think so. I think it is a question of where the Government stands. This Executive order says we ought to have a Government that stands on the side of workplace fairness. Actually, I heard my colleague from Illinois say earlier that this is but the beginning of what we should have done, which was S. 55, which joined all of the other advanced economies with legislation to prohibit this egregious practice. We would be so much better off--I will not repeat all of the arguments I made earlier--in terms of productivity and labor-management partnerships, and in terms of higher levels of morale. I ask my colleague from Illinois whether it is his intention to speak on the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, let me finish my remarks. I am expecting the Senator from Iowa to be here in a moment. Let me just clear up this interpretation on Bridgestone-Firestone. Negotiations between Bridgestone-Firestone and the United Rubber Workers began in March of 1994, and the collective bargaining agreement expired on April 24, 1994. The United Rubber Workers called the strike against Bridgestone-Firestone on July 12, 1994. If the Executive order had been in effect, Secretary Reich would have intervened immediately by notifying the company that any effort to permanently replace its workers could cause Bridgestone-Firestone to suffer immediate termination of several million dollars worth of contracts it has with the Federal Government. This action might have been enough to persuade Bridgestone-Firestone not to permanently replace the strikers. On January 4, 1995, Bridgestone-Firestone permanently replaced 2,300 striking workers, without any warning, by sending letters to the strikers at their home. If the Executive order had been in effect, Secretary Reich could have immediately investigated and made a finding that the company violated the policy in the Executive order, that the executive branch will not contract with employers who permanently replace striking workers, and notified all of the agencies that have contracts with Bridgestone-Firestone that they should terminate their contract. These agencies would have terminated the contracts, again putting pressure on Bridgestone-Firestone to attempt a reasonable settlement of the strike--the same kind of pressure that the strikers were under, I might add--at the time. It also says, ``The Secretary of Labor may pursue a debarment action against Bridgestone/Firestone after the executive order takes effect. The debarment would block Bridgestone/Firestone from getting any new Federal contracts''--any new Federal contracts-- ``until its labor dispute is settled.'' The language is very clear. The interpretation is very clear. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as though in morning business so as not to interrupt this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I gather from what the Senator has just said that he is trying to make a connection between welfare reform and welfare recipients--who are, in the main, women, single parents--being able to find a job they can count on. With ``a job you can count on'' meaning a decent wage with decent fringe benefits. In the State of Wisconsin, has the Senator seen situations where workers have been essentially forced out on the strike and permanently replaced? Has the Senator actually seen that happen in Wisconsin? Can the Senator give, so that people know what this debate is about, are there some examples that come to mind, as a Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this Executive order really applies, as I understand it, to Government agencies that work with contractors with contracts of $100,000, or more, and only in striking workers, not temporarily replace, then the Government would no longer be willing to continue with the contract. Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. And ultimately this would affect very, very, few companies because we have no reason to believe that most of the contractors doing business with the Government would engage in such a practice. So my question is as follows: This debate now on this amendment almost becomes a debate about more than just this aim of the Senator was talking about welfare and the reports of welfare reform with jobs being key. Does the Senator, based upon your experience in Wisconsin, does the Senator feel that this whole issue of permanent replacement of striking workers is key to the question of balance between labor and management so that people, working people in the country, whether they are in unions or not in unions, will have the ability to represent themselves and bargain and have a decent job at a decent wage for their family? Has this amendment become really more of a debate about decent jobs for people, more of a debate about families having an income that they can live on, more of a debate about really working families and middle- class families; is that the way the Senator sees this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for her question. The President's Executive order would cover them, but the existing contract could not be terminated. It is my understanding that they would be barred from future contracts, and that is the distinction. I think that is the purpose of this Executive order. I might also add that when I asked the question of the Senator from Wisconsin, my working assumption--which I think is a correct one--is that ultimately we are talking about what kind of companies might, in fact, engage in this practice, because the Senator from Wisconsin is correct; most companies are good corporate citizens and good businesses and do not engage in this practice. Probably we are talking about very few cases.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kansas that I respectfully disagree. The reason I say that is I do not believe that we can decontextualize this amendment proposed by my colleague from the reality of the agenda that is being pushed by the Republican Party in this 104th Congress. I believe all of the parts are interrelated. That is the way I view this amendment. I view this as being connected to all these other questions. Is there going to be adequate nutrition for children? Whatever happened to affordable health care? Are people going to be able to afford higher education? How come the proposed cuts are so targeted, as Marian Wright Edelman and others have said over and over again, on the most vulnerable citizens? Why are we not willing to raise the minimum wage? And what are we doing, coming out with an amendment that essentially tries to undo an Executive order that only says the U.S. Government ought not to be supporting companies that permanently replace workers, given, I think, a rather bleak and shameful history of the last decade or so as to what has actually been happening to working people in this country? So I say to my colleague, I respectfully disagree. Does my colleague have a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is an announcement I want to make on the floor of the Senate that is certainly important to my State of Minnesota. Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee, consistent with a request that I made 2 weeks ago, corrected an error in the regulatory moratorium bill, that is S. 219, in order to protect the 1995 migratory bird hunting season. I am delighted that my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, responded to the concerns of thousands and thousands of people who participate in the bird hunting season in Minnesota. When I learned that a provision in the regulatory moratorium bill threatened the 1995 bird hunting season, I asked my colleagues on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to correct the bill. I also introduced a piece of legislation to protect the 1995 hunting season from the moratorium provision. I am delighted to report to the people of Minnesota that the committee took the time to remedy the problem so that Minnesotans can enjoy this cherished annual event. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Senator Glenn and Senator Pryor for their work on the committee. Mr. President, in our rush to reform the regulatory process we almost canceled a tradition for this year. Some of my colleagues criticized my efforts to correct the language in the bill. They claimed I was using scare tactics, that this was some kind of political magic show. But now, by correcting this legislation, the committee has made clear that there was an error in the original bill, an error that was overlooked and then vehemently denied for the sake of trying to rush through the Contract With America. Sometimes haste makes waste. Last week one of my colleagues, a cosponsor of the bill, said that the language in S. 219 exempted the annual bird hunting rulemaking from the moratorium. Perhaps we should note that my colleague was from a Southern State--which from my point of view is fine because I love the South and grew up, part of my early years, in North Carolina. But the normal duck hunting season opens later in the South--I know my colleague from Oklahoma knows this --than it does in Minnesota. And if the Fish and Wildlife Services' estimated best case scenario proved correct, the original S. 219 would have served to delay the necessary rulemaking, and thus opening the season in Minnesota would have been postponed by no less than 30 days. Since Minnesotans do the majority of their hunting at the local shoot in early October--our season begins in early October, before the local ducks fly south--such a delay would have effectively canceled a major part of our season. But in my colleague's State, duck hunting season was mid to late November, and therefore might not have been as seriously affected by the delay. It has always been clear to me that the bill as originally introduced did not protect the 1995 bird hunting season. Despite strong statements that it was never the intent of the bill's sponsors to put the season at risk--and, by the way, I agree that it never was the intent--the language of the bill is what matters most. And now, because of the action of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we have the protection that we need, the rulemaking goes on, and I am very proud of the fact that the men and women in the State of Minnesota and their children can rest assured that we will have no delay or cancellation and that we will have our season. So this is a sort of thank you to my colleagues and a delivery of a very positive message to Minnesotans.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I want to say to him that I have, of course, heard this before. The key distinction was that the hunting season is not covered by the administrative exemption nor are we talking about licensing. We were talking about the rulemaking the Fish and Wildlife Service undergoes every year to open the migratory bird hunting season. The problem was that the moratorium on rulemaking would affect this hunting rule. That is what I said. The legislators have to be careful with the language. The fact is that the change was made today in Governmental Affairs to make sure that Fish and Wildlife could go forward with that rulemaking and we will have our season. The proof is in the pudding. I am delighted the change took place.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to respond for a moment, and then defer to my colleagues from Massachusetts and Illinois because I had an ample amount of time to speak this mornings. I will not take more than 5 minutes. I want to make two points. I made them this morning. I would like to be as concise as possible. The first point is I think the issue is very clear. Senators can vote different ways on this question. The President's Executive order says that when the U.S. Government has a contract with a company, a contractor which in turn permanently replaces its workers during a strike, then our Government will contracts with such a company. It is a simple proposition. Which side is the Government on? What we are saying is that our Government is on the side of workers, of middle-class people, of working families. It is very simple. One more time it is a shame that our country has not joined many other advanced economies with legislation that would prohibit this permanent replacement of workers. I think we would have passed that bill if not for a filibuster in the last session. That is in fact what happened. The second point. I think it is extremely important that--as much as I respect the Senator from Kansas, I think she is one of the finest Senators--I believe that her amendment is profoundly mistaken because I think this Executive order is extremely important. The second point is that I do not think that you can separate this amendment that we are speaking against from the overall Contract With America which has just represented an attack on men and women who are trying to work for decent wages, on children, on the whole question of higher education being affordable for families, on the question of whether or not people are going to be able to afford health care. These issues become very interrelated. In that sense, this debate and this vote is about more than this amendment. To be able to be work at a job that pays a decent wage so that you can support your family is very closely tied to whether or not you have collective bargaining rights, very closely tied to whether or not you have some assurance that if a company forces you out on strike, if nobody wants to go out on strike, what will then happen is that you will essentially not be permanently replaced and crushed. That is what this is all about, protection for many workers, many employees, and many of their families. That is what this is all about. For the life of me, Mr. President--I conclude on this because I spoke this morning--I simply do not understand why some of my colleagues make such serious objection to this proposition. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President today I am introducing the Victims of Abuse Access to Health Insurance Act. This bill would outlaw the practice of denying health insurance coverage to victims of domestic violence. In Minnesota three insurance companies denied health insurance to entire women's shelter because ``as a battered women's program we were high risk.'' The women's shelter in Rochester was told that it was considered uninsurable because its employees are almost all battered women. A woman sought the services of Women House in St. Cloud because the abuse during her 12-year marriage had escalated to such an extent that she was hospitalized for a broken jaw and spent 2 weeks in a mental health unit of a hospital. She was subsequently denied coverage by two insurance companies--one said they would not cover any medical or psychiatric problems that could be related to the past abuse. These are just a couple examples of women who have been physically abused and sought proper medical care only to be turned away by insurance companies who say they are too high of a risk to insure. Victims of domestic violence are being denied health insurance coverage. This is a abhorrent practice. It is plain old-fashioned discrimination. It is profoundly unjust and wrong. And, it is the worst of blaming the victim. We must treat domestic violence as the crime that it is--not as voluntary risky behavior that can be easily changed and not as a pre- existing condition. Insurance company policies that deny coverage to victims only serve to perpetuate the myth that the victims are somehow responsible for their abuse. Domestic violence is the single largest threat to women's health. Denying women access to much needed health care must be stopped. The Victims of Abuse Access to Health Insurance Act is a very simple and straightforward bill. It would prohibit insurance companies from ``engaging in a practice that has the effect of denying, canceling, or limiting health insurance coverage or health benefits, or establishing, increasing or varying the premium charged for the coverage or benefits'' for victims of domestic violence. It would prohibit insurance companies from considering domestic violence as a preexisting condition. Under the bill, domestic violence is defined as any violent act against a current or former member of the family or household, or someone with whom there has been or is an intimate relationship. This could mean spouse, partner, lover, boyfriend, or children. If an insurance company, or even a company that is large enough to self-insure, violates this act it could be held civilly and criminally liable. Reporting domestic violence and seeking medical help is often the first step in ending the cycle. Oftentimes health care providers are the first, and sometimes the only, professionals in a position to recognize violence in their patient's lives. Battered women should be encouraged to seek medical help. We should not be discouraging this by allowing insurance companies to use this information against them. Women should not have to fear that when they take that first step they could lose their access to treatment. Doctors and other health care providers need to be encouraged to properly diagnose, treat, and document domestic violence. Denial of health insurance coverage will cause doctors not to document it accurately if only to protect the victim. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rapes by a stranger combined. It is the No. 1 reason women go to emergency rooms. And research indicates that violence against women escalates during pregnancy. Last year during the health care reform debate, I raised this issue in the context of requiring insurance companies to make insurance available to all people who wanted it. We should certainly all be moving toward that goal. However, this is a real immediate need and it must be addressed. Last year Congress passed the first most comprehensive package of legislation to address gender based violence--the Violence Against Women Act. It was a great step forward in stopping the cycle of violence. But, it is not enough. We cannot stop at reforming and improving the judicial system and think it will solve the problem. The entire community must be involved in the solution--we all must be involved in stopping the cycle of violence. Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone for being a victim of domestic violence. This is an abhorrent practice and should be prohibited. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, let me rise in this Chamber to echo the words of the Senator from Massachusetts. I believe the action taken by the President is an extremely important message. It is an important message that has a great deal to do with fairness and restoring some balance of power between those who work for wages and management. I do not think we are really going to be able to build the kind of successful economy we need for ourselves, for our children, and for our grandchildren unless we have high morale, high levels of productivity, and a really good working relationship between labor and management. I have seen over the past decade-plus so many strikes defeated, so many unions busted, so many broken lives, so many broken families, and so many broken dreams, and the right to strike has now become the right to be fired, and so much of what many of us or many of our parents or many of our grandparents fought for, which was basic collective bargaining rights, some kind of fairness in the workplace, some kind of support for working people is, I think, really very much in peril. So, Madam President, I just want to make it clear as we discuss this amendment tomorrow I will be in the Chamber, I will be in the Chamber with documents, I will be in the Chamber with possible as a Senator to make this debate real in terms of what it means in personal terms for working people, whether they be in unions or whether they not be in unions. So I look forward to a very spirited and a lively and very important and I think a very long debate. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.