Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was at a labor rally on the economic recovery plan and lost my voice, but I came back here to speak on this amendment. I have been following this debate a little bit. I wanted to comment on what I heard on the floor. In that rally there were indeed some steel workers from the Iron Range of Minnesota, I say to my colleague from Minnesota. Basically, the message was this: We are out of work through no fault of our own. We are running out of unemployment insurance benefits, and we don't have coverage for our loved ones, for our children, or for our families. I believe this is sort of a test case of whether or not we in the Senate, or for that matter in the administration, care about hard- working people. We are very much a part of our country coming together. In fact, we keep celebrating the firefighters and policemen and others. Now when America's working families really need help, where are we? I will tell you, any economic recovery plan is just simply, as far as I am concerned, unconscionable without making sure we extend the unemployment insurance benefits to make sure that part-time workers are covered and to make sure we get the health care benefits to these people. I do not know how we can possibly take these working families and put them in parentheses. We have had tens of billions of dollars of assistance for the airline industry. I look at the House of Representatives, and they have about $30 billion-plus of tax breaks for the energy companies, including oil companies that made huge profits last year. They want to do away with the alternative minimum tax and give $1 billion here and $1 billion to this multinational corporation. They want to lock in these ``Robin Hood in reverse'' tax cuts, which provide more for the wealthiest top 1 percent. However at the same time we are worried about the Social Security surplus and say we have no money for children, for education, for the IDEA program, for children with special needs, or to help people who are out of work right now. I will tell you, this is a test case of whether we have ``compassionate conservatism'' or the heart and soul of my party. Democrats need to fight hard for these working people. In any case, I think that is a transition to this debate because I am hearing a number of my colleagues in this Chamber talking about eliminating the sugar program. By the way, a lot of our sugar beat growers, as my colleague from Minnesota knows, are independent producers. What is interesting is that this particular sugar program really sets the loan rate at good level, which gives our producers the ability to bargaining to get a decent price in the market, which, frankly, I want for all our farmers, far more than depending on AMTA payments and other direct Government money. But I have to say to Senators--I have to figure out the right way to say this; if I say ``cynical,'' it sounds as if that is too shrill--but I am skeptical about this commitment to the Food Stamp Program and more funding for nutrition programs. I am skeptical because during the debate on the welfare bill in 1996 that significantly cut food stamp benefits, which, by the way, is the major child nutrition safety net program in our country, and very successful, some of the very Senators who are on the floor today are saying the reason we need to cut the sugar program is because we need to dramatically expand food nutrition programs. I think this is basically a cynical tradeoff, which will put under a bunch of independent producers and farmers, saying the reason we need to do this is because we need to dramatically expand food nutrition programs. I ask where were these Senators when we had a 30 percent reduction in food stamp enrollment. That was in the 1996 so- called welfare reform program. The fact is these Senators who had not a word to say. I say to those Senators, where were you? In the committee, Senator Harkin and Senator Dayton and I have fought hard for food nutrition programs. Frankly, my bottom line in conference is, anything less than $6.2 billion in the food nutrition program is unacceptable. By the way, the House of Representatives, with a Republican majority, has $3.6 billion for food nutrition programs. That is it. Now, all of a sudden, the very Senators--this is not a one-to-one correlation--but many of the very same Senators I have never seen out here as advocates for expanding food nutrition programs, for expanding the Food Stamp Program, all of a sudden, when it comes to this nifty, clever little way of trading off a farm program that gives producers some leverage in the market price to get a decent price versus the Food Stamp Program, now we have the amendment offered on the floor. This is transparent. In our Agriculture Committee deliberations, I voted for the higher price-tag of $10 billion for food nutrition programs. Senator Lugar has been a good, strong advocate for food nutrition programs. I will say that. There is no question about it. My comments are not aimed at the Senator from Indiana because I think he has been a true champion on this issue. I am talking about a variety of things I have heard from a variety of different Senators. And I see where this vote is going. But I said in the Agriculture Committee, I refuse to accept this cynical tradeoff of a commodity program that provides some income assistance for farmers and/or provides some leverage for our farmers to get a decent price in the marketplace, especially if they are family farmers--that is, the people who work the land, live on the land--and food nutrition programs. Now, I along with others will have an amendment later on to target some of these commodity prices. From my point of view, not only can we take some of that for a higher loan rate and a better price for our producers, we can take some of that and put it in the food nutrition programs. Fine. But do not come out of here with an amendment that basically eliminates the program which will eliminate independent producers. In this particular case, we are talking about sugar beat producers, especially in the Red River Valley and other parts of our State of Minnesota. Again, I would say that I am a little bit skeptical. I am a little bit skeptical of Senators who are coming out here who I have never heard a word from about cuts in the Food Stamp Program before, and now all of a sudden they become passionate advocates for the Food Stamp Program, if it gives them an opportunity to eliminate a whole bunch of independent producers, family farmers. Do I think that some of these farm programs are an inverse relationship to need? Yes. Do I want to more target them? Yes. But I refuse to accept in tradeoff that is explicit--not implicit, but explicit--in this amendment that is before us today on the floor of the Senate. Let me also say quite a few of the Senators who are out here with this amendment, and they can come out here and debate me, but I would bet that the historical record will show this: While we have had, in the past several years, a dramatic rise in the use of food shelves and food pantries, and while we have had any number of different reports that have come out, especially by the religious community, about the rise in the number of ``food insecure households''--which is just another way of saying homes where people are hungry, maybe to the tune of about 30 million or thereabouts; I do not remember the exact figure, many of them children--while we have had reports about the dramatic rise of hunger and homelessness in our country, I have not heard one word from many of the Senators who have come out here today, who, all of a sudden, have become champions for the Food Stamp Program, if they can eliminate a farm program that will eliminate family farmers, independent producers in my State of Minnesota. I say no to that. I hope my colleagues will join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Minnesota National Guard and the Military Coalition and other documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment. In my view, the International Criminal Court, as established under the Rome statute of 1998, represents a unique opportunity to bring justice to the international community and to help in the fight against future war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. That is an important mission. The Rome statute is the result of 5 years of negotiations by more than 100 countries. The United States was an active leader in these negotiations. Frankly, after years of support for the process, leading to the Court's formation, it is unwise to turn our backs on it now. If properly implemented, the ICC would go a long way toward preventing catastrophes such as those we recently witnessed in Bosnia, East Timor, and Rwanda. The ICC is not going to prevent all future human rights violations but it can deter those who would commit genocide, punish those who do, and offer justice instead of revenge and contribute to a process of peace and reconciliation. Now, there are Senators who have asserted today that the International Criminal Court is part of the United Nations. It is a common mistake. For the record, the Court will be independent from the United Nations and governed and funded by its own assembly of state parties. Jurisdiction, judicial decisionmaking, and legal authority will be given only to this independent Court, not to the United Nations. What is more, some of my colleagues in the Senate have opposed the Rome statute because they fear that the ICC will expose American service men and women abroad to frivolous prosecution. But American negotiators, led by Ambassador David Scheffer, have achieved remarkable progress during the treaty negotiations to effectively address these concerns. Any prosecution before the ICC would take place only if the domestic judicial system were unwilling or unwilling to make a good- faith inquiry into allegations of war crimes. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough. This amendment would restrict the role of the United States in future peacekeeping missions unless the United Nations exempts U.S. troops from the Court. It would also prohibit U.S. aid and input into the Court and block U.S. aid to allies unless they agree to shield American troops on their soil from ICC prosecution. The timing of this amendment could not be worse. As the world unites to combat terrorism, we should be active partners in encouraging an end to impunity for human rights violators, not skeptical detractors. We need a place where perpetrators of human rights abuses are held accountable. In passing the Helms amendment, I fear we will be sending a horrible message to the international community. It is as if we cannot even be involved in the negotiations, sitting down at the table and helping to shape what could be such an important institution. The Court will be established whether we like it or not. The authority of the future Court derives from the 120 votes garnered in Rome, the signatures subsequently of 137 nations and ratifications of 47 states. All members of NATO, the European Union and most in Latin America have signed or ratified. Recently the United Kingdom and Switzerland became the 42nd and 43rd countries to ratify, and Hungary became the 47th nation to do so. Given these realities, we should oppose this amendment, hastening instead to assure the Court is a good one, inculcating the American values of democracy, rules of law, and an end to impunity. The United States should remain engaged while protecting American citizens and military people from politicized prosecution by the International Criminal Court or by any other foreign tribunal. If America turns its back on the negotiations, and the Helms amendment would make it impossible for us to be involved in the negotiations, this opportunity to secure international justice will be lost. Only through engagement, which this amendment makes impossible, can the United States live up to the truly inescapable promise of ``never again.'' Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the whip for offering the amendment. Let me say to colleagues, I want to move forward. I am in your company. We have worked hard on this amendment. I think we have a lot of strong bipartisan support. I think it is definitely, as they say, the right thing to do. I thank all of my sponsors: my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, Senator Durbin, Senator Biden, Senator Leahy, and Senator Carper. And I believe there will be others. This amendment amends the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to expand the protections of that act to National Guard personnel who are today protecting our Nation's airports and other vulnerable public facilities. Specifically, this amendment would provide civic relief to National Guard personnel mobilized by State Governors at the request of the President, in support of Operation Noble Eagle and potential future operations. This amendment has the support of the Military Coalition, which is a consortium of 33 nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their families and survivors, as well as the support of the Minnesota National Guard. The operative language here is, we are trying to provide this civic relief and protection for the Guard who are called out at the request of the President--this is the key language of the amendment, colleagues--for and in support of an operation during a war or national emergency declared by the President or the Congress. This Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which I think was passed in 1940, is important legislation which helps provide help to people who have taken on financial burdens without knowing they would be called up to serve in the military. Today those people are men and women in our National Guard. They are called up to protect our Nation's airports--you see them out there-- nuclear facilities, and a good number of them are going to be going to the northern border to protect us at the border. Men and women of the National Guard serve the Nation and our States as a unique organization among all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Guard is America's community-based defense force located in more than 2,700 cities and towns throughout the Nation. Some 60 of these units are in my home State, Senator Dayton's home State, Minnesota. Let me talk about what is at issue. When our men and women serve our country, they may have built up financial obligations of one kind or another--such as a mortgage on their homes, debts related to buying cars, charge account debts from buying things with credit, you name it. What the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civic Relief Act does--and what this would do as applied to our Guard--is not wipe out any of these debts or financial obligations by people who are faced with being called up on active duty, but it does give them certain protections. This is one of them. First of all, on the consumer debt--which is now 6 percent that goes to all other men and women who are now in the service protecting our country--there is a 6-percent ceiling that is charged. Second, this is important because these members of the Guard, they are like us; they bought things on credit, and they have had the jobs that allowed them to pay off their debt, but now what has happened is they are out there at our airports or nuclear facilities--soon they will be on the northern border patrol--and they have taken pay cuts to protect our public facilities. But they do not have the same amount of income now, and they cannot necessarily cashflow, certainly, exorbitant interest rates. This just gives them the civic protection. In other words, if they have been called out to duty by the President--and the President has called the Guard out to duty, but he has done it through the Governors--this just says, when the President says: ``We need the Guard, it is a national emergency, we are at war,'' and the Guard is called up through the Governors, they get the same protection that goes to any other Guard members or any other members of our Armed Forces who are out there protecting us. Also, they will get protection from being evicted from their homes. And they will get protection from being foreclosed on. They will get protection against the cancellation of life insurance. The problem is, unfortunately, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act right now only applies to National Guard personnel mobilized directly by the President of the United States, and it does not protect those men and women who are mobilized by our Governors at the request of the President, as is the case with many of the Guard right now. This distinction, colleagues, is inequitable. Those mobilized by a Governor at the request of the President face the same financial problems as those mobilized by the President directly. It is only right that they receive the same protections. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, on Sunday, November 25, had a long story on the financial impact on Minnesota Guard members; but this applies to Guard members in every one of our States. I ask unanimous consent that the Star Tribune article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Schumer as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I would like to briefly summarize a couple stories of those who are in the Guard: Cpl. Paul Dellwo is a local police officer. As he was patrolling MPS Airport, he was making $1,600 a month. As a police officer, he was making approximately $2,600 a month. On this $1,600 a month he still has to make the same credit card, tuition and mortgage payments. At the end of November he thought he had only a month or two before his finances really became tight. Craig Ford works as an internet sales manager who works on commission for an automotive company. He said that during a good month he could earn $15,000. Now, as a specialist with the guard, he earns $2,600 a month. Ford is married and has two children, a 5-month-old and a 2- year-old. Mr. Ford speaks for all the troops that I met when he said he understood there would be financial hardships when he volunterred--he is more than willing to put up with the hardships but he would sure appreciate a little help. I heard this time and time again when I met with the Guard on Nov. 26: Specialist Justin Johnson--a salesman at Best Buy Company--estimates that he is losing about a third of his income during his deployment. Craig Forbes, a car salesman, estimates that he is losing half his monthly income during his deployment at the airport. And Major Gary Olson, Public Affairs Officer for the MN National Guard, told me that several others have had to be relieved of their deployment due to financial hardship. He also said several people have come in wanting to serve but realized they simply could not do it and provide for their families adequately. All these Guardsmen made the same point--look, I love my country and I'm pleased to serve but can we get a little financial protection? I could go on. This is the point. Many of these Guard members are from working families. If they are lucky enough to be working for some of the larger companies, those companies say: Serve your country. It is a national emergency. They pay full salary. But many work for businesses that cannot afford to, so they are losing $700, $800, $900, $1,000 a month. It is just not right. Again, it is the same emergency. The President has said so. He has called up the Guard, but we did it through our Governors. This just fixes this problem and makes sure they get the same civic relief. That is all this says. It is a protection from them being foreclosed on, not for debts they build up now while serving our country for an emergency, but whatever debts they had built up before. So it is some relief from being foreclosed on or from being evicted or protection from a life insurance policy being canceled. These young people work very hard in their civilian lives. Some of them work in retail where their commissions during the holiday season are the difference between their family having a good year and their family just getting by. But now they are not working for commissions-- they are not dealing with customers in a busy electronics store--they are toting an M16 and standing guard. Some of the Guard work construction and, in Minnesota, you work construction until there is too much snow or it is too cold. This year it hasn't snowed much and it has been unseasonably warm. But instead of building houses, making good wages, these men and women are in the airports--protecting us while we travel during the holiday season. These stories are but a few trees in a large forest. Just about every soldier or airmen I spoke to, from enlisted rank to officer, told the same story. They are proud to wear their uniform. They are proud of their service to their country, but they worried about their families. They are worried that the financial blow they are taking now will take years to work off. They are worried that they are not providing the way they should for their children. None of them asked for anything. But every one of them told me that they sure would appreciate whatever help we could offer. The Minnesota Guard did a survey and showed it to me when I last visited. It showed that most Members of the Guard are losing between $700 and $1000 a month. This is real money to retail sales people, to construction workers, to auto mechanics and to police officers. This is real money that cannot be made up easily. Today over 15,000 National Guard are serving in a full-time status nationwide--some of them six to seven days per week. They have been mobilized to protect everything from airports to the Golden Gate Bridge. Some are involved in clean-up efforts at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And we must be aware that National Guard units may be asked to do more in the coming months. This important change to the SSCRA will provide them the civil relief they rightly deserve. Addressing these issues now will ease the burden placed upon these patriots and their families now and in the future. These young people are not asking for much. Extending these protections is an important way to say that we value their service and that will not forget them or their families commitment to the United States. Let me give you the genesis of this amendment. This is why I thank all of my colleagues, some of whom are on the floor. I know Senator Biden wants just 2 minutes, and then Senator Dayton wants to speak. He has been working with me all the way, and Senator Gregg, and others. I just say this: The genesis of this amendment is that I have been going out to airports--I am sure many of you have had the same experience--and I just thank people. I was doing that for a while, I say to my colleague from Delaware, and finally one of the Guard members said: Thank you, Paul, but if you really want to help us, this is the problem for us. We are on guard duty. This is a national emergency. We are at wartime. It is national security. We are out here--by the way, they are going to be at our airport until the end of March, at least-- yet we do not have the same protection. The President called us up, but through the Governors, and we do not have the same protection this way that other members have. Please give us this civic relief. It would help us. I hope there will be 100 votes for this. I have worked my heart out on this amendment because I just think it is important we help people. I hope this will have unanimous support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have two colleagues on the floor, one of whom is Senator Gregg, a cosponsor of the amendment. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I take this opportunity to thank General Andreotti, the leader of our Guard in Minnesota, for his very strong support and his wisdom.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the 2002 appropriations bill, particularly some key provisions that will help ease the financial burdens of our men and women in the National Guard and support those on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. The 2002 DOD appropriations bill provides $317 billion to our Armed Forces. I think it is especially important that the bill provides a 5 percent across the board pay raise and targeted raises for skilled positions in the Armed Forces. I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war-fighting, or other missions they are given. For many years running, those in our armed forces have been suffering from a declining quality of life, despite rising Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of our dedicated men and women in uniform, and those of their families, must be addressed, especially as they continue to be mobilized for duty in response to the attacks of September 11th. It is because of this that I want to take a second to discuss a very important provision for our armed forces included in this bill. This bill includes a provision expanding the protections of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to National Guard personnel protecting our Nation's airports and other vulnerable public facilities. This act suspends certain civil obligations to enable service members to devote full attention to duty. It protects our Armed Forces from foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts; reinstates any health insurance that may have been terminated during the time of service, protects against cancellation of life insurance, and limits interest on debt to 6 percent. It is my belief that the SSCRA was never meant to purposely exclude Guard called up by the Governor at the request of the President--as the case of the Guard mobilized today. Passing this bill will provide the men and women of the National Guard some financial security, and more importantly, a little peace of mind. Although I support this bill, I am against its provision of $8.3 billion for missile defense. I oppose the plan to deploy a national missile defense shield for many reasons. The crucial question is whether a missile shield will make the United States more or less secure. After studying the matter carefully, I have concluded that deploying a missile shield is likely to make us less secure, and that we would be better off using these funds to finance key antiterrorism initiatives. The new funding language in the bill allows the President to choose between missile defense research and development and combating terrorism. I believe that fighting terrorism should take priority over missile defense, and should receive most or all of the new funding. I am hopeful that the President will choose that option. I would also like to take a moment to talk about the importance of the money included in this bill to improve our homeland security. We have some absolutely urgent national security needs here at home and I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his leadership on this homeland security appropriation. Although I had hoped we could have provided more money for the important programs in this package, and believe we must re-visit this issue again, I am grateful for what was worked out and am hopeful that we will be able to pass this bill quickly and get the funding in the communities where it belongs. We need to beef up our ability to anticipate future acts of terrorism. We need to better insure the safety of our borders. We need to ensure the safety of our transportation system and our energy facilities. And we need to make sure that first responders to any future acts of terrorism have the resources and training they need to fully, adequately, and safely respond. I won't go too much into the details of the homeland security appropriation but I would like to mention a few provisions. This appropriation has funding for: Health and Human Services for lab security, disaster response, smallpox and anthrax vaccines; Department of Agriculture and FDA to hire food inspectors, improve lab security and expand lab facilities; aid state and local law enforcement agencies; FEMA firefighting grants; border security including funds for INS and Customs on the northern border. This homeland security appropriation has money allocated for state and local law enforcement to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This is money that can be used for programs such as a local homeland defense emergency reserve fund. Since September 11, support for local public service and servants has never been more important. This type of fund would support local communities whose resources have been exhausted by our current national emergency posture. Specifically, this money could be used to create an emergency fund for counties and local entities to dip into when their local resources have been exhausted by extreme and unforeseen circumstances. In Minnesota, for example, county sheriffs provide additional security for nuclear power plants, water treatment facilities, refineries, chemical and other facilities vulnerable to terrorist targets; but additional security costs were never factored into local budgets. The extra costs of new hiring and staff overtime have already taken their toll on Minnesota communities' local budgets and other unexpected costs are sure to arise in the future. This type of fund would provide much needed relief and adequate economic security to our overtaxed communities. The homeland security appropriation also has money for a FEMA Firefighters Grant Program. The FEMA Firefighters Grant Program provides grants to state and local communities to expand and improve firefighting programs. Over 50 percent of funding goes to volunteer fire departments in rural communities. In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with fire department officials and first responders throughout the State of Minnesota. The one request that they have all made to me is for additional support for training and equipment. We have learned since the events of September 11 what a crucial role our fire departments play in all of our communities. The FEMA Fire Grant program is an efficient vehicle to get funding out to these departments to provide increased training and to purchase new equipment. Given that the issues local fire departments now confront are national in nature, it is reasonable that the federal government provide these additional resources for training and new equipment. The bill in front of us now also has money to enhance our border security, particularly our northern border with Canada. Specifically, the money will be used to increase the number of INS border patrol agents and INS facilities, to create a data base for monitoring foreign student visas, to increase Customs Service border patrol agents and facilities, and for GSA facilities. In Minnesota, the agencies protecting our borders--even in normal times--are understaffed. Given Sept. 11, the situation is now urgent. Border patrol, INS and the Customs Service simply do not have the capacity to do regular inspections as people come across the border and then to follow-up after they enter the country. Some borders are only open part-time in the summer--such as the border at Crane Lake. Borders such as these are basically wide-open. Some are even staffed via telephone and video. For example, a person wanting to cross into the United States from Canada simply arrives and calls the Border Patrol to announce ``we are here.'' Many border crossings do not even have a facility and the checks are conducted outdoors. International Falls is one place that although open full time, conducts much of its business outdoors. When I first heard about the security situation on our northern border I was absolutely amazed. The situation there demands immediate attention and even now I question if we are providing enough. The anti- terrorism legislation we passed earlier authorized money to triple the number of security agents on our northern border, the money is appropriated today will not make that a reality. But it is a good start. This homeland security appropriation also contains money that is essential for fighting bioterrorism. We need to improve our State and local public health capacity. There is widespread agreement that the public health system has been underfunded for years. We need more laboratories, more epidemiologist, more equipment. This appropriations bill provides money to do that. Many local public health departments don't have e-mail capacity. Many don't even have fax capacity. In the event of bioterrorism, good communication is an absolute necessity. This appropriations bill helps made sure that communication can take place. The recent antrax attacks have shown us that early detection and treatment saves lives. We learned that hospitals need help to be able to recognize the pathogens that may be used in a bioterrorist attack. This appropriations bill provides that help. We learned that bioterrorism can have a powerful effect on the workplace. I have been advocating that we work on identifying the best ways to maintain the safety of our workers in the event of bioterrorism. I am pleased that this bill provides money for training and education regarding effective workplace responses to bioterrorism. We learned how important the CDC is for the security of all of us. This bill makes sure that they have the money they need to do their job to protect us. This bill provides funds to make sure there are adequate supplies of vaccines, antibiotics and other medicines necessary to protect all of us. These are not optional programs. They are an essential part of protecting the public health. We have got to do a better job of addressing the needs of our most important assets in the fight against terrorism: our law enforcement, firefighters, health care providers, and other first responders. We have a long way to go but we have taken an important first step today with this appropriations bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, who is chair of the Veterans' Committee for his work. As a member of the committee, I am very proud to support his request. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, he has outlined, in this legislation passed out of the committee, a set of benefits that are so important to veterans. Yet it is being blocked by an anonymous hold. I also now ask unanimous consent--this is another piece of legislation that I worked on together with Senator Rockefeller--that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 201, H.R. 2716; that the Rockefeller-Specter substitute amendment be agreed to; the act, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is legislation that didn't just come up yesterday. It is something any number of us have worked on for the last year and a half, 2 years--Lane Evans and Chris Smith from the House, Senators Rockefeller, Specter, myself. This is a passion for me, focusing on homeless veterans. I think about a third of the adult males of this country who are homeless are veterans. It is a scandal what we do with this legislation, which passed out of our committee 21 to 0 or thereabouts, a unanimous vote. It may have been a voice vote but a unanimous vote by the committee. What this amendment does is it provides services for veterans who are struggling with PTSD, addiction. Many of these veterans are Vietnam veterans. I used to spend a lot of time organizing the street people. This was long before I ran for the Senate. Many of them were veterans. Many of them were Vietnam veterans. This legislation provides job training assistance. It also enables veterans to try one-stop shop places where veterans can get the help they need and tries to move people into affordable housing. There is an anonymous hold. I went through this on this veterans homeless bill four or five times before Thanksgiving. I know the Senator from Montana himself is not the one who objects. This is an anonymous hold. My hold is not anonymous. I announced yesterday, I have a hold on every single piece of legislation, every resolution that is nonemergency. We do a lot by unanimous consent in the Senate. We have unlimited debate. I love the Senate for that reason. We have unlimited amendments. I love the Senate for that reason. One of the ways we get a lot done is we work this through committees. We massage it. We get everybody together and get consensus and we pass bills by unanimous consent. Since this is an anonymous hold, my hold is not anonymous. I have a public hold on every piece of legislation now from the other side until this passes. I had to do that before Thanksgiving. I have to do it again. This did not come up just yesterday. We have been working on this matter for the last couple of years. Anybody who objects can come out here and object. We can debate it. I will say to my colleagues that this is truly reprehensible. It is not just the playing games. I use my leverage to fight for what I believe. In this particular case I am going to fight for veterans. I am proud to do so. It has been among the most meaningful work I have ever done as a Senator. I am not a veteran. I was very involved in the war against the Vietnam war. When I was elected to the Senate, I had some contact with veterans but not much. I was a college teacher in Northfield, MN. I knew some of the veterans but not well. I especially didn't understand a lot of the World War II veterans. I didn't know them. The best thing that has ever happened to me--I am not being melodramatic--as a Senator is that I have learned a lot. I have grown as a person. I have had to be with a lot of people who don't see the world the same way I do, which is good. Veterans have been my teachers. There are so many issues I have worked with for veterans. This one I feel especially strongly about. It goes back to my community organizing days when a lot of poor people were homeless and many of them were veterans. I know a lot of these veterans. They come to our office in Minnesota. You will be at a meeting with some of the veterans and guys who are struggling with PTSD. They can't sit that long. They will get up every 10 minutes. They will leave, and then they will come back. They are really struggling. So are a lot of other veterans. Don't you think it is a scandal that so many homeless people today in our country are veterans and many of them Vietnam vets? Don't you think it is a scandal that there is an anonymous hold on its consideration on the floor of the Senate? I was asked yesterday by a journalist whether or not the Senate's former majority leader, Trent Lott, violated his word. Absolutely not. We went through this before Thanksgiving. Everybody wanted to get this bill through dealing with the Internet and taxes or not taxes. The agreement was that the bill I had would go through and so then I took the hold off other legislation. Now we have something that has come back from the House, we preconferenced it, and Representatives Chris Smith and Lane Evans worked hard on that. It is a better version. I love working with other people. Now we have this anonymous hold. There are three issues here. No. 1, I thought we were doing some reform here on anonymous holds. I don't know what in the world is happening. Something has broken down because, obviously, people continue to do it. That is No. 1. Second is the substance. I don't really know what the objection can be to this legislation. I don't know why a Senator would be opposed to getting more resources and providing more help to veterans who are homeless. I don't understand it, but I would like to see somebody come out and debate it. Third, I was asked about the motivation. One more time, I have no idea what the motivation is. I don't know what is going on here politically. But I will say this. I can promise my colleagues that no other legislation is going to move unless it is an emergency. My hold is not anonymous. No resolutions, no other legislation. Pretty soon, I might even get to nominations in a day or two. That is what I will do until this passes. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to follow Senator Kyl.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when I was speaking about the homeless veterans, many who struggled, I wanted to bring colleagues up to date about the whole issue of discrimination against people who are struggling with mental illness. It is difficult to believe that in the year 2001 there is a whole class of citizens--probably well over 20 percent of the families in this country have a loved one who struggles with mental illness-- certainly, all of us know someone who does--and they face discrimination. There still is a tremendous stigma attached to people who struggle with mental illness. I remember testimony from a doctor who said that when someone is in a hospital and they have had surgery for cancer and they have had chemotherapy or radiation treatments and they come home, neighbors gather around and give them support. Do you know what. That is exactly the way it should be. Often, if it is somebody who struggles with mental illness and they get out of a hospital, you don't see neighbors gathering around and saying we want to support you. It is still considered by too many to be a moral failing, even though it is a brain disease. There was an editorial today--and I will not read from it because I think Senator Domenici will--from the L.A. Times that is so powerful, calling for parity and ending the discrimination for this brain disease. Unfortunately, this discrimination is reflected in the coverage. What we have right now in so many health care plans around the United States of America, if you or your loved one--and, again, I am so sorry I don't have the figures with me. Just take suicide among young people. Suicide kills more young people than cancer and about six, seven, or eight other terrible diseases we all hear about. Suicide in Minnesota is the second leading cause of death in young people. Nationwide it is the third. Your son or daughter is severely depressed and you need help. You are told you have a few days in the hospital, and that is it. You can have some outpatient visits outside the hospital, but just a few days, and that is it. Also, the copays and deductibles are very high; in other words, what you have to pay before there is any coverage or the percentage you have to pay. It is completely different if your child has diabetes or a heart condition or a broken ankle. We would not do that to people. We would not say: OK, you struggle with this disease, diabetes; you are in the hospital a few days and then you are out or you can only see your doctor so many times and there is no more coverage. Even in our Medicare system, which I want us to change as well--by the way, the highest percentage population of suicide is with the elderly. People do not realize that. All too often we say: Oh, well, if I was 80 and I was having a hard time walking, I would be depressed, too. It is incredible the way we trivialize this illness and the way we discriminate. Do my colleagues know that in our Medicare program, if one goes under part B to see a doctor for a physical illness, it is a 20-percent copay. If you struggle with depression and go to see someone for help, it is a 50-percent copay. That is blatant discrimination. That should end. Senator Domenici and I--I thank him for his work; it has been an honor to work with him--bring this bill to the floor. There has never been a hearing in the House of Representatives on the problem of discrimination. We offered an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. We had 66 Senators who signed on, and it passed out of the HELP Committee 21 to 0. We passed it. Then it went to the conference committee. I am speaking for myself, not for Senator Domenici or any other Senator. It is clear what is going on. We are in a fierce fight, but it is one of these fights that is not as open and public as one would want. Robert Pear wrote an update about this issue in the New York Times today. Thank goodness. Overall it is hard to get the public's attention on this issue. There is a fierce fight going on. The insurance industry has gone to a couple of people in the House and has basically said: Kill it. Thanks to the work of Patrick Kennedy, Marge Roukema, and others in the House, I believe there are around 250 House Members who have signed a letter saying: Keep this in the conference committee, pass it, end the discrimination. If we ended the discrimination, it would be civil rights. We would end the discrimination in treatment for people who struggle with this illness. Believe me, I say to my colleagues, it is an illness. It is for real. Second, if there is money in the plans, the care will follow the money, and a lot of kids will get help rather than winding up incarcerated. A lot of people will get help rather than winding up homeless. A lot of adults will get help rather than winding up in prison. A lot of people will not miss as many days at work and be more productive and families will be better off. There will be fewer problems. This is the thing to do. It is the right thing to do. The CBO says it will cost 1 percent increase in premiums. That is it. Not to mention the $70 billion David Satcher, our Surgeon General, said we spend as a result of our failure to provide the treatment for people. Mr. President, $70 billion over 5 years is $350 billion. It is not only morally the right thing to do, it is economically the right thing to do. It is 2001. We should have done this 100 years ago. The insurance industry marches on Washington, DC, every day, and they put the word out, they put the fix in: Kill it in conference. I have come to the Chamber of the Senate today to ask my colleagues to please be strong and hang in there. Senators Harkin and Specter are our key leaders. Hold the line. I have come here to appeal to House Members to not kill this bill, and I have come to appeal to the White House: We need your help. This is the perfect example of compassionate conservatism. It is a matter of ending the discrimination. Kay Jameson, who has written some brilliant books and just won a McArthur Foundation Genius Award--she deserves it--has written that the gap between what we know and what we do is lethal. The tragedy to all this is that these illnesses--I mentioned depression as one example; I could mention many others as well--are diagnosable and treatable, in fact, with a far greater success rate than many of the physical illnesses. My wife Sheila and I started going to some gatherings with an organization called SAVE which was started by Al and Mary Ann Kluzner in Minnesota. Al Kluzner is a Republican. I hope Mary is not. I am teasing. The point is, this illness does not know any political party boundaries. It does not know any economic boundaries. SAVE is an organization of family members who lost loved ones to suicide. One feels that it is their own fault where all the evidence shows this is a brain disease. It used to be it was maybe 50 people coming together, and sometimes now the gatherings are 300 and 400 people. This is all about making sure they get the help. This is all about making sure that the illness is treated. This is all about preventing suicide. This is all about dealing with a broad range of mental illnesses that affect adults and children throughout our country, and yet we have this discrimination. We do not even tell the plans they have to provide the coverage. I want to. We just say if you have mental health coverage, treat it the same as physical health. There should be no discrimination. This insurance industry has tried to put the fix in and stop this in conference committee. I am still hoping we can get the support from the White House. I am still hoping we can pass this legislation because the consequences are so tragic if we fail to pass it. Mr. President, I will stop, otherwise I will go on for hours. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is important. I certainly hope Senators will vote to proceed to this bill. We need to move on and get this work done. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is what I was saying. That is net.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I need only a few minutes. I am in the mood for thanking all three Senators. I, too, thank Senator Conrad. Every time I talk to agriculture people in northwest Minnesota, I talk about Senator Conrad's work and the fact we need to pass this bill now. We have the budget money. It is critically important. Frankly, time is not neutral. As I have said before, I have seen more broken dreams, broken lives, and broken families in rural America than I ever wanted to. This is for real. I thank the Senator from North Dakota very much for his work. I say to my colleague from Iowa, it is a modern miracle this bill came out of committee with strong support. The Senator from Iowa had to deal with a lot of different perspectives. I forget the figures, but we received an announcement the other day that net farm income will be a couple billion dollars a year, a little over $3 billion a year if we pass this bill. I saw it somewhere. That is what it is about: Trying to get farmers leverage to get a price but focus on the environmental credits and CRP and focus on the energy section. People are so excited about renewable energy, economic development, and nutrition. I thank both Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin for their leadership. Senator Lugar has done a great job of being so outspoken and so tenacious about the importance of nutrition programs. This has made a safety net for many vulnerable families in this country and many children. This bill has the right balance. We have been doing an awful lot of negotiation on dairy, and I believe we are getting there. If part of the importance of legislating is to bring people together, I think the Chair of this committee, Senator Harkin, has done a masterful job. I cannot say I agree with every provision in this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not want to rudely interrupt, but I want to take a minute to make a unanimous consent request. I see the ranking member of the Veterans' Committee in the Chamber. Shortly, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass a veterans homeless bill. I will give my colleagues the background. Three weeks prior to the Thanksgiving recess, I came to the Chamber to try to pass a version of the homeless veterans assistance bill. Lane Evans has done a lot of work on the House side, so has Chris Smith. It is an excellent bill. We passed this bill out of the Veterans' Committee by a unanimous vote. I had to come to the Chamber four times asking unanimous consent to pass the legislation. There was an anonymous hold. Again, I say to colleagues, any Senator certainly can object, but this whole business of anonymous holds and no arguments made is unbelievable. So I had to say to my colleagues on the other side that on nonemergency measures, I was putting a hold on everything. My hold was not anonymous. I said on the floor--it is me--I am putting a hold on it. We have been doing all this work with Democrats and Republicans on the House side. Chris Smith, who is chairman of the Veterans' Committee in the House, has been especially helpful on the bill. We had strong bipartisan support on the Senate side as well. We preconferenced it, and we have unanimity of opinion. This veterans homeless bill is superb legislation. About a third of the homeless adult males in the country are veterans. Many of them are Vietnam vets. Most struggle with posttraumatic stress syndrome. Most struggle with addiction. They do not get help. It is a scandal. This legislation is one-stop shopping, places where people can go for community-based care, mental health services, treatment, and assistance in getting affordable housing. My God, we could not do anything that is better. This legislation came back from the House. I thought we certainly would pass it. I know the chair of the Veterans' Committee in the House, a Republican, has urged colleagues to do so. Now I understand we have another one of these anonymous holds. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 201, H.R. 2716.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I had gone further, I would have mentioned also, with the support of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, the unanimous consent request was that the amendment be agreed to; the act, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. Of course, my colleague from Idaho has objected. I am a bit of an emotional Senator. I say to my good friend from Idaho that unlike the Senator who has put an anonymous hold on this bill, my hold is not anonymous. I have a hold on every single resolution and legislation introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that is nonemergency--all of it. It is not anonymous. I have just said it here. I did it for 3 weeks before Thanksgiving. I cannot believe it. Now we are back at this again. It comes over here from the House with the full approval of the chair of the Veterans' Committee--I think unanimous support--support of both Senator Rockefeller, who chairs the Veterans' Committee, and Senator Specter. We have been working on this for several years. It is a scandal. Is it too much to ask that we get this support to veterans? People are giving all these speeches about how great it is that our men and women are serving our country, they are in harm's way, we support them--and we do, I agree--and then when they get out of the Armed Services and they are now veterans, all of a sudden we do not say thank you any longer. You don't think you can find it in your hearts to pass this bill that is so important to this group of veterans in this country? That is my first point. My second point deals with my indignation, for which I apologize. I am just getting sick and tired of these anonymous holds. I really am. Therefore, I say to my good friend from Idaho, I know this is not his position. He has to come out here by proxy, representing someone who has put an anonymous hold on this bill again, in which case I have a hold on all legislation, all resolutions introduced by my good friends on the other side of the aisle that are nonemergency.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield. I do not yield the floor. I will be pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I note my colleague from Texas is in the Chamber. I will only take 1 more minute. I thank the Senator from Idaho. I take his remarks as being very sincere. Again, the reason I have to do this, I say to my colleague, is because I went through this for 3 weeks prior to Thanksgiving. I came to the Senate Chamber 4, 5 times and never could get approval. The hold was anonymous. Last week, I tried to get approval, and I have tried to get approval since. It is out there. Everybody knows what the bill is. We have been working on this a long time. There is strong bipartisan support for the bill. I thank my colleague. I hope we can work it out. In the meantime, before we work it out, I want all of my good friends on the other side to know my hold is not anonymous. I have a hold on all their resolutions, amendments, and bills unless they are emergency.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will start again. I know the proponents--and certainly the Senator from Alaska stands out in this matter of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge--feel strongly about their position. But there are those of us who feel just as strongly the National Wildlife Refuge should remain, as it has always been, our Nation's last protected Arctic wilderness. The Senator from Alaska was asking the Senator from Connecticut about how long this has been going on. I have been here 11 years. I remember the first filibuster I was involved in was against this. We were successful. I think we will be successful again. In the last 11 years, I have heard a lot of arguments about why we should drill, but none of them hold up to scrutiny. In 1991, we had the debate on the energy bill, and we were told that the Trans-Alaska pipeline would run dry by the turn of the century without drilling the refuge. Today, even the oil companies acknowledge having enough oil to keep the Trans-Alaska pipeline flowing for at least another 30 years and perhaps another 40 years. In 1995, we were told drilling the refuge was necessary to balance the Federal budget. But we managed to balance the budget without these speculative revenues, and by the way, it would have stayed that way without the irresponsible tax cut passed earlier this year. Instead, what do my Republican colleagues do? It is not part of this amendment-- on the House side, $30 billion of tax credits for oil companies that made about $40 billion last year in profits. What other arguments have we heard? Earlier this year, we were told that we should drill the refuge to deal with California's electricity crisis. Never mind the fact the State gets less than 1 percent of its electricity from oil. Then we were told to drill to bring the prices down at the pump. Never mind the fact the prices are set on the global market and that as the Governor of Alaska has even acknowledged, there is a zero sum relationship between Alaskan oil and prices paid by working families for gasoline or home heating oil. I find it ironic that the same Senators who call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge have nothing at all to say about the wave of oil company mergers. I say to my colleagues, if you were so concerned about consumers and about the prices that working families pay at the pump, where were you when Exxon and Mobil merged? When BP took over Amoco? When BP took over Arco? And now when Phillips and Conoco are seeking Government approval? So what is today's flavor? What's today's argument? The Senator from Alaska says we need to drill the refuge as part of our campaign to combat terror--as a way to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Let us look at the facts: According to the oil industry's own testimony before the Senate Energy Committee, it would take at least a decade to tap even a drop of oil from the refuge. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated, with oil prices at $20 per barrel, there is only 3.2 billion barrels of commercially recoverable oil in the refuge--not in one field, but spread out in potentially dozens of small pockets all across the Delaware-sized Coastal Plain. I know the Senator from Alaska argues there's alot more than that. But here is what the USGS said in its report: ``We conclude that there are no Prudhoe Bay-sized accumulations in the 1002 area. . . .'' The bottom line is this: Drilling the Arctic Refuge, even under the optimistic estimates, would be unlikely to ever meet more than 1-2 percent of our oil needs, even at peak production. In fact, we could drill every national park and wildlife refuge in America and we'd still be importing the majority of our oil. The answer, clearly, is to look to the future. What can we do instead? By increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks by just 3 miles per gallon, we can save more than 1 million barrels of oil a day or five times the amount of oil the refuge might produce. This would do far more to clean the air, reduce prices for consumers, and make us less dependent on imported oil. The fact is a focus on renewable energy and saved energy is our future: Households that generate electricity from rooftop solar arrays, farmers who harvest an additional ``crop'' by the winds that blow over their fields, or the biomass waste that is generated, and city streets inhabited by quiet and pollution-free electric vehicles. Do we want real energy security? Former CIA Director James Woolsey recently testified that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is one of the more vulnerable parts of our energy infrastructure; that, even if you had no environmental objection, it would not make a whole lot of sense to become more dependent on the pipeline. I don't know whether he is right or wrong. But I do think we need to become much less dependent on oil as a resource and that doing so will enhance our security, help consumers, and provide for a healthier environment. Renewable energy, alternative fuels, and increased efficiency are the keys to the future. They are, as Woolsey testified, less vulnerable to terrorism. They also make America less vulnerable to the wild price swings caused by the OPEC cartel. I certainly look forward to this kind of energy policy for our country. In conclusion, let me say this: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure worth far more as a lasting legacy for future generations than plundered for a short-term speculative supply of oil that will not enhance our security or help consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture and help us move onto the Railroad Retirement bill and other important matters at hand. There is a marriage we can make, and it has to do with this nexus between how we produce and consume energy and the environment. We can-- no pun intended--barrel, not down the oil path, we can barrel down the path of renewable energy: wind, solar, biomass, electricity, biodiesel--clean alternative fuels, safe energy, efficient energy use, small business, clean technology, keep capital in our community, stop acid rain in lakes, stop polluting the environment: the air, the water, and the land. This is a marriage made in heaven, and it should be made right here in our own country. I know the oil companies do not like this. I know that is not their future. But it is the future for consumers in our country. Coming from Minnesota, a cold-weather State at the other end of the pipeline, it is a no-brainer. When we import barrels of oil and natural gas, we export billions of dollars from our State--probably about $12 billion a year. That is not our future. We have an answer. A lot of it comes from rural Minnesota, it comes from farm country. It is a far better path. Put the emphasis on renewable energy policy and safe energy. Put the emphasis on small business, on technology, keeping capital in our community, and on the environment. As the Catholic bishop said 15 years ago, we are all but strangers and guests on this land. That is the direction in which we should be going. That is why I am strongly opposed to this amendment introduced by the Senator from Alaska. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Chair, it is my understanding we each have 10 minutes, is that correct, in morning business?