Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I certainly understand the pro- ponents----

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary achievements of Dr. Steve Hyman as Director of the National Institute of Mental Health at the National Institutes of Health, and to acknowledge his departure as he moves forward to become Provost of his alma mater, Harvard University. As we strive to maintain the recent Senate victory passing mental health parity legislation, I am reminded again about how fortunate it was to have Steve's leadership during these critical years. His expertise and remarkable ability to convey complex scientific information to the public and to Congress have brought us so much further in the struggle to reduce stigma and to recognize as a society that mental illnesses are real and treatable. The basic scientific facts of mental illness are straightforward, but the difficulties encountered by those who want to eliminate the cruel and unjust stigma that surrounds diseases like schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder and others have been monumental. Mental illnesses represent a major portion of the disease burden in the United States and worldwide; depression is the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and throughout the developed world. And yet, our efforts to reduce stigma and provide fair treatment for people with mental illness are still needed. Parity for mental health treatment is a civil rights issue, and the fight for the rights of those with mental illness will not be stopped. When Steve first came to NIMN, he immediately stated unequivocally that there is no scientific basis for treating mental disorders any differently than other illnesses with respect to insurance coverage. That was his objective and straightforward view as a distinguished neuroscientist. I have watched Steve for these last 5\1/2\ years at the helm of NIMH, and he has clearly taken the scientific study of mental illness very far. His leadership and his extraordinary talents as a scientist, communicator, and teacher have made him a major force in advancing the public's awareness of the brain and its dysfunctions. Although stigma still exists, these are very few who dare to challenge the scientific record that mental illnesses are very real disorders of the brain, often disrupting that which makes us most human, our behavior. I am particularly pleased that Steve has been at the forefront of the efforts to include the voices of patients and families in the overall planning process at the NIMH. He has sponsored public, participatory meetings in various areas of the country, not only to bring information about the latest scientific breakthroughs, but also to seek input from people who live in diverse cultures. To his credit, Steve understood that this process was necessary so that we ensure that the NIMH addressed questions that are relevant and important to all Americans, and to include this information in planning the future of NIMH's research agenda. Steve also enthusiastically supported the effort to include public members as part of the scientific peer review panels that review grant applications. Steve believes, as I do, that the views of patients and family members are crucial because they offer a unique view of research. They ask, Steve often said, the ``so what'' questions that are critical to the real lives of people: Will this research help those who are suffering? Will it make a difference? As he departs, I know that many of my colleagues join me in wishing him well and thanking him for all he has done to further scientific research and treatment of mental illness. I am confident that Steve has placed the NIMH on a course that promises to build on the remarkable achievements already achieved, one that will take full advantage of scientific opportunities and the extraordinarily challenging public health needs that we as a country are now facing. Dr. Steve Hyman will be sorely missed, but I know he will continue to be a major force for the improvement of mental health care worldwide.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that we are on a motion to proceed to the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act and tomorrow we will have a cloture vote. It is a vote on whether or not we will proceed to the bill. At the moment, this legislation is being blocked. This legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House. The vote was 384 to 33. There are 75 cosponsors in the Senate. It was not hard for many of us to become original cosponsors. It just seems to be the right thing to do: Expansion of benefits to widows and widowers--I am not going to go through the specifics because others have spoken about the bill-- liberalized early retirement, and liberalized vesting. The best politics I know--I think I can get a smile from the Senator from Georgia who is presiding--is at the Minnesota State Fair. It is incredible; in 2 weeks, half the State's population comes. It is very serious politics. Nobody has a lobbyist with them. Everybody counsels one, and no more than one. People come up to wherever you are and talk about issues that are important to them, calls they have made to your office, letters they have written, whether you responded, whether you helped. It is very personal and very important. It is the very best politics I know. It is ``grassroots'' politics at its best. At the last Minnesota State Fair, did I ever hear from some of these retired railroad workers and their families. This is important to them. They made a very poignant appeal. This is important to their financial lives from their point of view, and from my point of view it is a matter of fairness. I do not believe they understand--by the way, I am not putting them down for this. I do not think most people understand Senate rules and how things can be blocked or filibustered. Other Senators would wonder about me if I were to say: How dare you block this. I have done a fair amount of blocking during my time in the Senate. Frankly, unlimited debate and unlimited amendments is what makes this body unique. It means any one Senator, if they know the rules and know the leverage, if they want to change the topic of conversation, if they want to focus on a different issue, if they feel strongly about something, can speak out for what they believe and what they think is best for the people they represent. They can fight hard. Every Senator has a right to use their rights. That is what is happening with this bill. I appeal to colleagues to let this legislation go through. This is important to many hard-working families as they move into their sixties, seventies, and hopefully eighties and nineties. It is important to them. I appeal to my colleagues to let us proceed. I say to my colleagues-- if they want to amend this bill, go ahead, but I appeal to colleagues not to add on different legislation which will then create a quagmire and snarl everything up. We should push this legislation forward and pass it. It is the right thing to do for these families. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001. This act represents a critically important turning point in the readiness of our public health system to respond to the challenge of bioterrorism. In many places in our Nation the public health infrastructure has been underfunded and understaffed. Many of our public health workers have been working day and night since September 11. The anthrax attack has demonstrated that our system can be overwhelmed by a bioterrorist attack. This bill provides essential assistance to our network of local and State health departments, public health laboratories, hospitals and health care facilities so that they can protect all of us in the event of further bioterrorist attack, or of other infectious disease outbreaks. Mr. President, we in Minnesota have long been aware of the dangers of bioterrorism thanks to the efforts of Mike Osterholm, head of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. But since September 11, everywhere that I have traveled in Minnesota I have been hearing about the need for preparedness. I am very glad that this bill is providing for bioterrorism preparedness. This bill provides block grants to states to improve public health departments and to get the equipment they need, and to help local governments safeguard their communities from these threats. The bill also provides grants to hospitals and other health care facilities to improve their abilities to respond quickly and effectively to a bioterrorist attack. I am glad this bill emphasizes getting funds to the local level. That is very important. In fact, I would have even gone further in setting aside funds specifically for localities. I do have some reservations about the scope of the antitrust exemption the bill in its current form provides to the drug industry and others in connection with the development of countermeasures against bioterrorism. I fully understand the urgency of the situation and the need to create ``safe space'' for the work necessary to bring such countermeasures on line. However, I do think we need to tread carefully when it comes to further insulating the drug industry from the discipline of competitive market forces. I hope that my colleagues will work with me as we move forward on this very important measure to ensure the fullest possible protection for American consumers consistent with the development and production of necessary countermeasures As chair of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I am particularly glad that this bill recognizes the threat of bioterrorism in the workplace. Virtually all of the antrax attack involved places where people work, including media offices, the U.S. Postal Service and here in the Congress. I am especially happy that this bill includes language which I had suggested to direct the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to enhance and expand research on the health and safety of workers who are at risk for biological threats or attacks in the work place. Finally, I am particularly pleased that my provisions regarding mental health were included in this important bill. We know from the outstanding hearing on mental health and terrorism, chaired by Senator Kennedy in the HELP committee, that the preparedness and response activities for the mental health consequences of bioterrorism are as important as all other public health initiatives this Congress can support. Dr. Kerry Kelly, Chief Medical Officer of the New York Fire Department, reported at that hearing that since September 11, the men and women of the New York Fire Department and the families of those who were lost have had to endure a tremendous sense of grief. She said that, ``the emotional well-being of our department requires intervention to provide stress debriefing, bereavement counseling, and continued psychological support of our members, our families, and the children affected by this event.'' The mental health provisions in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001 support Federal, State, and local efforts to enhance the preparedness of public health institutions, providers of medical care, and other emergency service personnel, including firefighters, to detect, diagnose, and respond to the mental health consequences of a biological threat or attack. Additionally, State and local emergency measures ensure that hospitals and health care providers have adequate capacity and plans in place to provide mental health services to meet the need of vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the disabled. Training programs are also authorized to educate health care professionals to recognize and treat the mental health consequences of a biological threat or attack, including the consequences for children. We know one for thing for sure. It is a mistake to believe that bioterrorism events cannot have lasting impact on the mental health of the individuals who experience them. Let us not repeat the mistakes that were made in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, when the trauma experienced by veterans was ignored or trivialized until well after the optimal time for treatment was past. We have learned from the outstanding research funded by the VA and NIMH of the severity of the disorder and the effective ways in which it can be treated. We must ensure that all Federal, State, and local public health efforts to respond to and prepare for bioterrorist attacks take advantage of this knowledge. I do not believe that mental health problems are a widespread or inevitable consequence of bioterrorist attacks. But as we heard from the experts at the HELP hearing, we should not underestimate the severe impact that these events have on people's sense of identity and safety, and how the multiple losses and horrific experiences they go through has the potential to affect them for a long while. There have been many reports in the media of the heightened sense of anxiety and vulnerability throughout our country. These feelings are normal and I have confidence that most Americans will be able to deal with these crises. But I also firmly believe that the Federal, State, and local governments can play a major role in helping people to understand what has happened to them, and establish programs for mental health services for those who will need it. We in Congress are doing our part by the inclusion of these mental health initiatives within this bill. In closing, this bill represents an essential step forward in safeguarding both the physical and mental health of our Nation in the event of further bioterrorist attack.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I say to the whip that I will not object, I want to be clear that on the record tonight the Senate, in wrap-up, will proceed to Calendar No. 191, S. 739, the Homeless Veterans Improvement Act, which Congressman Lane Evans and I have worked on for the last 3 weeks. There has been an anonymous hold. My understanding is that tonight this will pass in wrap-up without any objection.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his comments. I think historians will record that he is probably one of the most forceful advocates for working families in the history of the Senate. I have a statement by Joseph Welcome, a mold maker who lost his job. His wife, who was in the travel industry, lost her job. He said yesterday: My wife and I have worked hard our entire lives. We earned everything we got. Unfortunately, like many thousands of Americans, we have run into hard times. We want to use the system as it was intended to be used to get us back to work as fast as possible with a marketable skill set. Unfortunately, that cannot be done in 6 months in today's economy. That is why we need your help now, not 6 months or a year from now. We need it now or we may very well become a statistic on the welfare roles, putting even more of a tax burden on the American public. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue this is not an emergency. Last month saw the biggest 1-month increase in unemployment in 21 years. Nearly 7.5 million Americans are now out of work. But, of course, those who are discouraged workers and are not counted as unemployed are not included in the statistics. Those who can only find part-time jobs and cannot really support their families on those jobs are not included in the statistics. And all of the working poor people who work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and still do not make poverty wages, they are not included either. Analysts warn that another 1 or 2 million workers could lose their jobs over the next 12 months. I think it could be worse than that. The unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, up .5 percent from the previous month, and it is going to continue to go up. Consumer confidence is at the lowest level it has been in 7 years. All of this combined with lagging consumer confidence can perpetuate a downward spiral. Consumers, fearful about the future, will spend less, which will cause us to sink even deeper into recession. These are difficult economic times. For many families in Minnesota and in the country, this is also a situation where time is not neutral; time is not on their side. If they do not get an extension of unemployment benefits, if they do not have any health care coverage for themselves and their loved ones, it will be broken dreams and broken lives and broken families. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to cast a vote saying this is not an emergency. If you were out of work and you didn't know where your next dollar was going to come from and you were going to run out of unemployment benefits and you were terrified that you would not be able to support health care coverage for your wife or your husband or your loved ones, you sure as heck would consider this to be an emergency. Sometimes we are all too generous with the suffering of others. Most economists agree on certain things if we are going to have a successful economic stimulus package. This is not just about justice and helping those people who are flat on their back. This is also about how do we get this economy going again? What kind of investments do we need to make? All economists I know say that for an economic stimulus package to be successful, it must be immediate, have an immediate effect; it must be temporary; it must put resources in the hands of those who will spend it to stimulate the economy; and that it will not be harmful to our long-term economic interests. The Republican proposals by the House and the Senate and supported by this administration fail to meet all of these tests, and the Democratic plan meets all these criteria. Taxes? The Republican plan provides tax relief for millionaires and profitable corporations, even if those corporations cut jobs. The Democratic plan provides tax cuts for working families and businesses that invest and create jobs. The Republican plan spends $121 billion to speed up the tax cut rates in the $2 trillion tax cut enacted earlier this year. Under the Republican plan, every millionaire in America will receive over $50,000 in tax cuts over the next 4 years and, by contrast, the Republican plan would put zero into a typical family of four with an annual income of $50,000 a year, precisely the kind of family, if given help, that is more likely to consume and put resources back into our economy. The Republican plan has numerous tax breaks for multinational corporations. The most egregious is the repeal of the alternative minimum tax. Refunds go all the way back to 1986, 15 years ago; $22 billion cost over 10 years. As Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said: The GOP plan would put zero, yes zero into the hands of a typical family of 4 with an annual income of $50,000 a year. Giving tax relief to corporations for past investments and AMT repeal may pad their balance sheets but will not lead to more investment now when we need it. Bailouts for airlines did not stop them from laying off workers and adding to the country's unemployment problem. The Democratic plan, by contrast, provides immediate tax rebates to 45 million Americans who did not receive rebates last summer, which will spur consumer spending and immediate tax relief to businesses, which will spur investment. Mr. President, 44 percent of the individual tax cuts in the Republican plan go to the wealthiest 1 percent--it is Robin Hood in reverse--the people who are least likely to spend the savings, while only 18 percent goes to low- and moderate-income families. Colleagues, get the tax breaks or tax rebates or whatever you want to call it--if you are going to do that--into the hands of people who will go out and buy a washing machine because they need it, and they will spend, and that is what we need for the economy. Don't go forward with Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts and corporation tax breaks for multinational corporations which are already doing fine and are not going to necessarily even spend in the economy. Even worse, most of the Republican tax cuts take effect after the current economic crisis may very well have ended. By definition, they are not economic stimulus effects. The last point I make on the tax cut is telling. The Republican plan is not an economic stimulus plan; it is a shamefaced effort to use our current crisis; that is to say, the misery of hard-working men and women who have lost their jobs and health insurance in this economic downturn, as an excuse for lining the pockets of wealthy individuals and multinational corporations. It is the antithesis of sound fiscal policy. It is unfair, and it is ineffective. Unemployment--my gosh, people are out of work. Our plan says let's add 13 weeks to unemployment insurance. Our plan, under the work of Senator Baucus and many other Senators on our side, says let's reform unemployment insurance and let's cover part-time workers. Economists tell you every dollar of unemployment insurance paid to unemployed workers expands the economy by $2.15. This is a win-win. Can't we help people flat on their backs who, in turn, will consume with that additional assistance? What happened to people in New York, what happened to people at the Pentagon, what happened to people in Pennsylvania, what has happened in our country has taught all of us that we need each other as never before. There is a great sense of community. People are trying to help one another. I think we understand in a certain profound sense that we all do better when we all do better. Can't some of that community spirit apply to what we are doing in the Senate? Don't tell all of the men and women who are out of work in Minnesota and all across the country, and their children, it is not an emergency. It is an emergency for them. It is an emergency for their families. And it is an emergency for our country. The Republican plan says that if you go beyond New York and you go beyond Virginia and you go beyond Pennsylvania, you have to have had a 30-percent increase in unemployment before any of what meager benefits they have even kick in. Minnesota, as I look over past history, in some of the worst recessions did not have a 30-percent increase in unemployment. I am a Senator from Minnesota. I have to fight for the people in Minnesota. I have to make sure that for people who are in such difficult times through no fault of their own, we are going to have a safety net. The Republican plan will not help these people at all. Health care coverage in the Republican plan is literally an asterisk. Their plan does not guarantee one dime to laid-off workers to maintain coverage. In fact, Treasury Secretary O'Neill says he would strongly encourage President Bush to veto any economic recovery plan that includes health care coverage for laid-off workers. The administration said last week that if we had too much by way of unemployment insurance and health care coverage, then people would not have an incentive to go back to work. Do you know how insulting that is to hard-working people? Our plan says we will cover 75 percent of COBRA coverage. Mr. Welcome said yesterday: My God, I can't afford 4, 5, or 6--I can't even remember--hundred dollars of a month. I can't afford that kind of coverage. We help families like the Welcome family. Then, for those families who work for small businesses, so they are not eligible for COBRA, we expand medical assistance coverage in the States. In addition, we respond to the Governors of our States. And what were the Governors of our States saying? They were saying: Please add on more to the Federal contribution to medical assistance because we are in a recession; we have more people out of work; we no longer have the surpluses. These are hard economic times, and we need some additional help. The Republican plan does not respond one bit to the economic pain that we hear about from people in the country. We are being told by this procedural move by my colleague from Texas that this is not an emergency. I met with some families in Minnesota 2 weeks ago. We were in one of the workers' homes. There were some television cameras. I said: Are you sure you want to do this? They said they did. It was a seminar-type discussion. I hardly talked at all. Tell me what your concerns are. These are people who have long work experience. They had been working most of their adult lives. They are out of work through no fault of their own. I think more than anything else, they talked about health care coverage. They certainly are hoping for unemployment benefits to tide them over. A number of them, interestingly enough, talked about job training. If I had my way, we would add some provisions, including some money for workforce development. But, most importantly, they talked about their fears that there would be no health care coverage at all for their families. Senators, again I hate to put it this way, but if it were your family, if you were out of work, if you were worried that you wouldn't be able to afford COBRA, and there wouldn't be enough to help you if you were eligible for COBRA, and if there were not a specific benefit that would enable you to still be able to provide health care coverage for your families, I guarantee you would consider it an emergency. It is an emergency for many families in our country. We must respond to this economic pain. In the words of Rabbi Hillel, if not now, when? Then there is homeland defense, Senator Byrd's proposal on which many of us worked. I have said a lot of times, as I am sure every Senator has--I guess we reached different conclusions--with fire chiefs, first responders, they told me. I sure learned it back then. People are anxious and people are worried. Please get an infrastructure of public safety and, yes, public health. Dr. Michael Home is from Minnesota. Dr. Home has made their case in a compelling way. Get the money to our communities because people will be safe where they live, where they work, and where their children go to school. We need the resources. In the homeland defense part of this bill that we brought to the floor, it is an obvious marriage. On the one hand, we get the money to first responders. I have been pushing for public safety, for firefighters, and for public health money so that we have the antibiotics and the vaccines, so people are trained, so that emergency doctors are trained, so that our public health nurses are trained; food safety; border security; airport security. At the same time, Senators, you create jobs. I don't really know what is going on here. I think there are probably two things. No. 1, I think too many of my colleagues on the other side, by definition, with their objection, don't quite get this as an emergency. No. 2, given what they want to do with all of these tax cuts, and repeal corporate taxes going back to 1986, let me assume they are doing this in good faith, because they always do it in good faith, in which case I have to believe they believe in the same trickle-down economics we have been through before, which put us in such desperate shape. We have been through this trickle-down economic strategy, or philosophy, or policy. It left us with double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and an economy in shatters. Paul Krugman in today's New York Times has an op-ed piece that makes this point. I ask unanimous consent that his full op-ed piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as he said: The new round of tax cuts is supposedly intended as post- terror economic stimulus. But recent remarks by Dick Armey give the game away. Defending the bill he and Tom DeLay rammed through the House--the one that gives huge retroactive tax cuts to big corporations--he asserted that it would create 170,000 jobs next year. That would add a whopping 0.13 percent to employment in this country. So thanks to Mr. Armey's efforts next year's unemployment rate might be 6.4 percent instead of 6.5. Aren't you thrilled? Let's do the math here. This bill has a $100 billion price tag in its first year, more than $200 billion over three years. So even on Mr. Armey's self-justifying estimate, we're talking about giving at least $600,000 in corporate tax breaks for every job created. That's trickle-down economics without the trickle-down. That is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing, trickle-down economics without the trickle down. At the same time, they are now trying to make the case that we don't have an emergency, so we can't get an extension of unemployment benefits to people who are flat on their backs, we can't make sure they have health care coverage for their families or for their children and their loved ones. They are profoundly mistaken. If these are the differences between Democrats and Republicans, then these are differences that make a difference. I could not be prouder than to stand out here on the floor and get a chance to be 1 of 100 Members who get to speak for what we have proposed as an economic recovery plan. It is not all that I would want--my colleagues know me; I always push for more and more and more--but I think it would make a difference. I am so profoundly disappointed that we have out here a procedural objection. My gosh, go to town and talk in the Cafe Wilmer or any number of other coffee shops in Minnesota. People say: Say what? There was a procedural objection that this wasn't an emergency? Say what? But you know that I don't have to explain that. Senators on the other side of the aisle and those who support the Senator from Texas will have to explain that. I would like to finish with one other point. This is a small point. I see my colleague from Iowa out here on the floor, and a Senator whom I like so much that I will have to get into this with him as well. I note that today there is a meeting of the ``bankruptcy reform'' conference committee. Colleagues and Senator Grassley, a good friend, being out of work is the No. 1 reason that people file for bankruptcy. Medical bills are the No. 2 reason. This is no time to be pushing through this bankruptcy bill, which is too punitive and too harsh and which will make it hard for people to rebuild their lives. I always thought the credit card companies got way more than they deserved. I never thought it was balanced. But this is no time, colleagues, to push through a harsh bankruptcy bill in these economic times. There are too many colleagues out here who want to speak. If I continue to go on, it could be for another 3 hours. So I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want the floor back.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Dayton and Harkin, I am introducing the ``Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports, FANS, Act of 2001.'' The goal of this important legislation is to limit major league baseball's antitrust exemption as it relates to decisions to eliminate or relocate a major league baseball team. This is an important piece of legislation, made necessary by major league baseball owners' unfortunate decision last week to eliminate two teams, with the prospect of at least two more eliminations to come. I am pleased to say that Representative John Conyers, along with a number of other Members, including the entire Minnesota delegation, will be introducing an identical measure in the House today as well. I have said on other occasions that I think this so-called ``contraction'' decision by major league baseball is a betrayal by owners who have put their own profits before loyalty to fans and their communities. I know that there are a number of efforts to respond to this decision by the owners. The bill we are introducing today is but one of those. I expect the bill to be referred to the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate and our hope is that the Committees in both Houses will be able to organize prompt hearings. Our country has tremendously urgent priorities. We have the war in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism, and our urgent need for economic stimulus legislation to keep our nation from plummeting even further into recession. Unfortunately, however, major league baseball owners did not give us a choice on timing. They have picked a particularly inauspicious time to announce their unilateral, short- sighted and self-serving decision, so we must respond. Because they have further announced their intention to name in the near future the particular teams they plan to eliminate, we have no choice but to urge quick consideration of this legislation. As I noted, the bill would limit baseball's antitrust exemption as it relates to decisions to eliminate or relocate a major league baseball team. The legislation subjects the owners to the antitrust laws when they unilaterally decide to eliminate or relocate a team. In all other respects, the bill tracks the Curt Flood Act of 1997, which repealed the antitrust laws as they apply to the employment of major league baseball players. As with the Curt Flood Act, the bill is carefully crafted to ensure that it does not limit any prerogatives of the minor leagues. We proceed from a pragmatic desire to achieve a broad base of support in Congress. With the help of the Administration, we could push this measure forward. As Senator Dayton and I noted last week in a letter to the President, achieving Congressional action on this legislation will be exceedingly difficult in view of other urgent legislative issues facing Congress and the Administration. We will need the President to weigh in on this and I once again call on him to do so. Mr. President, we must act to hold major league baseball owners accountable for their decisions. I urge my colleagues to join us in co- sponsoring this measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Dayton and Harkin, I am introducing the ``Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports, FANS, Act of 2001.'' The goal of this important legislation is to limit major league baseball's antitrust exemption as it relates to decisions to eliminate or relocate a major league baseball team. This is an important piece of legislation, made necessary by major league baseball owners' unfortunate decision last week to eliminate two teams, with the prospect of at least two more eliminations to come. I am pleased to say that Representative John Conyers, along with a number of other Members, including the entire Minnesota delegation, will be introducing an identical measure in the House today as well. I have said on other occasions that I think this so-called ``contraction'' decision by major league baseball is a betrayal by owners who have put their own profits before loyalty to fans and their communities. I know that there are a number of efforts to respond to this decision by the owners. The bill we are introducing today is but one of those. I expect the bill to be referred to the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate and our hope is that the Committees in both Houses will be able to organize prompt hearings. Our country has tremendously urgent priorities. We have the war in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism, and our urgent need for economic stimulus legislation to keep our nation from plummeting even further into recession. Unfortunately, however, major league baseball owners did not give us a choice on timing. They have picked a particularly inauspicious time to announce their unilateral, short- sighted and self-serving decision, so we must respond. Because they have further announced their intention to name in the near future the particular teams they plan to eliminate, we have no choice but to urge quick consideration of this legislation. As I noted, the bill would limit baseball's antitrust exemption as it relates to decisions to eliminate or relocate a major league baseball team. The legislation subjects the owners to the antitrust laws when they unilaterally decide to eliminate or relocate a team. In all other respects, the bill tracks the Curt Flood Act of 1997, which repealed the antitrust laws as they apply to the employment of major league baseball players. As with the Curt Flood Act, the bill is carefully crafted to ensure that it does not limit any prerogatives of the minor leagues. We proceed from a pragmatic desire to achieve a broad base of support in Congress. With the help of the Administration, we could push this measure forward. As Senator Dayton and I noted last week in a letter to the President, achieving Congressional action on this legislation will be exceedingly difficult in view of other urgent legislative issues facing Congress and the Administration. We will need the President to weigh in on this and I once again call on him to do so. Mr. President, we must act to hold major league baseball owners accountable for their decisions. I urge my colleagues to join us in co- sponsoring this measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to urge your support for amending the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, SSCRA, to expand the protections of that Act to National Guard personnel protecting our Nation's airports and nuclear facilities. Specifically, this bill will provide civil relief to National Guard personnel mobilized by State governors in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, or who are otherwise called up at the request of the President. The SSCRA is an important Act that provides 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 the men and women of our National Guard called-up to protect our nation's airports. Men and women of the National Guard serve the Nation and our States as a unique organization among all branches of the United States 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 of Minnesota. National Guard members are integral members of their communities, they and their families live, shop, work, worship and go to schools in our cities and towns. It is this link between the community and its citizen-soldiers that makes the National Guard unique and so vital to our homeland security. It is imperative we give them the protections of the SSCRA they rightly deserve. I would like to take a moment to explain the protections offered by the SSCRA. Most people have debts or financial obligations of one kind or another, mortgages on family homes, debts related to buying cars, charge account debts from buying things with credit cards, or child- support payments. The SSCRA does not wipe out any debts or other financial obligations of people who have been called up for active duty. But it does give them certain protections. A few of these are especially important because they affect a large number of people: Section 526 states that interest of no more than 6 percent a year can be charged by a lender on a debt which a person on active duty in military service incurred before he or she went on active duty. This is very important. The men and women of our National Guard are people like you and me, they've bought things on credit and have jobs that allow them to pay off that debt. But now, many have taken pay cuts to protect our airports. Capping interest on their debt is important to ensuring their financial security. Other sections of the SSCRA protect people from being evicted from rental property or from mortgaged property, against cancellation of life insurance, from having their property sold to pay taxes that are due; and from getting stuck in a lease, some Guardsmen may have recently rented a new apartment only to find their duty is going to send them far from their new property. Unfortunately, the SSCRA only applies to National Guard personnel mobilized directly by the President of the United States, and does not protect those mobilized by state governors at the request of the President, as is the case with those National Guard now protecting our airports. This distinction is inequitable and actually, makes no sense. Service performed by those mobilized by a governor at the request of the President face the same problems as those mobilized by the President directly. It is only right that they receive the same protections. Although the President is clearly authorized to mobilize the National Guard himself, on September 27 he instead requested State governors to mobilize their own National Guard personnel. He did so again last Friday. Under this type of mobilization the National Guard remains under the full operational control of the State, providing the necessary flexibility to deal with security issues that are better handled at the State and local level. While National Guard mobilized in this manner receive the general benefits of active duty military personnel, such as VA Veterans status and Tricare family health insurance, they do not receive the additional benefit of civil relief under the SSCRA. In Minnesota, soldiers have received orders to provide protection at airports until as late as March 28, 2002. These soldiers are serving in a full-time status, six to seven days per week. While the Minnesota National Guard initially began providing security at the Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester airports, they were recently informed that they will provide security at five additional Minnesota airports. This means they will spend less time with their families and employers. Some of them face the real possibility of financial ruin due to their time away from work. They have mortgages and car payments, things they may have easily expected to be able to pay. Some have college debt and others child support payments. Many have taken pay cuts to leave their professions to come out and protect our airports, to protect us. We must act now to provide them the civil relief they rightly deserve. And we must be aware that National Guard units may soon be asked to secure other facilities such as power plants and water treatment facilities in the near future. Addressing these issues now will ease the burden placed upon these soldiers now and in the future. It is my belief that the SSCRA was never meant to purposely exclude National Guard mobilized in the manner they have been today, we simply could never have imagined the need for round-the-clock security at our airports when this Act was written. September 11 changed so many things for us. And it is time we change the SSCRA to ensure we provide benefits to protect those who are protecting us.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to urge your support for amending the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, SSCRA, to expand the protections of that Act to National Guard personnel protecting our Nation's airports and nuclear facilities. Specifically, this bill will provide civil relief to National Guard personnel mobilized by State governors in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, or who are otherwise called up at the request of the President. The SSCRA is an important Act that provides 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 the men and women of our National Guard called-up to protect our nation's airports. Men and women of the National Guard serve the Nation and our States as a unique organization among all branches of the United States 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 of Minnesota. National Guard members are integral members of their communities, they and their families live, shop, work, worship and go to schools in our cities and towns. It is this link between the community and its citizen-soldiers that makes the National Guard unique and so vital to our homeland security. It is imperative we give them the protections of the SSCRA they rightly deserve. I would like to take a moment to explain the protections offered by the SSCRA. Most people have debts or financial obligations of one kind or another, mortgages on family homes, debts related to buying cars, charge account debts from buying things with credit cards, or child- support payments. The SSCRA does not wipe out any debts or other financial obligations of people who have been called up for active duty. But it does give them certain protections. A few of these are especially important because they affect a large number of people: Section 526 states that interest of no more than 6 percent a year can be charged by a lender on a debt which a person on active duty in military service incurred before he or she went on active duty. This is very important. The men and women of our National Guard are people like you and me, they've bought things on credit and have jobs that allow them to pay off that debt. But now, many have taken pay cuts to protect our airports. Capping interest on their debt is important to ensuring their financial security. Other sections of the SSCRA protect people from being evicted from rental property or from mortgaged property, against cancellation of life insurance, from having their property sold to pay taxes that are due; and from getting stuck in a lease, some Guardsmen may have recently rented a new apartment only to find their duty is going to send them far from their new property. Unfortunately, the SSCRA only applies to National Guard personnel mobilized directly by the President of the United States, and does not protect those mobilized by state governors at the request of the President, as is the case with those National Guard now protecting our airports. This distinction is inequitable and actually, makes no sense. Service performed by those mobilized by a governor at the request of the President face the same problems as those mobilized by the President directly. It is only right that they receive the same protections. Although the President is clearly authorized to mobilize the National Guard himself, on September 27 he instead requested State governors to mobilize their own National Guard personnel. He did so again last Friday. Under this type of mobilization the National Guard remains under the full operational control of the State, providing the necessary flexibility to deal with security issues that are better handled at the State and local level. While National Guard mobilized in this manner receive the general benefits of active duty military personnel, such as VA Veterans status and Tricare family health insurance, they do not receive the additional benefit of civil relief under the SSCRA. In Minnesota, soldiers have received orders to provide protection at airports until as late as March 28, 2002. These soldiers are serving in a full-time status, six to seven days per week. While the Minnesota National Guard initially began providing security at the Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester airports, they were recently informed that they will provide security at five additional Minnesota airports. This means they will spend less time with their families and employers. Some of them face the real possibility of financial ruin due to their time away from work. They have mortgages and car payments, things they may have easily expected to be able to pay. Some have college debt and others child support payments. Many have taken pay cuts to leave their professions to come out and protect our airports, to protect us. We must act now to provide them the civil relief they rightly deserve. And we must be aware that National Guard units may soon be asked to secure other facilities such as power plants and water treatment facilities in the near future. Addressing these issues now will ease the burden placed upon these soldiers now and in the future. It is my belief that the SSCRA was never meant to purposely exclude National Guard mobilized in the manner they have been today, we simply could never have imagined the need for round-the-clock security at our airports when this Act was written. September 11 changed so many things for us. And it is time we change the SSCRA to ensure we provide benefits to protect those who are protecting us.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see Senator Mikulski here; I assume Senator Bond will be here. I will just take but a moment. For the fifth or sixth time in the last 2 weeks, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 191, S. 739, the Homeless Veterans Program Improvement Act; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken about this before. The Senator from Idaho was objecting on behalf of someone else. He said: I hope this legislation passes soon because we all support this, or because it is important, something to that effect. This legislation passed the veterans committee on a 21-0 vote. It is the kind of legislation you massage--Lane Evans has done this in the House--so you get everybody agreeing. It is really important. I have gone through all the details before. It is there in terms of making sure you have the job training, the services for people, and the health care for people struggling with addiction or struggling with posttraumatic stress syndrome, transition to other housing. It is really important to do. Veterans Day is coming in just a few days. My last point is that even though my colleague from Idaho says we all think it is a good thing to do, for 2 weeks I have come out here and I have asked: Who is the Senator who has an anonymous hold on this bill? If he or she opposes it, come out and debate it. This is no way to proceed. As a result, I have put a hold on every bill introduced by my colleagues from the other side, all of them that are unanimous consent and have a great deal of merit. I am not giving up any of my leverage. It is unconscionable that this piece of legislation has been blocked through an anonymous hold. It is no way to say thanks to veterans. The veterans in the military say: We don't leave our wounded behind. We have a lot of wounded left behind on the streets of our country who are homeless. If I got started on this issue, I could spend about 10 hours expressing my indignation at what has happened. Out of deference to Senator Mikulski, I will not. Again, there aren't going to be any bills beyond appropriations and judicial appointments that are going to go through until this bill goes through. This should be a priority. I make a plea to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, find out who it is, the Senator who is blocking this consideration. No one has ever even given me the slightest hint why. Let's get this work done.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes to speak in behalf of the Durbin amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to examine every word of the Durbin amendment, but my understanding of what the Senator from Illinois has said is when it comes to making sure parents of children with disabilities have legal representation if they need it to make an appeal for their children whom they believe are not receiving the support and education they need, in light of the amendment of the Senator from Texas being adopted, when it comes to a single parent or low-income or a disabled Vietnam vet or veteran and other such categories, it is clear these families absolutely should not be without legal representation. Therefore, the amendment of the Senator from Texas would not apply. My colleague from Illinois has made an appeal to Senators to avoid the harshness, to make sure there is the legal representation for families who need it, to make sure we are on the side of vulnerable children and vulnerable families. This amendment is compassionate. This amendment goes directly to what is at issue. I hope there will be 100 votes for the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. I add my support. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I follow the remarks of the Senator from Washington in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 739, the Homeless Veterans Program Improvement Act, which my colleague, Lane Evans, and I have called the Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act after the wonderful work she did as Miss America in behalf of homeless veterans. Her dad is a disabled Vietnam vet. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I have to say, not so much to my colleague from Alabama because he is really objecting on behalf of someone else, that I find this process to be absolutely outrageous. I believe the veterans community finds this process to be absolutely outrageous. This is the fourth or the fifth time I have come to the Senate to ask unanimous consent to pass this legislation. We have a similar version in the House of Representatives that has passed. We can really get this done. This is an anonymous hold that has been put on this bill. I have to say I am more than surprised. I have now become indignant that we have a Senator on the other side who will not come to the Senate Chamber and debate me on this legislation and express his or her opposition and reasons why. This legislation passed out of the Veterans Committee I think on a 21-0 vote. It was unanimous. It was Democrats and Republicans alike. It is a familiar principle among veterans in our Armed Forces that we do not leave our wounded behind. Homeless veterans are our wounded, and we are leaving them behind. The VA has reported there were about 345,000 homeless vets in our country in 1999, and there are yet even more homeless veterans as we see this economic downturn. What does the bill do? It sets a national goal to end homelessness among veterans within 10 years. Who is opposed to that? The bill provides funding, authorizes $50 million for some programs that really have a good track record--I will not even go over all of them today-- for job training, for treatment for addiction, for other transitional services that are so critical to veterans: job counseling, social services, medical services, assistance in getting into affordable housing, calls for VA comprehensive homeless centers in our major metropolitan areas in America today to have kind of a one-stop continuum of services for veterans. I would like to know what is going on in the Senate. I would like to know why this legislation is being blocked. I will say with great regret--I said it last week, and I said it the week before--I will put a hold on all the legislation, not the major appropriations bills and judicial appointments, that individual Senators on the other side have sponsored. This legislation should go through on unanimous consent. It is not controversial. It has the support of all of us. But I have no other choice but to do so. I have no other choice but to fight like the dickens and use my leverage. I have been around the Senate for 11 years now, and I know the way things work. It is very rare that today we continue to have these anonymous holds on legislation such as this to help homeless veterans. The only way I can fight and the only way I can continue to make this a priority--it is a priority to me, it should be a priority for every Senator, and it should be a priority for our country--is to ask my colleagues to go and spend some time--and maybe many of my colleagues have--in homeless shelters, meeting with street people. My colleagues would be amazed at how many of them are veterans, how many of them are Vietnam vets. Surely we can do better. Anonymous hold? I do not know why. I guess I have my own suspicion, but I will say this: I have a hold on all the bills from individual Senators on the other side, and they are going nowhere until whoever the Senator is steps forward and either debates me and we have a vote or that Senator takes this hold off. I will say this: I do not blame the Senator for wanting to remain anonymous. I would want to remain anonymous if I were blocking this legislation. We can do better for veterans in our country. We can do better for veterans in a lot of different ways, but this is legislation where a lot of us came together on both sides of the aisle. We have done some good work. It is not the cure-all or end-all. I do not want to make this out to be perfect, but I say to my colleague from Georgia it makes life a little better for some people. In this particular case it happens to be veterans. It is the kind of thing we should be doing in public service, and I cannot understand where this anonymous hold comes from or why. Every day I am coming to the Chamber and I am going to do the same thing. I am going to continue to have a hold on all this other individual legislation sponsored by individual Senators on the other side until this bill goes through. Other than that, I do not feel strongly about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first, I agree with the goal of dramatically expanding and making the best use of title I money. The Cochran-Landrieu amendment, about which we will hear more later, goes much more in that direction. By the way, I support that goal because I believe with all the mandates that are coming out of Washington, DC, right now--test every child, every grade, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8--we better make sure we get the resources to the school districts so they have a chance to do the job. I reject this tradeoff. I cannot believe we are arguing that rebuilding crumbling schools and making sure they are inviting places is somehow unimportant. I do not believe we are talking so much about brand new swimming pools and brand new gyms. We are talking about many school buildings all across the country that are dilapidated. We are talking about children who know that if they want to see something great, they can go to a shopping mall or they can go to a brand new sports arena or they can go to the latest fanciest movie theater, but about the worst place they can go is their own rundown schools. When our children go to these schools and they are so decrepit and run down, the heating does not work or the air conditioning does not work or the toilets do not work, we are telling our children we do not value them. I refuse to accept this tradeoff which pits helping children with title I program funding versus whether or not we are now going to abandon a Federal program which has provided some funding for our schools for school repair. By the way, in every State, there is a huge backlog of repair work. I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership in talking about the importance of school renovation. My second point is one of the ways we can get more money for title I and distribute that money in the most efficacious manner is to take the IDEA program for children with special needs and make it mandatory. That is the language we now have. That is what we are fighting to keep in conference committee. We should be getting support from every Senator and the administration. As a former Governor, the Presiding Officer knows how strongly our States feel about giving the States the funding the Federal Government promised them for children with special needs. Then we can do a much better job for all the children. That is the direction in which to go. Then finally, actually this whole debate is a little bit of a fantasy debate in that I do not think we are recognizing we are in a recession. These are hard economic times, and right now what is going on is our States are having to cut teachers, cut teacher assistance; they are having to cut counselors. If anything, we should get serious about an economic recovery plan. I argue we need an additional $3 billion to go for school construction, for renovation of schools. It is win, win, win. You do not eliminate this program during a recession. A, the schools are more inviting for the children; B, you are creating jobs; C, you are contributing to the community; D, you are doing something about the recession, and you are getting money in the economy, which is all about what we have to do for economic recovery. I think the amendment of my friend from New Hampshire goes precisely in all the wrong directions. I hope Senators will vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa, I will be just 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 191, S. 739, the Homeless Veterans Program Improvement Act; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from West Virginia, I am trying to move matters along as well. The VA reported that there were 345,000 homeless veterans in 1999. That was 34 percent higher than in 1998. The bill has been reported out of committee by Democrats and Republicans alike with unanimous support, I say to all my colleagues. It is an annual authorization of $50 million for the Department of Labor program called HVRP, which does provide money to nonprofits to help train homeless veterans. The second part supports community-based organizations which provide needed social service programs for veterans. The last piece sets up comprehensive homeless centers in the country's major metropolitan areas. That can be substance abuse counseling, job counseling, and assisted housing. This is the same bill that is moving in the House. This is my third or fourth time, colleagues, that I have come to this Chamber to ask unanimous consent to pass this bill. Veterans Day is in the next week or so. We have men and women in harm's way. It is hardly any way to say thanks to veterans not to pass this piece of legislation. My guess is that over a third of the adult males who are homeless in this country are veterans; many of them are Vietnam veterans. I do not know why in the world this bill is being blocked. I do not know who has put on an anonymous hold. This is my third or fourth time requesting that we pass this bill. Therefore, one more time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 191, S. 739, the Homeless Veterans Program Improvement Act, with the support of Secretary Principi as well; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.