Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, as a Senator from Minnesota, I rise to thank the religious community, the faith community in my State-- Christians, Jews, and Muslims--for coming together and for their prayers for all of the men, women, and children who were murdered in our country. That is the very best of Minnesota. That is the very best of our country. Let me also thank and pray for all of the loved ones of our firefighters and law enforcement community who have lost their lives in trying to protect people and save people's lives. I believe people in our country will come together and that one message for these terrorists who have committed this murder on a mass scale is that they will not change our values. They will not change our way of life. They will not change who we are as Americans. We will never give way to the politics of hatred. We are a diverse people of many different colors and religions and backgrounds. We will continue to respect and support one another. President Bush is certainly right when he says we will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of who committed this act of murder. As a Senator, I certainly believe we must hold them accountable. Most importantly, we have to do everything within our power, regardless of political party, to take the steps and to do what is necessary to make sure people in our country are safe and secure. Madam President, one more time, I want to finish up in the few minutes I have by saying that murder is never legitimate, and this was a mass murder of men, women, and children. I think the thing that I will never be able to get out of my mind is that so many innocent people, so many innocent Americans could be murdered in a single day in our country. To me, in my adult life, yesterday was the worst day for our country, and there are going to be many more difficult days because we don't even have a sense of the loss of life. I am absolutely convinced this will bring out the best in us. I am absolutely convinced that Americans will be their own best selves. I am absolutely convinced that these terrorists will see Americans coming together and I hope the whole international community that represents civilization will come together so these kinds of acts of murder can never be committed again. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) is a non-profit professional organization headquartered in St. Paul, MN, that represents the first organized effort by heart failure experts from the Americas to provide a forum for all those interested in heart failure research and patient care. Today, the Heart Failure Society of America is convening here in our Nation's capital with over 2,000 cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, internists, family practitioners, research scientists, pharmacologists, nurses, pharmacists and other allied health care professionals who treat heart failure patients for the HFSA 5th Annual Scientific Meeting. At this forum, preeminent professionals will unveil and review the latest developments in heart failure research and clinical practice. Heart failure is a progressive condition in which the heart muscle weakens and gradually loses its ability to pump enough blood to supply the body's needs and is frighteningly common but underrecognized. Heart failure affects nearly 5 million Americans. As more people survive heart attacks and are being left with weakened hearts, heart failure is the only major cardiovascular disorder on the rise. An estimated 400,000 to 700,000 new cases of heart failure are diagnosed each year. The number of deaths in the United States from this condition has more than doubled since 1979, averaging 250,000 annually. In comparison, the death rate from coronary heart disease has dramatically dropped statistically over a similar time period. An estimated $8 to $15 billion is spent each year on the costs of hospitalization due to heart failure, which is twice the amount spent for all forms of cancer. While there is currently no known cure for heart failure, new treatment approaches may help patients live more normal and fulfilling lives and benefit from a decreased risk of hospitalization. The HFSA was founded in 1994 by a small, dedicated group of academic cardiologists who recognized that heart failure was on the rise, but that there was no venue for researchers, trainees and clinicians to share ideas about combating the disease. We owe them a debt of gratitude for providing the impetus for exploring further research and treatment which might not otherwise have occurred. The Heart Failure Society of America is seen by government, industry and the medical community as the authoritative organization on heart failure. The Senate first commended the HFSA and its work in the area of heart failure in February of last year, designating the week surrounding Valentine's Day each year as ``National Heart Failure Awareness Week.'' these medical professionals are dedicated to enhancing the quality and duration of people's lives. We are pleased to welcome this group of distinguished individuals to Washington and recognize their extraordinary public service.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I congratulate Al-Anon Family Groups on their 50th anniversary and to acknowledge their contributions to many individuals, families and communities who come together to support those in recovery from alcohol addiction. The Al- Anon Family Groups have been a source of help and hope for families and friends of alcoholics for 50 years in communities throughout the United States and worldwide. Although Al-Anon, and its group for younger members, Alateen, have their roots in the United States, there are now over 26,000 Al-Anon and Alateen groups around the world in 115 countries. The theme for the September 2001 National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month is ``We Recover Together: Family, Friends and Community,'' with its clear message that we need to work together to promote treatment for alcohol and drug addiction throughout our country. The Al-Anon Family Groups is an outstanding example of how a community can support the families, friends and communities of those who are in recovery from addiction. Scientific research has shown us the devastation that alcohol addiction can have on the brain and the biological systems of the body. But addiction can also damage souls, relationships, families and communities. Effective treatments can help those with addiction illnesses, but it is through the support of groups like Al-Anon that communities and families can join together to make recovery work well for everyone who is affected. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Al-Anon Family Groups for the work they have done to help the countless numbers of those whose lives have been affected by addiction. With treatment and support, people can recover from alcohol addiction, and make positive contributions to their families, workplaces, communities, state and nation. Through the support offered by Al-Anon and Alateen, families and friends of those with addiction illnesses can find the support they need in their lives as well. With gratitude and respect for the work they do, I offer my congratulations to Al-Anon Family Groups on their 50th anniversary.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, sometimes one speaks in the Senate Chamber and is not sure what exactly the effect of it all is--maybe more than sometimes. I am speaking today on behalf of a lot of the human rights workers and social service workers and community development workers, civil society people in Colombia. I am hoping--I will be very straightforward about it; I don't think this is illusion--that the words of a Senator on the floor of the Senate about a priest and about a very important organization, of which two members have been brutally murdered in the last 35, 40 days, communicates a message that our Government cares deeply about human rights in Colombia and about the importance of the Government and the military defending civil society individuals. I rise today to speak out on behalf of many defenseless human rights workers, social service providers and community economic development workers, in our neighbor Colombia, who are besieged by the growing paramilitary violence in their county. These individuals, some of whom I have come to know personally, all of whom I greatly respect, are heros for their contributions to democracy and peace in Colombia. They deserve to be heard and to be aided by the United States government. I have traveled twice to the city of Barrancabermeja, sometimes called ``the Sarajevo of Colombia.'' During those visits, I have come to know the extraordinary and courageous work of a Colombian non-profit program based in a largely rural region of oil refineries, rivers, and mountains. In many hamlets and towns it provides the only hope amidst so much despair. The Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio, located in Barranca, is lead by the Jesuit Father Francisco De Roux. The Program's name gives away their mission--sustainable, locally based social and economic development in the context of an inclusive community at peace. They stand for democracy, civil rights, and human rights. They are against the war, and have no enemies in the conflict. They strive for an inclusive community where disputes are settled by civil authorities and not by armed gangs. They want to provide opportunity for all in their community to work and raise they families in peace and dignity. But paramilitaries are taking over their region and extrajudicial killings are a daily threat. Recently, they have been beset by tragedy. Two defenseless staff members have been killed and multilated. Ms. Alma Rosa Jaramillo was a volunteer attorney, a dedicated mother and courageous member of her community. Her dismembered body was found in the community of Morales on July first of this year. On July 17, another brutal assassination took the life of Eduardo Estrada. He was murdered right in front of his family, after a family reunion. He was a respected leader in the community of San Pablo, working as the coordinator of the Program of Development and Peace. Why are these innocent people, who are doing such good work, being targeted? Lamentably, these are just two more examples of paramilitary impunity in Colombia. As the Plan Colombia debate has unfolded in the U.S. Senate, we have come to know the terrible reality of the last few decades for the people of Columbia--kidnaappings, assassinations, disappearances and terror by the guerrilla and the paramilitary organizations. I am no defender of the guerrilla organizations. They are vicious in their treatment of the civilian population and publicly renounce universally accepted human rights standards. But the paramilitary organizations, because of their open association with the Colombian military, also must be held to the highest standards of human rights. They cannot be allowed to justify their human rights abuses by equating the laudable civic involvement of those they persecute, with sympathy for the guerrillas. The paramilitary organizations have penetrated ever deeper into Colombian civil society, bringing their terror to communities all across Colombia. In many cases, they do so with the acquiescense of the Colombian military and government, at the local and even national level. The Colombian government must find a way to respond to the paramilitary threat. It is a threat to the rights of free speech, free assembly, and moreover, the rule of law in Colombia. We must send a message to all violent actors in Colombia, especially parammilitary groups: ``The targeting of the civilian population with murder, extortion, kidnapping, torture and multilation is unacceptable!'' The United States has an obligation to nurture and defennd civil society efforts in Columbia. The Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio is doing critically important work, helping Colombians find a way out of the labyrinth of war and terror. They need and deserve our thanks and our encouragement; for they represent the future of hope and peace for Colombia. In my view, a peaceful, prosperous Colombia is a better neightor and partner of the United States. We must defend these courageous people who daily risk their lives for human rights, democracy and peace. Given our deep involvement in Colombia, we have an opportunity, and a duty, to defend Colombian civil society against the abuses of guerrillas and paramilitaries alike. Mr. President, I traveled twice to the city of Barrancabermeja, sometimes called the ``Sarajevo of Colombia.'' During the visits, I have come to know a very courageous priest who is in charge of an organization, a nonprofit organization, that does the economic and social development work in a largely rural region of oil refineries, rivers, and mountains. For many hamlets and towns, this organization is the only hope for people. The name of the organization is the Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio located in Barranca, led by a Jesuit priest named Francisco de Roux, also called Father Poncho. The program's name gives away its mission. The occupant of the Chair would love it as a businessperson and a Senator from New Jersey. They do the most credible local sustainable economic development work. They stand for democracy, civil rights, and human rights. They are against the war. They are not aligned with the FARC, ELN, or any of the left groups--the paramilitary--and they should have no enemies in this conflict. This organization has been beset by tragedy. Two defenseless staff members have been killed and mutilated. Ms. Alma Rosa Jaramillo was a volunteer attorney, a dedicated mother and a courageous member of her community. Her dismembered body was found in the community of Morales on July 1 of this year. On July 17, another brutal murder took place. This assassination took the life of Eduardo Estrada. He was murdered right in front of his family after a family reunion. He was a respected leader of the community in San Pablo, working as the coordinator of the Program of Development and Peace headed up by Father Francisco de Roux. Why are these innocent people, doing this economic development work-- who have done such good work--why are they being targeted? Lamentably, these are just two more examples of paramilitary impunity in Colombia. I intend for this statement not only to be made on the floor of the Senate, but I hope it is sent out throughout Colombia. As the Plan Colombia debate has unfolded in the Senate, we have come to know the terrible reality of the last few decades for the people of Colombia-- kidnappings, assassinations, disappearances, and terror by the guerrilla and paramilitary organizations. I am no defender of the guerrilla organizations. The FARC and ELN are involved in narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. They have been vicious in their treatment of the civilian population. They publicly renounce universally accepted human rights standards. But the paramilitary organizations, the AUC, because of their open association, because of their extrajudicial killings and open association, especially at the brigade level with the Colombia military, must be held to the highest standard of human rights. They cannot be allowed to justify their human rights abuses by equating the laudable civic involvement of those they persecute with the sympathy for the guerrillas. The paramilitary organizations penetrated ever deeper into Colombian civil society and brought terror to many of the communities-- in many cases, with the acquiescence of the military. I rise as a U.S. Senator on the floor of the Senate to communicate a message to the Colombian Government that the paramilitary should not be allowed to murder civil society people, defenders of human rights, people doing good work, as the men and women in Father Francisco de Roux's organization do, with impunity. We must send a message to all the violent actors in Colombia, especially the paramilitary groups: The targeting of the civilian population with murder, extortion, kidnapping, torture, and mutilation is unacceptable. Our Government has an obligation to nurture and defend civil society efforts in Colombia. The Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio is doing critically important work. They need and deserve our thanks and encouragement. They represent hope and peace for Colombia. Before you came to the chair, Mr. President, I was saying this organization is doing the best, by all accounts, social and economic development work. This priest is beloved and highly respected. Two members of his organization have been brutally murdered in the last 40 days. Their plea, and the plea from many civil society people in Colombia, is: Please, U.S. Government, please U.S. Senate, call on the Government and the military and the police to defend us. That is what I am doing. That is supposed to be part of Plan Colombia. We have a deep involvement in Colombia. Therefore, we have an opportunity and a duty to defend Colombian civil society against the abuses of the guerrillas and the paramilitaries alike. The message needs to be communicated to the military in Colombia that with the Blackhawk helicopters and the military assistance come human rights conditions you have to live up to. Otherwise, we are going to continue to see the murder of innocent people with impunity. I want this statement to certainly be sent out to Colombia because I want the paramilitary forces and others to know we are paying attention to Father Francisco de Roux and his organization, the Program for Development and Peace, and their work, and that we mean to defend civil society people. Again, I want to point out that the Colombian Government has an obligation to defend civil society people from the violence both from the guerrilla left and the paramilitary right. Up to date, they have not defended people from violence in Barranca, which I have visited twice now. The paramilitary cut the telephone wires, isolated the people. They have no phone service. They took away their cell phones and moved into their homes. They control the city. With the exception of the bishop and the priest and his organization, and a few others, hardly anybody can speak up any longer without the real risk that they will be murdered. Francisco de Roux's organization, widely credited for this great economic development work, has had two members--a woman and a man-- dismembered, brutally murdered. It is time for our Government to make clear to the Colombian Government and police and military that they have to defend these civil society people.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to also address the disturbing level of violence perpetrated against Colombia's union leaders. As another Labor Day passes, I could not in good conscience neglect to mention the plight of our brothers and sisters in the Colombian labor movement. There has been a dramatic escalation in violations against them and the response by the Colombian authorities in the face of this crisis has been negligible. For the past 15 years, Colombia has been in the midst of an undeclared war on union leaders. Colombia has long been the most dangerous country in the world for union members, with nearly 4,000 murdered in that period. Today, three out of every five trade unionists killed in the world are Colombian. Union members and activists are among the main targets of human rights violations--including murders, disappearances and threats--in the escalating conflict in Colombia. Paramilitary groups, who are linked with Colombian security forces, are responsible for most of these attacks, although guerrilla groups have also targeted activists. The right-wing AUC has been especially brutal, killing hundreds simply because they view union organizers as subversives. One of the most recent killings occurred on June 21, when the leader of Sinaltrainal, the union that represents Colombian Coca-Cola workers, Oscar Dario Soto was gunned down. His murder brings to seven the number of unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were targeted and killed by paramilitaries. Earlier this summer, the International Labor Rights Fund and the United Steelworkers of America brought a suit against the Coca-Cola company alleging that the Colombian managers had colluded with paramilitary security forces to murder, torture and silence trade union leaders. According to a recent New York Times report by Juan Forero, the number of union workers at Coke plants in Colombia has dropped to 450 from 1,300 in 1993. Total Sinaltrainal membership has dropped to 2,400 from 5,800 five years ago. Regardless of the outcome of this particular legal case, U.S. companies with subsidiaries in Colombia have an obligation to address the upsetting trend of violence against workers, particularly union representatives. It is clear that some companies regularly hire out paramilitary gunmen to intimidate and kill in order to break labor unions. Last year alone, at least 130 Colombian labor leaders were assassinated. Four times as many union workers have been killed this year as during the same time last year. That's more than 80 unionists killed since the beginning of this year. Colombia, like the United States, guarantees workers a legal right to organize. However, when they do, they face grave threats. This is a serious violation of human rights, under Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Colombian government must take an active role in protecting and ensuring that these rights are enjoyed by all its citizens. Likewise, the Senate should bear in mind the deteriorating plight of union membership in Colombia before sending additional military aid to a government that can't--or won't--crack down on paramilitary forces. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her fine words. It was a superb speech President Fox gave today in joint session.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize those veterans who have earned the Purple Heart Medal. My own State of Minnesota has recently decided to designate August 7, 2001 as a day to honor these veterans. The Purple Heart Medal was created by General George Washington and first awarded to soldiers who were wounded as a result of actions by an enemy of the United States. General Washington established the award on August 7, 1782. The Purple Heart Medal is still awarded to members of our Nation's armed forces who are wounded while protecting our Nation and democracy. Our Government issues several medals to soldiers for bravery, good conduct and efficiency. However, the Purple Heart Medal is unique in the fact that a soldier who is awarded this medal received a wound as a result of hostile actions by an enemy of our Nation. As a U.S. Senator and a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I have had the opportunity to personally thank many of the Purple Heart Medal recipients in the State of Minnesota for the sacrifice they made for our Nation and democracy. I believe that every recipient of this distinguished award should also receive appropriate acknowledgment from the Senate. I invite all members of the Senate to join me and urge all 50 States to hold appropriate ceremonies to honor their Purple Heart Medal recipients.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modest bill that can help us take an important step toward providing all of America's students physically and psychologically safe school environments so they can live up to their full potential as students. I appreciate that Senator Feingold is joining me as an original co- sponsor. Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence that schools are anything but safe havens for American students who are gay and lesbian, or for those who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. Two studies in recent months have focused on the issue of school harassment of gay and lesbian students. A 7-State study of abuses of gay and lesbian students by their peers, conducted by Human Rights Watch, found that these students often were not protected by school officials, and that in some cases harassment was even condoned by teachers and administrators. That report's troubling summation was that, ``Gay youth spend an inordinate amount of energy plotting how to get safely to and from school, how to avoid the hallways when other students are present so they can avoid slurs and shoves, how to cut gym class to escape being beaten up, in short, how to become invisible so they will not be verbally and physically attacked. Too often, students have little energy left to learn.'' A second, more general report on school bullying, conducted by the American Association of University Women, AAUW, found that 61 percent of students had seen fellow students bullied for being gay or lesbian, whether or not the students actually were gay or lesbian. Boys were the most likely target of such teasing, according to the report. Further, the recent Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Behavior notes that ``anti-homosexual attitudes are associated with psychological distress for homosexual persons and may have a negative impact on mental health, including a greater incidence of depression and suicide, lower self-acceptance and a greater likelihood of hiding sexual orientation.'' That report finds that: ``Averaged over two dozen studies, 80 percent of gay men and lesbians have experienced verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 percent had experienced a physical attack.'' These studies and numerous journalistic reports describe the verbal, physical and psychological abuse that becomes part of two many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students' daily lives. We should seek to provide equal learning experiences for gay and lesbian students. We should also be concerned about the widespread bullying of students with sexual orientation-based epithets in view of the growing evidence that students who are bullied are more likely to harm their fellow students. The Department of Education's ``Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties,'' issued in 1997 by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, includes in one section the following statement: ``sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the school's program constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.'' This guidance was revised in 2001, clarifying that school officials have a responsibility to respond to ``acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping.'' In spite of the Department's existing guidance, evidence is clear that harassment of gay students remains a serious problem. Even so, the AAUW study cited earlier points out that many schools and universities have not established grievance procedures or designate any representative to address complaints of sex discrimination, including harassment. To better understand the true level of sexual harassment against gay and lesbian students by peers and school officials in schools, as well as the degree to which schools are employing the Office of Civil Rights, OCR, standard in reacting against such cases of harassment, this bill calls for a study by the Commission on Civil Rights. The study would seek to answer five questions: What is the best estimate of the true level of harassment against gay and lesbian students in America's schools and universities, applying the OCR standard? What is the best estimate of the level of gender-based harassment such as that described in the 2001 update of the policy guidance that negatively affects the learning environment of gay and lesbian students? To what degree are school officials and teachers aware of the alteration of the guidelines in 1997 that now includes certain harassment of gay and lesbian students? Are the 1997 guidelines being accurately and aggressively enforced by schools? What are the Commission's recommendations for an alternation in policy or enforcement based on the findings of the study? The bill calls for completion of the study within 18 months so that Congress can act thoughtfully in working to create safe learning environments for all our students, gay and straight alike. It is endorsed by a number of the groups focused on promoting learning environments that are safe ones for gay students. I hope my colleagues will support it also. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modest bill that can help us take an important step toward providing all of America's students physically and psychologically safe school environments so they can live up to their full potential as students. I appreciate that Senator Feingold is joining me as an original co- sponsor. Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence that schools are anything but safe havens for American students who are gay and lesbian, or for those who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. Two studies in recent months have focused on the issue of school harassment of gay and lesbian students. A 7-State study of abuses of gay and lesbian students by their peers, conducted by Human Rights Watch, found that these students often were not protected by school officials, and that in some cases harassment was even condoned by teachers and administrators. That report's troubling summation was that, ``Gay youth spend an inordinate amount of energy plotting how to get safely to and from school, how to avoid the hallways when other students are present so they can avoid slurs and shoves, how to cut gym class to escape being beaten up, in short, how to become invisible so they will not be verbally and physically attacked. Too often, students have little energy left to learn.'' A second, more general report on school bullying, conducted by the American Association of University Women, AAUW, found that 61 percent of students had seen fellow students bullied for being gay or lesbian, whether or not the students actually were gay or lesbian. Boys were the most likely target of such teasing, according to the report. Further, the recent Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Behavior notes that ``anti-homosexual attitudes are associated with psychological distress for homosexual persons and may have a negative impact on mental health, including a greater incidence of depression and suicide, lower self-acceptance and a greater likelihood of hiding sexual orientation.'' That report finds that: ``Averaged over two dozen studies, 80 percent of gay men and lesbians have experienced verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 percent had experienced a physical attack.'' These studies and numerous journalistic reports describe the verbal, physical and psychological abuse that becomes part of two many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students' daily lives. We should seek to provide equal learning experiences for gay and lesbian students. We should also be concerned about the widespread bullying of students with sexual orientation-based epithets in view of the growing evidence that students who are bullied are more likely to harm their fellow students. The Department of Education's ``Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties,'' issued in 1997 by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, includes in one section the following statement: ``sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the school's program constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.'' This guidance was revised in 2001, clarifying that school officials have a responsibility to respond to ``acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping.'' In spite of the Department's existing guidance, evidence is clear that harassment of gay students remains a serious problem. Even so, the AAUW study cited earlier points out that many schools and universities have not established grievance procedures or designate any representative to address complaints of sex discrimination, including harassment. To better understand the true level of sexual harassment against gay and lesbian students by peers and school officials in schools, as well as the degree to which schools are employing the Office of Civil Rights, OCR, standard in reacting against such cases of harassment, this bill calls for a study by the Commission on Civil Rights. The study would seek to answer five questions: What is the best estimate of the true level of harassment against gay and lesbian students in America's schools and universities, applying the OCR standard? What is the best estimate of the level of gender-based harassment such as that described in the 2001 update of the policy guidance that negatively affects the learning environment of gay and lesbian students? To what degree are school officials and teachers aware of the alteration of the guidelines in 1997 that now includes certain harassment of gay and lesbian students? Are the 1997 guidelines being accurately and aggressively enforced by schools? What are the Commission's recommendations for an alternation in policy or enforcement based on the findings of the study? The bill calls for completion of the study within 18 months so that Congress can act thoughtfully in working to create safe learning environments for all our students, gay and straight alike. It is endorsed by a number of the groups focused on promoting learning environments that are safe ones for gay students. I hope my colleagues will support it also. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise today to submit a resolution to proclaim September, 2001 as ``National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month''. The purpose is to recognize the societal benefits, importance and effectiveness of drug treatment as a public health service. The Year 2001 Recovery Month theme is ``We Recover Together: Family, Friends, and Community'', with a clear message that we need to work together to promote treatment for alcohol and drug addiction throughout our country. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that many individuals face as a painful, private struggle, often without access to treatment or medical care. But this disease also has staggering public costs. A 1998 report prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimated the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be approximately $246 billion for 1992. Of this cost, an estimated $98 billion was due to addiction to illicit drugs and other drugs taken for non-medical purposes. This estimate includes addiction treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. Adults and children who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. We know from the outstanding research done at the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health that 14,800,000 Americans were users of illicit drugs, and about 3,500,000 were dependent on illicit drugs. An additional 8 million were dependent on alcohol. The 1999 Household Survey of Drug Abuse, a project of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, showed that drug use varies among States, ranges from a low of 4.7 percent to a high of 10.7 percent of the overall population, and from 8.0 percent to 18.3 percent for youths age 12-17. The 2001 National Drug Control Strategy of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, has recognized the importance of drug treatment. The ONDCP Strategy includes the reduction of the treatment gap for individuals who are addicted to drugs as one of the top 3 goals for reducing the health and social costs to the public. And yet, 80 percent of adolescents needing treatment are unable to access services because of the severe lack of coverage for addiction treatment or the unavailability of treatment programs or trained health care providers in their community. The 1998 Hay Group Report revealed that the overall value of substance abuse treatment benefits has decreased by 74.5 percent from 1988 through 1998, leaving our youth without sufficient medical care for this disease when they are most vulnerable. We know that addiction to alcohol and other drugs contribute to other problems as well. Addictive substances have the potential for destroying the person who is addicted, as well as his or her family. We know, for example, that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. If a woman who was addicted to alcohol could receive proper treatment, fetal alcohol syndrome for her baby would be 100 percent preventable, and more than 12,000 infants born in the U.S. each year would not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, with its irreversible physical and mental damage. We know too of the devastation caused by addiction when violence between people is one of the consequences. A 1998 SAMHSA report outlined the links between domestic violence and substance abuse. We know from clinical reports that 25-50 percent of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have substance abuse problems. The report recognized the link between the victim of abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, and recommended that after the woman's safety has been addressed, the next step would be to help with providing treatment for her addiction as a step toward independence and health, and toward the prevention of the consequences for the children who suffer the same abuse either directly, or indirectly by witnessing spousal violence. The physical, emotional, and social harm caused by this disease is both preventable and treatable. We know from the excellent research conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. The effectiveness of treatment is the major finding from a NIDA-sponsored 4-city study of drug abuse treatment outcomes for 1,200 adolescents. The study showed that community-based treatment programs can reduce drug and alcohol use, improve school performance, and lower involvement with the criminal justice system. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes. We know that the costs to do so are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of one percent, or less than $1 per member per month--without even considering any of the obvious savings that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses. These savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care, including private insurance plans, must share this responsibility. The National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in the year 2001 celebrates the tremendous strides taken by individuals who have undergone successful treatment and recognizes those in the treatment field who have dedicated their lives to helping our young people recover from addiction. Many individuals, families, organizations, and communities give generously of their time and expertise to help those suffering from addiction and to help them to achieve recovery and productive, healthy lives. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA/ CSAT, in conjunction with national planning partner organizations and treatment providers, have taken a Federal leadership role in promoting Recovery Month 2001. The Recovery Month events being planned throughout our nation, including one on September 29, in St. Paul, Minnesota, will recognize the countless numbers of those who have successfully recovered from addiction and who are living proof that people of all races, genders, and ages recover every day from the disease of alcohol and drug addiction, and now make positive contributions to their families, workplaces, communities, state, and nation. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the month of September, 2001, as Recovery Month, and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing this effort.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my distinguished colleague from Washington, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. The purpose is to discuss an important initiative in the State of Minnesota, the Northstar Corridor. I would also like to thank the chairwoman and the subcommittee for providing funding to support several projects in my state including the Hiawatha Corridor, the Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority, the Phalen Boulevard, Trunk Highway 610/10, as well as bus procurement for the Metro Transit and Greater Minnesota Transit Authorities. As my colleague knows, many regions of our country are experiencing significant growth. This is true for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area in Minnesota. In order to help commuters and reduce congestion in the North metro area, the Northstar Corridor project has been undertaken by local authorities to provide commuter rail service between Minneapolis and St. Cloud. This project is one of the corridors included in the comprehensive Twin Cities Transitways Project to provide much needed light rail and commuter rail services in the region. Specifically, the Northstar Corridor, which was authorized in TEA-21, will provide a direct connection between two major regional centers for business, education and health care. The 80-mile commuter rail line will operate on existing BNSF track. The Northstar Corridor has been identified by both the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council as the highest priority corridor for implementation of commuter rail in the state. While the bill before us contains significant funding for new start construction projects under the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Authority, including the Hiawatha light rail corridor in Minneapolis, funding was not included for the Northstar Corridor. However, H.R. 2299 does include $10 million for the Northstar Corridor. This funding will support right of way acquisition, final design and engineering of stations, vehicles, capacity improvements to existing track and maintenance facility. I would seek my colleague's assurance that during consideration of the conference report on the FY 2002 Department of Transportation appropriations bill, that she would be supportive of the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for her work as chairwoman and for her support for the Northstar Corridor. michigan itcs project

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say through the chair to the Senator from Maryland, I am cooperating. She has a way of eliciting cooperation. I made sure I got to the Chamber and cooperated with the Senator from Maryland and, of course, the Senator from Missouri. I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I can describe this amendment for colleagues. This amendment will add $650 million to the funding that is contained in this bill for veterans health care. I will go through the numbers carefully because Senators have voted for more than this amount of additional funding in prior votes. First I will speak in a general way and then more specifically. I thank both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their fine work on this bill and their fine work on behalf of veterans. I know, and they know, there is not nearly enough funding in medical or housing needs. I propose this amendment to bump up the funding. It does not get all the way there. I am not trying to do any showcasing. I have been involved in these amendments year after year after year, sometimes with success, sometimes without success. I will continue to force the issue when it comes to the funding because I know, and I am sure other Senators know as well, in the most concrete personal way just from our office in Minnesota and the number of people calling. I admit to every Senator in the Senate that I was completely naive about this when I was elected. I never thought a large part of my work would end up being veterans work. I didn't think that would be what I would be doing. This all came about because our office is fortunate to have great people: Josh Syrjamaki and Mike Siebenaler are heroes in the veterans community. They come through for people. The better we do for an individual person, the more the word gets around, and other people come for help. We helped a Vietnam vet. His daughter wrote me a poem about her dad. She said, my dad was fine, and one day he took a shower, he came out of the shower, and he had a complete mental breakdown, posttraumatic stress breakdown. It was a plea for help. I will not use names because I don't know if families approve. I think Tim Gilmore's family would not mind. Tim was struggling with Agent Orange and still not getting the compensation he needed. If he did not get it and he passed away before receiving it, the family would not get benefits. He was not thinking about himself any longer--he knew he would die--but he didn't know whether his family would get any help. When helping people such as these, with good people in your office-- and I have the best--more and more people come for help. It turns out this has been a lot of the work we do. People fall between the cracks. Quite frankly, this appropriations bill is way under what we should provide. I will add it up in a moment with concrete numbers. The medical inflation alone, counted at 4 percent a year, gets close to $1 billion. Look at the commitment we made to treat veterans with hepatitis C. Look at the Millennium Program and the commitment we are supposed to be making to an ever-aging veterans community and the kind of help we will give them, or we say we will give them, and look at the whole scandal of the number of homeless veterans. I venture to say probably a third of adult men who are homeless in this country are veterans, many of them Vietnam veterans, many of them struggling with mental health issues, with substance abuse issues. Look at the commitment we are supposed to be making toward expanding mental health services, and look at the long delays it takes for people to get the care they are supposed to receive from our VA medical system because we do not have the systems in place or we do not have enough of the personnel, and then look at the crisis in nursing. This is no way to say thank you to veterans. This amendment has the support of the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW; the American Legion supports this amendment. A lot of the American service organizations support this amendment for good reason. Now the specifics. During the debate on the budget resolution--I want Senators or staff to please listen because I am determined to pass this amendment--the Senate passed by a vote of 53-46 an amendment to fully fund veterans health care. This amendment, which I introduced, added $1.7 billion to veterans health care above the President's request. This was based on the work of veterans organizations which put together an independent budget. We said to veterans organizations, we are tired of hearing you tell us what you are against. Tell us what you favor. A variety of different veterans organizations did careful research and said, this is what we need to make this veterans health care budget work. They put together this budget and, based on their work, I introduced this amendment. It came out of the tax cut. This amendment brought us to a level of funding recommended by the independent budget--I didn't pick it out of thin air--which was the $2.6 billion over fiscal year 2001. The Senate then adopted an amendment offered by Senator Bond that added an additional $900 million above the $1.7 billion. That passed 99-0. So the amendment I am offering today for an additional $650 million is only a quarter of the amount the Senate has gone on record in favor of adding to the President's request. Members can't vote for the budget resolutions and say they are for this and, when the rubber meets the road, vote against the additional appropriation. I feel strongly about this. The budget amendments were a test of our priorities. Some Senators would not agree with this, and it doesn't matter; I think you should vote for this amendment out of a commitment to veterans. I never saw the sense in spending so darn much money on the tax cuts. Too much of it I thought was Robin Hood in reverse, too much going to the very top of the population. I thought there were other needs: Of course, education; children; we will be talking about defense later on; we are going to be talking about prescription drug benefits, affordable prescription drug benefits. What about veterans and veterans health care? When it came to the vote, the Senate rose to the occasion in a positive vote for more money than I am now asking, to make veterans a priority. Unfortunately, the budget resolution that the Congress ultimately adopted, which was basically the President's budget, shortchanged veterans by requesting a $700 million increase for health care. In other words, to put this number in context, last year's requested increase for the VA health care system alone was $1.4 billion. The simple inflation rate, 4.3 percent in the VA health care system, would mean approximately $900 million would just go to cover medical inflation; $900 million is already gone. So the administration's proposed budget barely covered the cost of medical inflation. The House did a little bit better than the administration, and the Senate appropriators did better still. I give credit where credit is due. The Senate VA-HUD has a $1.1 billion increase over last year's level for health care. That is $400 million more than the President. The appropriators got us part of the way there but nowhere near all the way. The independent budget produced by AMVETS and the VFW and the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed Veterans demonstrates that the VA will face approximately $2.6 billion more in health care costs in fiscal year 2002 than we face in the current fiscal year. So $1.1 billion is nowhere close to $2.6 billion. Here is what we are talking about: Uncontrollable costs such as medical inflation and salaries, $1.3 billion; Millennium Act long-term care initiative, $800 million; and other initiatives, including mental health care, pharmacy benefits for new patients, and I also argue, again, some assistance for homeless vets. I just think this amendment could not be more reasonable, frankly, in terms of what we ought to do. As a Senator from Minnesota, I think long-term care ought to be one of our highest priorities. Last year we passed landmark legislation called the Veterans Millennium Healthcare and Benefits Act which significantly increased noninstitutional long-term care. For the first time it would be available to all veterans who are enrolled in the VA health care system. The legislation is costly, if we are going to really back it with resources, but it is critical for veterans and their families. I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Nebraska, I learned about this in a very personal way, and every Senator probably has had the same experience. We have a wonderful VA medical center, a flagship, really, in Minneapolis. I will go and visit veterans. If you should spend a little bit of time with their spouses--say, for example, you are visiting her husband and he is a World War II veteran or Korean War veteran. Then maybe you can get away from where her husband is and you go out into the lounge and you sit down on the couch and maybe have a cup of coffee and you talk. She is terrified because she does not have the slightest clue what she is going to do when he gets home because she cannot take care of him any longer, not by herself. I went through this with my mom and dad. My dad had advanced Parkinson's disease. I know exactly what this is about. Do you know what. More and more veterans--just more and more Americans, thank God--are living to be 80 and 85 and 90 years of age. We have our collective heads in the sand when it comes to veterans health care if we are not going to back our rhetoric with resources and put some resources into this Millennium Health Care Act. It is not done on the cheap. Long-term care is not done on the cheap. Enabling a veteran to live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible, with dignity--which is what we should do--is not done on the cheap. Currently, we have 9 million veterans who are 65 years of age or older. Over the next decade, half of the veteran population is going to be 65 years of age or older. According to the Federal Advisory Commission on the Future of VA Long Term Care, about 610,000 veterans a day need some form of long-term care. That was in 1997, that study. As the veterans population ages, long-term services are an increasingly important part of our commitment to health care for veterans, and we are not funding it. We are not providing the necessary funding. The Millennium Act also ensures emergency care coverage for veterans who do not have any other health insurance options. This is costly. It is another thing that has to be covered, but it is necessary. Nearly 1 million veterans enrolled with the VA are uninsured, and they are in poorer health than the general population. Furthermore, we made the commitment to treating hepatitis C, we have other complex diseases such as HIV infection, and we have made the commitment to provide care for veterans, but we do not have the adequate funding. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that full implementation of the Millennium Act would cost over $1 billion in 2001--$1 billion alone. This is on top of the other initiatives, $500 million for initiatives such as mental health, the homeless reintegration program, and treatment for hepatitis C. When you take all the challenges and all the costs that the VA health care system is going to face, including long-term care, emergency care, essential treatments, and medical inflation, a budget increase of $2.6 billion is needed. That is the independent veterans budget. We are not even halfway there with what we have done, and I am now saying at least let's add an additional $650 million. The last 2 years have been a downpayment to the veterans health care budget, enabling the VA to get back on course in delivering world class service that is rightfully due to our Nation's veterans. I thank, again, the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their work. These funding increases have been welcome. But the problem is they have not erased the prior years of flat funding. We all know what that means. Year after year, we had flat funding where we did not at all increase any of the appropriations, the money the veterans needed. Over the last decade, the VA health care budget has experienced deep cuts in real dollar terms, at a time when it should have been addressing an aging and increasingly health-care-dependent veterans population. That is the ``why'' of this amendment. Let me repeat that because it is the unpleasant truth. Over the last decade, all together, in real dollar terms, because of these flat budgets, actually the VA health care budget was experiencing deep cuts, in real terms, at the same time we had more and more veterans who were aging, more and more veterans with health care needs. Based on VA statistics from January 2001, the national average waiting time for a routine next-available appointment for primary care medicine is 64 days. Do you hear me? Sixty-four days, with a range of between 36 and 80 days. For specialty care, the statistics are even worse. Eye care average waiting time, 94 days; cardiology, average waiting time, 53 days; orthopedics, average waiting time, 47 days; urology, average waiting time, 79 days. Some veterans are waiting up to 18 months to get care from the VA in Minnesota, and Minnesota is not alone, and that is not acceptable. There should be support for this amendment. In an era of budget surpluses, these stories are outrageous. I could go on and on. I will not because I know my colleagues want to move the legislation forward. I do not think that veterans, America's veterans, Minnesota's veterans, Nebraska's veterans, Missouri's veterans, understand why, with the Federal coffers overflowing, their budget is nowhere near fully funded. We have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about returning the surplus to taxpayers. We have been told the Federal coffers are overflowing and we should return the excess. Certainly some of the tax cuts were in order. But in all due respect, if you listen to the veterans community, if you visit VA facilities, if you talk with the staff, it is clear that part of the surplus we have been enjoying has been paid for on the backs of American veterans. That is why there should be support for this moderate amendment that just bumps up the funding so we can do a little bit better. I have about 5 more minutes to conclude my statement. I will wait for my colleague's response. The counterargument is: Wait a minute. This goes beyond the spending caps. I want Senators to listen to this. It is true that this amendment is not offset. I could have tried to pay for this amendment by cutting into housing programs in this appropriations bill. But the truth is, housing is underfunded. In fact, it is absolutely unbelievable that affordable housing is not made the top priority in the Senate. It is going to soon become the crisis issue in the country. It is now. We just haven't faced up to it. The opponents of the amendment are asking that we make a tradeoff-- that I am supposed to ask more for veterans and take something away from affordable housing; that I am supposed to choose between science and veterans. I reject the tradeoff. I think Minnesotans reject the tradeoff. I think the American people reject the tradeoff. Colleagues, the Senate rejected the tradeoff when we debated the budget resolution. Let me go back to how you voted. Fifty-three Senators said: Let us do right by veterans and reduce the cost of the tax cut with this amendment. Ninety-nine Senators said: Let us add at least an additional $900 million and just take it from the surplus with no offset. Ninety- nine Senators voted for this. Ninety-nine Senators said: Let's add an additional $900 million and just take it off the surplus with no offset. This amendment adds only $650 million. By the way, between these two amendments, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to add four times as much money to veterans health care as the amendment I am offering today. You are on record. We are on record. We didn't do our work. We did it because of the overwhelming need that is out there. Let me simply say that I make no apology for the amendment. I think Senators should vote for it. I just say this to colleagues. Some historian is going to look back at this vote in one way. We know darn well that we are going to go beyond the budget caps and limits when it comes to defense. We are going to do that. We already know it. We also know that we are not going to stick to the caps when it comes to education. Every Senator knows that, or should. We can't make the kind of investment that we have rhetorically committed to education within these existing caps. We can't make the kind of commitment that many have made to defense within these existing caps. We cannot honor the commitment that we made to veterans within these caps. It is crystal clear to me that we are on record. Ninety-nine Senators said: Let's add an additional $900 million and let's take it off surplus with no offset. I said: Let's ask for $750 million. That is not even the $900 million for which 99 Senators voted. I finish on this point: The reason for all the support from all of these veterans organizations is this very real need. I come out here to speak about it. I feel strongly about it because I know we have to do better. I hope this amendment will pass. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first say to both Senators, they have done a superb job within the allocation they had. My quarrel is with the allocation. Again, the President's budget was about $1 billion over what we had. It doesn't even deal with medical inflation which is over $1 billion, a little over 4 percent per year. Everybody knows that. Then we added another $400 million. That is terribly important. If you look at inflation, for long-term care, home-based care for elderly veterans, hepatitis C, homeless veterans, mental health services, covering veterans now who were not covered before with emergency room care, we are nowhere near what we need to do. That is why every one of these veterans organizations supports this. That is why they did the independent budget. My colleagues have done their best within this allocation. The problem is with the allocation. Frankly, I would have had an amendment--I say to both of my colleagues; I have such respect for them--I would have had an amendment that would have offset this from the tax cut. Then it would have been blue-slipped because it would not have originated from the House. I didn't want to mess things up for this bill. I couldn't do that. Here is the only place of disagreement. All of what I have to say is praise. If I keep doing that, maybe I will even get your votes; you deserve it. Actually, the truth is two- or threefold. No. 1, there has not been one appropriations bill signed by the President. So actually this isn't busting the overall budget cap. We are early on in the process. It goes beyond this allocation with which I quarrel and you quarrel because you don't have the resources. If we are going to start saying that an additional $600 million to help veterans health care all of a sudden is a raid on Social Security and Medicare, then watch out, everybody, because come this fall, that is exactly what is going to happen with the Pentagon budget. There is not one Senator here who does not know that. That is exactly what is going to happen with the education budget. I am talking about appropriations. There is not one Senator who doesn't know that. I would venture to say there is not one Senator who will come to the floor right now and challenge me on this point. We all know we are going to bust the cap. We all know we are going to spend additional money. And we should. I am just being honest about this in my advocacy for veterans. I don't know why in the world right now we can't do this. There is nothing in the world that says you can't do it. As a matter of fact, again, 99 Senators voted for $900 million in an amendment offered by Senator Bond--$900 million additional. There was no offset for that. Two or three points: This is a vote that is a test of our priorities. We should do the right thing for veterans, and we should do it now. At the end of the game, come this fall, we know darn well we are going to be investing additional resources in education and the Pentagon. We ought to do it for veterans. That is what this is about. I say to every Senator, you are on record supporting this. It is not a game. It is to meet some very real needs. We all know we are going to have to make additional investments anyway, so it goes a little bit above the allocation. Finally, what do we say to veterans who have waited a long time? What do we say to veterans who are desperate for some care so they can stay at home and not be in nursing homes? What do we say to veterans who are homeless veterans and we are not getting the care to them? I couldn't vote for it because it was in violation of an allocation? People don't understand that. We ought to do the right thing. I hope Senators will support this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska. I associate myself with all of Senator Nelson's remarks. I can't wait to write a new farm bill. I jumped on this Agriculture Committee when there was an opening because I have hated this ``freedom to fail'' bill. We have had a dramatic decline in farm prices and farm income. I thank the Senator from Iowa for this emergency package. I rise to speak on the floor to strongly support what our committee has reported out to the Senate. Let me say at the very beginning that I don't like the AMTA payment mechanism. I am disappointed that we have to continue to do it this way. From the GAO to what farmers know in Minnesota and around the country, a lot of these AMTA payments have amounted to a subsidy and inverse relationship to need. The vast amount of the actual payments to farmers to keep them going goes to the really large operations and the mid-sized and smaller farmers do not get their fair share. I also believe that a lot of younger farmers who were hurt by the low proportion of payments that go to them are also hurt as younger farmers. We need more younger farmers. I believe all of this should be changed. The Senator from Iowa knows that. But I also think we have to get the payments out to people. Let me say to colleagues that I am not prepared to go back to Minnesota and say to people in farm country that we didn't have the money to provide the assistance to you. I think it is a shame that people are so dependent on the Government. People hate it. What they want is some power or some leverage to get a decent price in the marketplace. I believe in this farm bill that we are writing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We should do so. I also believe that there should be a strong effort in the conservation part of this legislation. I think there ought to be a section that deals with energy, and there ought to be a section dealing with competition. We ought to be talking about put putting more competition into the food industry. I am becoming conservative these days in the Senate because I want to put more free enterprise into the free enterprise system. I want to see us take antitrust seriously. I want to see us go after some of these conglomerates that are muscling their way to the dinner tables and forcing family farmers out--and, by the way, very much to the detriment of consumers. This emergency package has some very strong features. First of all, thank goodness, this is an emphasis on conservation and conserving our natural resources. From the CRP Program, to the Wetland Reserve Program, to Environmental Quality Incentive Programs, we are talking about programs that need the additional funding. We are talking about programs that are win-win-win: win for the farmers, win for Pheasants Forever, win for Ducks Unlimited, some of the best environmental organizations you could ever run across; a win for consumers; and a win for the environment. Our Catholic bishop wrote a statement about 15 years ago entitled ``Strangers and Guests.'' He said we are all but strangers and guests in this land. They were looking at soil erosion and chemical runoff into the water. The focus on conservation in this emergency package is just a harbinger of the direction we are going to go because this next farm bill is going to focus on land stewardship, on preserving our natural resources, on conservation, and on a decent price for family farmers as opposed to these conglomerates. I believe what we have in this emergency package is extremely important. I thank my colleague from Iowa for an extension of the Dairy Price Support Program. It is important to dairy farmers in Minnesota and throughout the country. The program was due to expire this year. At least it is an effort to stabilize these mad fluctuations in price. If you have a lot of capital, it is fine if you go from $13.20 per hundredweight to $9 per hundredweight. But if you do not have the capital and the big bucks, you are going to go under. I think it is important to have that. I thank my colleagues. The growers in the Southern Minnesota Sugar Beet Cooperative are going to receive benefits under the 2000 crop assistance program through this legislation. These are sugar beet growers of southern Minnesota who suffered because of a freeze in the fields last fall. They tried to process the beets. They tried to do their best. They couldn't make the money off of it. Frankly, without the assistance in this package, they wouldn't have any future at all. Again, what is an emergency? From my point of view, if you can get some benefits to people who find themselves in dire economic circumstances through no fault of their own, and you can make sure that they can continue to survive today so that they can farm tomorrow, then you are doing what you should do. That is what this package is all about. I fully support it. As much as I like my colleague from Indiana and as much as I think he is one of the best Senators in the Senate, I cannot support his substitute amendment. I hope we will have strong support on the floor of the Senate for this package of emergency assistance that comes to the Senate from the Senate Agriculture Committee. By the way, we need to move on this matter. We need to get this assistance out to farmers. We don't need to delay and delay because then we are playing with people's lives in a very unfortunate way. We really are. This is the time for Senators to have amendments, as Senator Lugar has. This is a time for Senators to disagree. That is their honest viewpoint. But it is not a time to drag this on and on so that we can't get benefits out to people who without these benefits are not going to have any future at all. We cannot let that happen. We cannot do that to farmers in this country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I don't want to take much time, but I wanted to have about 5 minutes in response to Senator Specter.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask, after the Allard amendment is disposed of, we come back to the Specter amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair whether there are any time constraints at all.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not remember asking for only 5 minutes. I do not intend to speak for very long but if that is the agreement at the moment--5 minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before I proceed further, I ask whether or not each Senator who is speaking this afternoon is limited to 5 minutes. Is that it?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not remember asking for only 5 minutes. Could somebody check on exactly where this came from? Let me ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not know if I will need to take 15 minutes. There will be plenty of time for debate. I may be back to the floor again. Let me, first of all, put my comments in some kind of context. These are hard times for a lot of dairy farmers, and I understand that full well. I am not terribly sure the idea of a compact or the idea of balkanizing dairy farmers around the country with different compacts is the answer. In fact, I do not think it is the answer at all. As we write a new farm bill, I wish the focus would be for our farmers, corn growers and wheat growers and other crop farmers and livestock producers and dairy farmers. I think the focus should be on a way for our independent producers to be able to get a decent price in the marketplace. That is what I think this should be about. In Minnesota, just to give Senators some reason as to why I come to the floor with a lot of determination and oppose the Specter amendment--I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I mean the amendment proposed by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter-- the dairy industry is a big part of our State's economy. We have 8,000 dairy farmers in Minnesota. We rank fifth in the Nation's milk production. The milk production from Minnesota farms generates more than $1.2 billion for our State's farmers each year. Frankly, it adds an additional $1.2 billion by way of a multiplier effect to Minnesota's overall economy. I am not talking about big giants. The average herd size in Minnesota is 60 cows per farm. We are talking about family operations. We are talking about family businesses with total sales of $1.2 billion. But between 1993 and the year 2000, we lost about 5,000 dairy farms. That represents a loss of over one-third of our total dairy farms. That is second only to the State of Wisconsin, among the 50 States in our country. If you look at the upper Midwest States, including Minnesota and Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, our region lost 49 percent of all the dairy farmers between 1992 and 1998. These are not just statistics; these are people's lives. I hope, as I said earlier, we will actually write a new farm bill which will give dairy farmers in all regions of the country, especially the family operations, a decent price. I am not talking about these big conglomerates. I am talking about farms where the people who work the land are the people who make the decisions, and they live there. There is no reason in the world why we cannot have a family-farm-based dairy system, a dairy system which promotes economic vitality in our rural areas. I have said it many times. The health and vitality of rural America, which is a part of America and a part of Minnesota that I love, is not going to be based on the amount of land owned. Somebody is always going to own the land. Someone will own the animals. But the health and vitality of the communities is not based upon the amount of land that is owned by someone or the number of animals. It is the number of family farmers who live there, dairy farmers included, who live in the community, who buy in the community, who support schools in the community; that is what is of key importance. As if dairy farmers were not struggling with enough already in the Midwest, in 1996 Congress assisted and in some ways has made the price for many dairy farmers much worse. That is what has happened in the Midwest. Again, I did not support the Freedom to Farm bill. I have always called it the ``freedom to fail'' bill. But the whole idea was you were going to decouple farmers--you were going to decouple the payments to family farmers from the Government. Of course, that is not what has happened. But this compact fixes fluid milk prices at artificially high levels for the benefit of dairy producers in one region. Now, there may be other regions, according to this amendment. This is a different set of rules. There was a study at the University of Missouri. A dairy economist, Ken Bailey, found that Minnesota's farm level milk price would drop at least 21 cents per hundredweight if the Southeast Dairy Compact were allowed to be expanded, to attach to an expanded Northeast Dairy Compact. That is a $27.2 million annual reduction of Minnesota farm milk sales. Some of my colleagues say: Why doesn't the upper Midwest form its own compact? Minnesota and Wisconsin farmers would benefit from organizing their own compact. A compact price boosts supplies only to fluid milk. The percentage of upper Midwest milk sales going to fluid products is so low that any compact would do little for Minnesota's farm income. What happens is a negative--the surplus of that milk gets dumped in our State and competes with our cheese and butter market. We are talking about trade barriers in our country. We are talking about a compact that is not good for consumers. Quite frankly, I don't know whether or not there is a way to keep dairy farmers in business in any part of the country. We transferred millions of dollars from millions of consumers to New England dairy farmers, but the dairy farmers continue to go out of business at an equal or even faster rate than prior to the compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact has not slowed the loss of dairy farmers. There are less New England dairy farmers. Four-hundred and sixty-five have left business in the 3 years since the compact than before the compact. It was 444 before. I could go on and on, but I think expanding the dairy compact sets a terrible precedent. We can start doing this for other American agricultural products as well. The question is, Where do we go with all of this? The current dairy policy in this country is putting dairy farmers in Minnesota at great risk--not just in Minnesota but across the country. I think what we should do is establish a national equitable dairy system for all. I don't know why in the world Senators from different States with dairy farmers and with family-run operations cannot work together to make sure we have a safety net and a decent price and some kind of income for dairy farmers that would help people especially during the time of low prices. Also, I think we could end a half century of discrimination against the Midwest as well. We will have the vote on this. I assume Senator Kohl will move to table this amendment. I know we will be joined by Senator Feingold, Senator Dayton, and myself. This is what is so unfortunate about where we are right now. First of all, the compact is quite inconsistent with what many Senators believe in terms of what we should be doing. I heard my colleague from Wisconsin refer to it as a ``cartel.'' That is strong language. But there are an awful lot of Senators in the Senate who do not believe in fixing prices this way. That is point one. The second point is a different point. There are a lot of Senators who support this whom I like as friends; good people. But why in the world are we now basically balkanizing all of the dairy farmers and Senators who are supposed to be supporting dairy farmers, cutting deals, and basically saying, OK, Northeast, now we will add the Southeast? Now we will go to the Northwest--keep cutting deals trying to bring people in, further balkanizing and forgetting that we are really in the same boat together. Yes, I come to the floor to fight for the upper Midwest. I come to the floor to fight for dairy farmers in Minnesota. But, for God's sake, I don't understand why some Senators want to go in the direction of administering prices, cutting deals, balkanizing dairy farmers, balkanizing agriculture, balkanizing Senators, and balkanizing the country. This isn't a step in the right direction. It is a great leap backwards. I am speaking as a Senator from Minnesota. Yes, I am speaking for dairy farmers in Minnesota. Yes, I am doing everything I can to fight for dairy farmers in Minnesota just as other Senators would do when it comes to representing people you love. I don't even think what is being proposed is good for the country at all. This makes no sense. I hope Senators--consistent with what they have always said they believe in, consistent with promises that have been made to Senator Kohl and others, consistent with the idea of how we can work together rather than basically being pitted against one another--will vote to table this amendment. I yield the floor.