Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Vermont, I am waiting to go to another committee, may I follow the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his statement. I will be relatively brief. I ask unanimous consent that if other Senators aren't here, Senator Kennedy be allowed to speak after myself.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor not the first time to announce my opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment, giving power to the Congress and the States to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I wish to speak about this a little bit more personally because I think all of us come to our point based upon real-life experience. My father was a Jewish immigrant born in the Ukraine and who fled persecution from Russia. My mother's family came from the Ukraine as well. As a first generation American on my father's side, I revere the flag and I am fiercely patriotic. I love to see the flag flying over the Capitol. I love to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I think it is a beautiful, powerful symbol of American democracy. What I learned from my parents more than anything else, and from my own family experience as the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled czarist Russia, is that my father came to the United States because of the freedom--the freedom we have as American citizens to express our views openly, without fear of punishment. I am deeply impressed with the sincerity of those who, including Senator Hatch, favor this constitutional amendment. I am impressed with the sacrifice and patriotism of those veterans who support this constitutional amendment. I think in the veterans community there certainly are differences of opinion. I do not question their sincerity or commitment at all. It is with a great deal of respect for those with whom I disagree, including some members of the American Legion, that I oppose this amendment. I oppose it because, to me, it is ultimately the freedom that matters the most. To me, the soul of the flag, as opposed to the physical part of the flag, is the freedom that it stands for, the freedom that my parents talked about with me, the freedom that all of us have to speak up. I do not want to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in its 209 years of existence. I don't want to amend the first amendment, the founding principle of freedom of speech from which all other freedoms follow. I want to very briefly read from some of what our Justices have had to say because I think they say it with more eloquence than I could. In Texas v. Johnson, an opinion written by Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy--and I note this is a diverse group of judges we are talking about--they said: If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . . . The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. . . . We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents. If freedom of speech means anything, I think it means protecting all speech, even that speech which outrages us. I have no use for those who desecrate the flag. Speech that enjoys widespread support doesn't need any protection. As the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out, freedom of speech is not needed for popular speech, but instead it is for the thought that we hate, the expression threatened with censorship or punishment. I quote from General Powell's letter. He has been quoted several times, but it is too eloquent to pass up: We are rightfully outraged when anyone attacks or desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which tolerates such desecration. . . . I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. Our late and dear friend and colleague, Senator Chafee, who was a highly decorated soldier in two wars wrote: We cannot mandate respect and pride in the flag. In fact, in my view, taking steps to require citizens to respect the flag sullies its significance and its symbolism. Finally, my colleague from Wisconsin mentioned Senator Glenn, another real American hero. Senator Glenn said: Without a doubt, the most important of those values, rights and principles is individual liberty: the liberty to worship, to think, to express ourselves freely, openly and completely, no matter how out of step these views may be with the opinions of the majority. That is the first part of my presentation--just to say that I love this flag. I think when you have the family background I have, you are fiercely patriotic. I love this country. My mother and father are no longer alive, but I still think they know I am a Senator. They weren't alive when I was elected. It would mean everything in the world to them. But, to me, the real soul of the flag, going beyond the physical presence of the flag, is the freedom that the flag stands for. I don't think we should give up on that freedom. I don't think we should amend the first amendment to the Constitution. I think it would be a profound mistake. I say that out of respect for those who disagree with me in the Senate. I say it out of respect for those in the veterans community who disagree with me.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as much as I hate to recognize this, this is the fourth anniversary of the passage by the House and the Senate of the ``freedom to fail'' bill. On this date in 1996, both houses of Congress approved a new farm bill, described then as ``the most sweeping change in agriculture since the Depression. It would get rid of government subsidies to farmers over the next seven years.'' The bill has made sweeping changes in agriculture--it has produced one of the worst economic crises that rural American has ever experienced. Thanks to the Freedom to Farm, or as I call it the Freedom to Fail Act, tens of thousands of farm families are in jeopardy of losing their livelihoods and life savings. The Freedom to Farm bill is not saving tax payers money, in fact we have spent $19 billion more in the first 4 years of the 1996 farm bill than was supposed to be spent through the 7 year life of the law. However, what has resulted is the precipitous loss of family farmers because this legislation has not provided small and moderate sized farmers with a safety net. Instead payment loopholes have been inserted in legislation that has allowed the largest argibusiness corporations to receive the lions share of government support. This is unacceptable. In my State of Minnesota, family farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1996 and more than 25 percent of the remaining farms may not cover expenses for 2000. Every month more and more family farmers are being forced to give up their life's work, their homes, and their communities. The primary problem is price. The average price paid to producers for their crops has plummeted. Farmers suffer from a negative cash flow. In Minnesota it costs $2.50 to grow a bushel of corn. Today the price of a bushel of corn in Minnesota sells at around $1.75 at the local elevator. The forecast for prices is gloom. USDA projections for commodity prices are expected to remain low. USDA estimates that farm income will decline 17 percent this year if Congress does not act. Wheat prices have dropped $3 in the past 2 years. In May, 1996, wheat was selling $5.75 per bushel. Today, wheat is at $2.78 per bushel. This is well below the cost of production. Farmers need at least $4 a bushel to break even. Soybean prices will probably average under $5 a bushel. Livestock and dairy prices are also being impacted. Hog farmers still face market prices below their costs of production for the third straight year. Family farmers have struggled to survive as the devastating results of the 1996 Farm bill, exacerbated by the lack of a reliable farm safety net. In addition, merger after merger in the agriculture sector leaves producers wondering if they will be able to survive amidst the new giants of agribusiness. As a direct result, rural bankers, implement dealers, and other small businesses that rely on farm families as their customers have been squeezed as cash flows have dropped. Rural families with shrunken incomes have less money to pay for quality health care coverage and adequate child care for their children. There is an affordable housing crunch as urgent as in our urban areas. And finally, in our rural communities there is a lack of good jobs at decent wages. The crisis is real. You can see it in the numbers. You can see it in the eyes of the scores of farmers who are forced to sell off the substance of their history and their livelihood. Many compare the current farm crisis to the 1980's. We all know there was a massive shake out of family farmers at that time. It changed the face of rural America. Many communities were devastated and have not recovered. I assume many use the comparison to remind us that the distressed farm economy in the '80's somehow survived, and so farmers will survive this one too. But the crisis we now face is much graver than in the 80's, and I fear that family farmers and rural America will not survive. The tough farm economy may resemble the agricultural crisis of the 1980's, but there is a notable difference, and that difference is namely the passage of the Freedom to Farm Act. The Act ignored the fact that family farming is a business both uniquely important and uniquely affected by nonmarket forces. The Freedom to Farm has become Freedom to Fail. The 1996 Freedom to Farm bill was suppose to wean rural America from subsidies by introducing a market-driven agriculture. The bill gave farmers flexibility to plant what they wanted, and it was to make farmers able to adapt to a slump in a particular commodity by switching to a more profitable crop. But the switch in crops doesn't make a difference if they are all drastically low. We are now witnessing many farmers planting soybeans. Why is that so many farmers are planting soybeans? It isn't because the market demands soybeans. It is because the Freedom to Fail bill capped the loan rate on soybeans higher than other commodities, and so farmers are planting soybeans to get a better rate than from corn or wheat. This is not market driven agriculture. The Freedom to Farm bill is not saving tax payers money, as I've said we have spent $19 billion in the first 4 years of the bill than was supposed to be spent through the 6-year life of the law. However, what has resulted is the precipitous loss of family farmers because this legislation has not provided small and moderate sized farmers with an adequate safety net. Instead payment loopholes have been inserted in legislation that has allowed the largest agribusiness corporations to receive the majority of government support. This unacceptable. In order to ensure that family farmers remain a part of this country's landscape, need a new farm bill now. We simply cannot wait until reauthorization in 2002 for Congress to act. Congress must act now to address the impact of plummeting farm incomes and the ripple effect it is having throughout rural communities and their economic base. Farmers are not going to survive if the only help they get from Washington are inadequate, unreliable, long delayed emergency aid bills that are distributed unfairly. We need policies that equip family farmers to withstand the low prices and weather disasters that are fueling the current farm crisis, so their livelihood is not dependent on the whims of Congress. This crisis is a crisis of price. Farmers want and deserve a fair price. Farmers do not want a handout. Yet, the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill stripped farmers of their marketing tools, and they have been left empty handed. People cannot--they will not--be able to survive right now unless there is some income stabilization, unless there is some safety net, unless there is some way they can have some leverage to get a decent price in the marketplace. That is the missing piece of Freedom to Farm or Freedom to Fail. Flexibility is good. But that has not worked, and I see it every day in every community that I am in. I'm not talking about AMTA payments, which is severance pay for our Nation's farmer heritage. Our Nation's family farmers want--they desperately need some leverage in the marketplace to get a fair price. We need to lift the loan rate. The Freedom to Fail Act capped marketing loans at artificial levels so low that they fail to offer meaningful income support. The loan rates have left farmers vulnerable to the severe economic and weather related events of the past 3 years, resulting in devastating income losses. Family farmers deserve a targeted, countercyclical loan rate that provides a meaningful level of income support when the market price falls below the loan rate, and a loan rate with a CUP rather than a CAP so it doesn't merely track prices when they fall. Lifting the loan rate would provide relief to farmers who need it and increase stability over the long term. We also need to institute farmer owned reserve systems to give farmers the leverage they need in the marketplace. And conservation incentives to reward farmers who carry out conservation measures on their land. And finally, unless we address the current trend of consolidation and vertical integration in corporate agriculture, nothing else we do to maintain the family size farms will succeed. The farm share of profit in the food system has been declining for over 20 years. From 1994 to 1998, consumer prices have increased 3 percent while the prices paid to farmers for their products has plunged 36 percent. Likewise, the impact of price disparity is reinforced by reports of record profits among agribusinesses at the same time producers are suffering an economic depression. In the past decade and a half, an explosion of mergers, acquisitions, and anti-competitive practices has raised concentration in American agriculture to record levels. The top four pork packers have increased their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent. In fact, the world's largest pork producer and processor is getting bigger. Smithfield Foods is buying the Farmland Industries plant in Dubuque, Iowa. This deal should be complete by mid- May. The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 percent to 80 percent. The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 percent to 62 percent. The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54 percent to 80 percent. The top four turkey processors now control 42 percent of production. Forty-nine percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the four largest firms. The top four firms control 67 percent of ethanol production. The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent, and 57 percent of the market, respectively. The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of elevator facilities. By conventional measures, none of these markets are really competitive. According to the economic literature, markets are no longer competitive if the top four firms control over 40 percent. In all the markets I just listed, the market share of the top four firms is 40 percent or more. So there really is no effective competition in these processing markets. But now, with this explosion of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, marketing agreements, and anticompetitive behavior by the largest firms, these and other commodity markets are becoming more and more concentrated by the day. Last week, the Senate passed a resolution 99-1, expressing our feelings on the 1996 Farm bill. It read, Congress is committed to giving this crisis in agriculture . . . its full attention by reforming rural policies to alleviate the farm price crisis, [and] ensuring competitive markets . . . We are committed to having the debate about what kind of changes we could make that would provide some real help for family farmers, that would enable family farmers to get a decent price, that would provide some income for families, what kind of steps we could take that will put some free enterprise back into the food industry and deal with all the concentration of power. Other Senators may have different ideas. I just want us to address this crisis. I don't want us to turn our gaze away from our family farmers. And I say to my colleagues, on this anniversary of the Freedom of Fail Bill, we need a new farm bill--and I will come to the floor, every opportunity I have to speak about the economic convulsion this legislation has caused in our rural communities. I say to all of my colleagues who talked about how we were going to get the Government off the farm, we were going to lower the loan rate, and do this through deregulation and exports, that we have an honest to goodness depression in agriculture. We have the best people in the world working 20 hours a day who are being spit out of the economy. We have record low income, record low prices, broken dreams and lives, and broken families. We had close to 3,000 farmers who came here last week. It was riveting. It was pouring rain, but they were down on The Mall. We had 500 farmers from Minnesota. Most all of them came by bus. They don't have money to come by jet. Many of them are older. They came with their children and grandchildren. They did not come here for the fun of it. They came here because the reality is, this will be their last bus trip. They are not going to be able to come to Washington to talk about agriculture. They are not going to be farming any longer. These family farmers are not going to be farming any longer unless we deal with the price crisis. Right now, the price of what they get is way below the cost of production. Only if you have huge amounts of capital can you go on. People eating at the dinner table are doing fine. The IVVs, and the Con-Agras and big grain companies are doing fine. But our dairy and crop farmers and livestock producers are going under. This is, unfortunately, again the anniversary, and we have to write a new farm bill. That is my cry as a Senator from Minnesota from the heartland of America.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wish to make one other point, which is not a constitutional argument, but it does have a lot to do with veterans. I say that we have spent some time on this, and we should; it is not an unimportant matter. But I also hope we will spend time on the floor of the Senate talking about a range of other very important issues that affect veterans. I am amazed that every time I meet with veterans in Minnesota, or in other parts of the country, I hear about the ways in which veterans fall between the cracks. We have a budget this year that is better than a flatline budget, but Senator Kennedy is out here--a health care Senator--and he knows that better than anybody in the Senate. The fact is, we have an aging veteran population like we have an aging population in general, and that is all for the good because people are living longer. We don't have any real way right now of helping those veterans the way we should. We passed the millennium bill, but the question is, Will the appropriations be there? We ought to be talking about the health care needs of veterans as well. We ought to be talking about how we are going to make sure those veterans can stay at home and live at home with dignity, with home-based health care. I was at a medical center in Minneapolis, which is a real flagship hospital. It is not uncommon, when you go visit with veterans, you will see spouses who are there with their husbands, or maybe out in the waiting room or the lobby relaxing. You can talk to them for 3 minutes and realize they are scared to death about their husband going home. Maybe they had a knee or a hip operation, or maybe they have cancer. The spouses are mainly women. They don't know how they are going to take care of their husbands. There isn't even any support for respite care. When are we going to talk about that issue? When are we going to talk about the number of veterans who are homeless? When are we going to talk about the number of them who are Vietnam vets, because they are struggling with posttraumatic syndrome and because they are struggling with substance abuse and they don't get the treatment? When are we going to be talking about this overall budget for veterans' health care, which is not a national-line budget? There is an increase from the President this year--I am glad for that--but it doesn't really take into account all of the gaps and all of the investment we need to make. When are we going to do that? I did not come to the floor to not speak to this amendment. I have spoken with as much as I can muster as to why I oppose it. But I also want to say--I want this to be part of my formal remarks because I don't think it is off the Record--colleagues, that I hope we will talk about the whole set of other issues that are very important, not only to veterans but to the American people. I can assure you that I have worked with veterans to put together their independent budget. That is a whole coalition of veterans organizations. It is really shocking how many veterans fall between the cracks. We have a lot of work to do. We are talking about people's lives. It is no way to say thanks to veterans when we don't come through with the health care we promised them. I want to make it clear that I hope we will soon focus on these issues as well. I hope the veterans community will--I know the veterans community will--focus on these issues as well. I spend an awful lot of time with veterans. I have a lot of meetings with veterans and with county veteran service officers. These issues come up over and over again.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance before the last break to talk about a commitment we made to Capitol Hill police. We lost two fine officers. They were slain. We went to their service. We made it clear that we thanked them for the ways in which they protect the public, for the ways in which they protect us. We said we never want this to happen again. We have posts where there is 1 officer with 20 and 30 and 40 people streaming in. We made the commitment that we were going to have at least two officers at every post. I know there are Senators, such as Senator Bennett, who are in key positions and who care deeply about this. Senator Reid was a Capitol Hill policeman. There are others as well. We have to get this appropriations bill right. We need to hire more officers. We need to make sure the money is there for overtime so we don't have one officer at each post. This can't go on and on because if we don't do this, there will come a day when, unfortunately, someone will show up--someone who may be insane, someone who will take a life, or lives. One officer at a post and not two officers at a post is an untenable security situation. My plea to colleagues is, we need to get this right for the public and for the Capitol Hill police. We made this commitment. I think Democrats and Republicans alike care about this. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Two minutes for each side?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Congress amendment. It thanks the people who came here for the rally for rural America. It makes it clear that the Congress has heard their plea and that we will respond with a clear and strong message to alleviate the agricultural price crisis, to ensure competitive markets, to invest in rural education and health care, and to ensure a safe and secure food supply for all. The crop insurance bill is a good bill. I thank my colleagues for the work. I want to make sure with this amendment we are clear this is just the first step. We need to do much more. We hear the people who came. We commend them for coming. Many of them came by bus from Minnesota and many other States. We are committed to taking some important action that will make a positive difference. That is what this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is all about. When colleagues vote for this, I think it is a strong vote. We will come back with specific proposals which will be a part of what I think this amendment calls for. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to make sure that I object. I don't know if we have to go through the whole thing. The majority leader said we are talking in Washingtonese. To be clear about it, I think the bill was harsh. It has a disproportionate impact on the poorest citizens, and it takes some off the hook----

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. We object to it being separated out. We want to focus on this bill, and we want to have an opportunity to have further discussion and debate on the floor of the Senate. So I object on that basis.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, on the time, I have to decide on the second amendment. On the first amendment, it is not my wish to go on and on, but I would not agree to 30 minutes. There were 2,500 to 3,000 farmers, and 500 came from Minnesota. I would like to commend them for the Rally for Rural America, and call on Congress to take some action to deal with the crisis in our rural communities. I don't think I can give justice to what they did in 30 minutes. Other Senators would like to speak as well. I would not agree to only 30 minutes. The second point I wish to make is that these are agriculture-related amendments. I wish to make sure that is acceptable to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will object to the whole agreement because these amendments are agriculture-related. I don't think they would necessarily be ruled relevant to crop insurance. I can do the sense-of- the-Senate amendment within an hour, I think, basically recognizing and congratulating people for coming and talking about our commitment to take some action. I might not even do a second amendment. Certainly, they are agriculture-related. There isn't anybody in the world who would say that the sense-of-the-Senate is not agriculture-related, dealing with the price crisis. But I thought that would be acceptable. If it technically has to be relevant to crop insurance, that would be out of order. If it is out of order, I will not agree.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to achieve the objective within an hour of time. I can do that. I am not trying to hold up the bill. I think I can do that. I am not going to agree if I am going to be ruled out of order. Maybe we can proceed on that basis.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This would be for a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. If it could be in the agreement that there could be 1 hour and there would not be objection to it----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Nebraska, and I also thank the Senator from Indiana, for this legislation. I think this is a terribly important piece of legislation. I think this is good legislation. So I say to my colleague from Kansas, I thank him for his excellent piece of legislation. Both Senator Kerrey and I thank the chairman for having this legislation on the floor. It is substantive and important, and I thank him for his work.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his work. Mr. President, I want to go through this amendment. This is a sense- of-the-Congress resolution on the Rally for Rural America, the rally about the rural crisis that just took place in Washington, DC. Let me simply talk about what happened. Starting Sunday night, we started out with a wonderful prayer service, an ecumenical service. It was nourishing. The church was packed here in the city just a few blocks away from the Senate. There were some beautiful words that were uttered, but in particular I remember one of the ministers. She said, ``We have taken the culture out of agriculture.'' I thought a lot about that. I think that is the reason why so many people came to the Nation's Capital, because for many of our family farmers this could very well be their last bus ride here. We had from around the country, I don't want to exaggerate because that does not do justice to people, but I guess somewhere around 2,500, 3,000 people, many of them family farmers. From the State of Minnesota, we had close to 500 people here, most of them family farmers. I point out to my colleagues, this was an unusual gathering. This was a historic gathering. This is probably the most family farmers who have come to the Nation's Capital, I would say, in the last 20 or 25 years, at least from the State of Minnesota. I want my colleagues to also know that most of these farmers came by bus. They did not come by jet. They didn't have the money to come by jet. They came by bus. Many of them are elderly. A good number of them came with their grandchildren. They came to Washington, DC, for two reasons. First of all, they came to the Nation's Capital to try to have a conversation with America, to make sure people in the country know what is happening. I think one of the challenges for us is that, with all the news about the booming stock market and the booming economy, the vast majority of people in the country have not a clue what is happening to family farmers. I do not think they have a clue. This is a good country and we have a lot of good people in our country. We have good people in the Senate and the House. I hope, and I think the farmers really hope, this gathering in the Nation's Capital will bring out the goodness in us. Right now what we have, and I am not even going to talk about all the statistics, record low income. We have record low prices. We have, as I said yesterday, many broken dreams and broken lives and broken families. I am talking about people who were good managers of the land. I am talking about people who work 19 hours a day. But the fact is--and I say this to my colleagues--time is not on the side of many family farmers in my State and many other States. They are simply going to go under. We are going to lose many of our producers. We could lose as many as another 2,000 family farmers in Minnesota this year. People came to the Nation's Capital to say: We call upon you to respond to the needs, circumstances and concerns of our lives. What this sense of the Congress says is that the participants in the Rally for Rural America are commended and that their pleas have been heard. I think people should be commended for coming from such a long distance away and sacrificing so much to be here. They would not have come here, except they are hoping we can make some changes that will help them and their families, not only family farmers but our rural communities. The Congress should respond with a clear and strong message to the participants, rural families, that Congress is committed to giving the crisis in agriculture and all America its full attention by reforming rural policies in a manner that will: No. 1, alleviate the agricultural price crisis; No. 2, ensure competitive markets; No. 3, invest in rural education and health care; No. 4, protect our Nation's resources for future generations; and, No. 5, ensure a safe and secure food supply. I say to my colleagues, I worded this in such a way that leaves plenty of room for different interpretations as to how to accomplish these goals. We do not all agree. I understand that. The Senator from Indiana, the chairman of the committee, is someone-- I have said it to my own family members, I have said it to people in Minnesota--for whom I have the most respect. It is the truth. I say it; I mean it. I would not say it to my own children if I did not mean it. We do not agree on the Freedom to Farm bill, which I call the Freedom to Fail bill. But this sense-of-the-Congress resolution is broad in its interpretation. It is just an effort on my part, as a Senator from Minnesota, to say to all the people who came: I acknowledge the fact that you came. It is not as if you come here and we do not go to work to try to do something. This bill is an effort to try to respond. But it is but only one piece. For my own part, I believe we must respond to the price crisis. People cannot--they will not --be able to survive right now unless there is some income stabilization, unless there is some safety net, unless there is some way they can have some leverage to get a decent price in the marketplace. That is the missing piece of Freedom to Farm or Freedom to Fail. Flexibility is good. But that has not worked, and I see it every day in every community that I am in. I do not want to just keep visiting with people and listening to good people and caring about good people without trying to get the Senate on record that we are going to take some action. That is part of what this resolution is about. We can have the debate about what kind of changes we could make that would provide some real help for family farmers, that would enable family farmers to get a decent price, that would provide some income for families, what kind of steps we could take that will put some free enterprise back into the food industry and deal with all the concentration of power. For my own part, I do think there is a very strong correlation between three and four firms dominating 60 to 70 percent of the market, and family farmers not getting a decent price. I find it puzzling. I find it more than puzzling. I find it to be an outrage that so many of our producers are facing extinction but the packers and the big grain companies are doing well--in some cases receiving record profits. The gap, the farm/retail spread grows wider and wider, and the gap between what people pay at the grocery store and what the farmers get for what they produce grows wider and wider. I am saying we have to have more competitive markets. I am saying we want to make a commitment to sustainable agriculture. I did not say in this resolution, although I think it is terribly important and I know Senator Conrad would be the first one to talk about this, that we need to have a fair trade policy. More than anything else, I come to the floor of the Senate wanting to acknowledge the presence of close to 3,000 farmers and people from rural America. They were here yesterday in the pouring rain under a tent on the Capitol mall. People came to speak out for themselves. They came to meet with Representatives and Senators. They did not come because they have some party strategy. They did not come because they had a particular partisan orientation. They are thinking about their own families and their own communities. I wish to say on the floor of the Senate, because I am lucky enough to get a chance to speak on the floor of the Senate and these farmers cannot speak on the floor of the Senate, there is an economic convulsion taking place in agriculture today. Many wonderful people are being spit out of the economy. Too many lives are being shattered. The health and the vitality of our communities in rural North Dakota or Minnesota or any of the other heartland States is not based upon the number of acres farmed or the number of animals someone owns, but the number of family farmers who live in these communities. Whether we are talking about dairy farmers or corn growers or wheat growers or livestock producers, it is an absolutely intolerable situation--a situation from which we cannot turn our gaze away. For me to summarize, the findings talk about thousands of rural citizens and families and the religious communities coming to Washington to participate in the rally. The religious communities' voice was wonderful. The findings talk about a broad coalition of over 30 farm, environmental, and labor organizations that are concerned that rural America has been left behind during this time of prosperity that participated in organizing the Rally for Rural America. I thank the AFL-CIO for being here. I thank Bernie Brommer, the president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, for being here. I thank Jerry Macaffey from AFSCME for speaking at the rally. I congratulate them for being here. The amendment makes the point that although the majority of America is reaping the benefits of a strong economy, rural America is facing the toughest times. The findings in this amendment talk about the record low prices on the farms and the ranches, and the way in which they have rippled throughout rural America, causing rural communities to face all kinds of challenges: A depressed farm economy, an escalation of the mergers and the acquisitions, a loss of businesses and jobs on Main Street, an erosion of health care and education, a decline in infrastructure, and a loss of independent family farmers. The purpose for this resolution: ``To express the sense of Congress regarding the Rally for Rural America and the rural crisis'' is to thank people for being here and to talk about and make it clear that we will, in fact, respond with a clear and strong message to the participants, that we are committed to dealing with this crisis, that we are committed to giving it our full attention, in a manner that will alleviate the agricultural price crisis, that will ensure competitive markets, that will lead to an investment in rural education and health care, protect our natural resources, and ensure a safe and secure food supply. If, in fact, we continue to lose our producers, and if, in fact, we go the trend of an increasingly corporatized, industrialized agriculture, it will be a transition that our country will deeply regret. I think this is very important for America. I tell you, my heart and soul goes out to the people who were here. I hope there will be good support for this sense-of-the-Senate amendment to this very good piece of legislation. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I do want to point out that there are two parts to this sense-of-the- Senate amendment. One part is to thank the farmers and others for being here. The second part is to put us on record and say we will respond and, in particular, we will respond to the price crisis. We are going to talk about how to ensure competitive markets. For my part, I think that means strong antitrust action. We are going to invest. We are going to understand that in the discussion about education and health care--these are rural issues as well--we are talking about sustainable agriculture. We will make a commitment to responding. This is only a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. However, I don't view it as just being symbolic. I think it would be great to have a strong vote. I want it to be a bipartisan vote. I would love to see us work on the additional pieces Senator Dorgan and I have talked about together, as Democrats and Republicans. I pray--I don't use that word very often on the floor of the Senate--that we will make some changes so our producers, our family farmers, will have a fighting chance to earn a decent living so they can give their children the care they know they need and deserve. This is thanking these farmers, but it is also putting the Senate on record that we, in fact, are going to respond. That is the second part. That is an important part. Yes, it is just a sense of the Senate, but I will be coming back over and over again talking about the sense of the Senate with my own ideas about how we can make a difference. Other Senators may have different ideas. I just want us to address it. I don't want us to put family farmers in Minnesota or North Dakota or Indiana, or anywhere, in parentheses or in brackets and act as though this isn't happening. I don't want us to turn our gaze away from them. I don't want there to be an inaction. That is the why of this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was very pleased to have the Senator speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague for a moment, first of all, I thank him for the words. I will ask for the yeas and nays. I do want to have a vote on this amendment. My request will be if the majority leader wants to do it tomorrow--I was trying to come out and help facilitate this--I wonder whether or not we could at least have 2 minutes to summarize before the vote. I hope that will be the case. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.