Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to point out to my colleagues that a lot of these unscrupulous credit companies get around State regulations and protections through Federal law. A lot of them are chartered by Federal law. So it is certainly appropriate to take this action if we want to protect consumers and not be on the side of these loan sharks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2537.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that intern Livia Vedrasco be allowed privilege of the floor today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I go on in this debate on this bankruptcy bill, since I have a very different position on this piece of legislation than my colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, I say to him I think all of us in the Senate, even when we do not agree with him, like to see him on the floor. He is a Senator with a tremendous amount of dignity. He is a very, very fine Senator. So we welcome him back. Mr. President, I will start out talking about a couple of amendments. The first amendment I want to make reference to--then I want to talk about this bill to give some context for these amendments--is an amendment which would curb a form of predatory lending which targets low- and moderate-income families. One of my criticisms of this bill is it is very one sided and does not deal with these kinds of unscrupulous lending practices. This amendment, which is called the payday loan amendment, would prevent claims at bankruptcy on high-cost transactions in which the annual interest rate exceeds 100 percent such as payday loans and car title pawns. I say to my colleague from Utah and other colleagues in the Senate, this is an outrageous practice. As long as we are talking about bankruptcy reform, we ought to make it clear this kind of predatory lending practice means these folks cannot have claims in bankruptcy. Let me give some examples, and I will go into this more next week. First, on payday loans, what we are talking about is the situation of a family where maybe the car breaks down. These are people who do not have a lot of money. Maybe it is an illness, a medical bill. It is called a payday loan. They seek a 2-week loan; maybe it is $200, maybe it is $100. What happens is the lenders, these credit companies that are involved in these payday loans, will say we will make the loan to you and you write out a check to us, and also here is going to be the fee we are going to charge, which equals high interest, then 2 weeks from now you pay us back. It turns out quite often people cannot pay back the loan because these people are under the gun, in which case they roll it over again and again and again, which is exactly what the payday lenders want, to the point where, for example, a $15 fee on a 2- week loan of $100 equals an annual interest rate of 391 percent. There are some instances where the actual interest rate is 2,000 percent. I think a lot of people in the lending industry are not happy with this practice at all--I want to give some credit where credit is due, no pun intended. Additionally, what these pay day lenders do is use a coercive practice where they say to very hard-pressed families: We have the check you made out to us and if you don't pay us back, we are going to go ahead and bounce the check and then you will be subject to criminal prosecution. They use that as a threat. They don't follow through, but they intimidate people. Let me go on to talk about car title pawns. This is unbelievable, American people. It is hard to get people's attention on this bankruptcy bill. I think people ought to know some of the practices that go on in the country. In this particular case, you have a double whammy. People are hard pressed. If they were not hard pressed and had nowhere to go, if they were big customers with big banks, they would have no problem. We are talking about hard-working, poor people, low-income people in Arkansas, Minnesota, Utah, desperate for money. What are they going to do? In this particular case with the car title pawns, they get a $100 loan and the creditor puts a lien on the car and says you have to pay us back with the fee, high interest. If you don't pay them back-- literally quite often they require the key to the car as part of the condition for granting the loan--they take the car. They sell the car and in some states they don't even have to give back to the original owner the additional money they make beyond what the loan was. They keep all the money. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? This is exactly what goes on. One of my amendments, that I am going to spell this out in greater detail next week, will say that there is some predatory lending which clearly targets hard-pressed low- and moderate-income families, which we find obscene. We intend to have some kind of ground rules here, some kind of accountability. Basically what we are saying is--this is the proposition--we are not going to let you make a bankruptcy claim where you have had a credit transaction in which the annual interest rate exceeds 100 percent. If we are going to talk about bankruptcy reform, I am hoping to see my colleagues out here with a good, strong affirmative vote. I will briefly talk about the second amendment because I will have more time to lay this out later. I will cooperate with the manager. I will begin to lay out my case. This is an important consumer amendment which will require big banks with more than $200 million in assets to offer low-cost, basic banking services to their customers if, again, they wish to make claims against debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. We have talked about the responsibility of the consumers--hard- pressed people. What about the responsibility of banks and lending institutions to offer inexpensive means to conduct financial transactions and to save money? What happens is, they say you have to have a minimum balance of $1,000 in your account. If you do not, you have to pay an exorbitant fee, which could result in hundreds of dollars a year. These low-income people cannot afford it. There are some 12 million Americans who do not have the same kind of service that we have. As a result, then, they end up having to deal with unscrupulous kinds of dealers, like the payday lenders that I just described. Our community banks in Arkansas and Minnesota went out of their way with low- and moderate-income people who live within their communities to make sure they were able to access low cost accounts. But now, with this consolidation and these mergers, a lot of these big branch banks do not see it the same way. So what we are simply saying is, we want these consumers to be able to have an affordable checking account, one that does not require a large minimum balance or costly access fees. That is what is going on. This amendment will speak to that. But context for this. Again, I say to my colleagues, believe me, I am just absolutely amazed, when I look at some of the practices that take place in this country, that we are not, in this piece of legislation, dealing with it. But let me give some context for these amendments. I am a little bit surprised, frankly. I say to my colleagues, since we are in disagreement on this, as I have already said to Senator Hatch, how good it is to see him here, and what a fine Senator he is. I think everybody in the Senate agrees with that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Utah. I would not say it if it were not true. That is the way the Senator is. But this piece of legislation is fundamentally flawed. It contains numerous provisions which are harshly punitive to those citizens who are the most vulnerable in our country. It addresses a crisis that no longer exists and that appears to be self-correcting. It rewards predatory and reckless lending by banks and credit card companies, which fed the crisis in the first place, and does nothing to actually prevent bankruptcy or to promote economic security for working families. I do not see anything in this legislation that deals with the crisis of medical costs, that deals with what happens to people when they cannot get a job at a decent wage. I do not see anything in this bill that deals with housing costs. But what I see is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. I am amazed that it has sailed through the way it has. I am amazed there is not more opposition, which is punitive toward those people who are the most vulnerable in our society. This purports to address a crisis which does not even exist. Professor Lawrence Ausubel of the University of Maryland notes that the peak increase in bankruptcy filings came and went in 1996. In fact, the filings in 1998 were barely an increase over 1997. We know now that there were 112,000 fewer bankruptcies in 1999 than there were in 1998-- a nearly 10-percent decline. Perhaps most startling, given what some of my colleagues have stated, is that credit card lenders have seen their chargeoffs--loans which are uncollectible--decline over the past 2 years. So I ask my colleagues, is this a crisis? Despite the decrease in filings, there are still too many bankruptcies in America. I agree with that. However, this bill does not do anything to reverse this. It is going to make matters worse. The nonexistent crisis is being used to justify harsh restrictions on bankruptcy relief, which will harm those citizens who are most in need of its protection. Colleagues, let me quote from the September 30, 1999, issue of The American Banker magazine. The title of the article is ``Bankruptcies Down; Enthusiasm for Reform Wanes.'' I quote from the article: A retreat in bankruptcy filings from their record highs is causing precious little jubilation in the lending community. Lenders, who persistently point to the high rate of filings as one of their top business problems, may be concerned that a turnaround will undercut their effort to reform bankruptcy laws and make it easier to collect on poor credits. Bankruptcy does not occur in a vacuum. We know, in the vast majority of cases, it is a drastic step taken by families in desperate financial circumstances and overburdened by debt. The main income earner--he or she--they have lost their job. There is a sudden illness. There is a terrible accident. All of us know that could happen to us. The bankruptcy system is supposed to allow a person or a family to climb back up after they have hit bottom, to have a fresh start. There is no point in continuing to push a person and a family once their resources are overmatched by debt. That is what we are doing in this legislation. The bankruptcy system simply allows families to regroup, to focus resources on essentials, such as home, transportation, and meeting the needs of their dependents. Sometimes the only way this can occur is to allow the debtor to be forgiven of some debt. In most cases, this debt would never be repaid because of the debtor's financial circumstances. In fact, in over 95 percent of bankruptcy cases, creditors receive no distributions from the filer's assets, not because these folks are able to beat the system but because in the vast majority of the cases the debtor does not have any assets left. The sponsors of this measure--the megabanks and the credit card companies--they do not like to focus on these situations. They talk about all of the abuses. But let me just cite some evidence here. A study by the American Bankruptcy Institute found that only 3 percent of debtors who file under chapter 7--which is what we are talking about-- would actually have been able to pay more of their debt than they are required to under chapter 7. Three percent does not sound, to me, like a percentage of a lot of abuse. Even the Justice Department says the abuse of claims was only between 3 and 13 percent. But what this legislation is going to do is, it is going to channel many more debtors into chapter 13 bankruptcy, where the debtor enters a 3- to 5-year repayment plan where very little debt is forgiven. As a matter of fact, under current law, 67 percent of the debtors in chapter 13 cannot fulfill or cannot live up to their repayment plan, often because they do not get enough relief. So what are we doing? Why is this so punitive and why is it so one sided? Why aren't we also addressing the predatory practices of these credit companies, of these lenders? This is apparently not obvious to many of my colleagues, but with all due respect, debt involves both the borrower and the lender. I gave examples of some egregious practices with which I will deal in my amendments. As high-cost debt, credit cards, retail charge cards, and financing plans for consumer goods have skyrocketed in recent years--and so have many bankruptcy filings; we all know that--and are pumped on our children, our neighbors, as the consumer credit card industry has begun to aggressively court the poor and vulnerable, bankruptcies have risen. There is no question about it. Credit card companies brazenly dangle literally billions of dollars of credit card offers to high debt families every year. With this legislation, we are giving them a blank check to do even more. They encourage credit card holders to make low payments toward their credit card balances, guaranteeing that a few $100 in clothing or food will take years to pay off. The lengths to which these companies go to keep their customers in debt is ridiculous. I already gave an example, when I was talking about what happens with these car title pawn companies and these payday loan companies. It is absolutely unbelievable. People get charged anywhere from 100 percent up to 2000 percent in interest by these unscrupulous dealers. All you have to do to enter into this is to have no conscience. People are desperate. You give them a $100, $200 loan. You basically roll it over when they can't pay it. Pretty soon they have to pay 300-percent interest on an annual basis. You take title to their car. They can't pay back $100. These are poor people; they are desperate. They had to come to you for that reason. Then you repossess their car, and you keep the money beyond anything they owed you. There is no accountability. Yet in this bankruptcy reform bill, I don't see any discussion or any kind of rules or any kind of accountability or any kind of protection for consumers when it comes to these unscrupulous practices. I am amazed this piece of legislation has been sailing through. I think the President should veto this. I will take some time to give context to this. A March 31, 1990, edition of the Detroit Free Press reported on a woman who sent a check to her credit card company to pay her entire credit card balance of $4,000. I know the Presiding Officer would say that is the way it should be done. She had the money. She could do it. A few days later, she got a call from the company offering her a lower interest rate for 6 months if she would let the credit card company rip up her check and keep the $4,000 balance on her card. Fortunately for her, this woman made the right decision and refused this insane offer. But if credit card companies are using these tactics to keep folks in debt, do they have any right to preach about financial responsibility? Why is this piece of legislation so one sided? Why are we not talking about their unscrupulous practices and how to also make sure they live up to some kind of standard of responsibility? I will quote a few lines from an L.A. Times feature called the Money Savvy Weekend. It is a column about money management. I would like my colleagues to hear how the author of the piece advises credit card holders to deal with card companies. She starts out by saying: Your credit card issuer is not your friend, or even your most trusted business partner, so if you've been thinking along these lines, stop now. I say to my colleagues, if people think their credit card company is their friend now, they will know differently when this bill passes, when they see how their right to a fresh start has been eroded. This bill just gives these credit card companies everything they want, provides no protection for poor people, provides no protection for single parents, no protection for senior citizens. What in the world has happened to the Senate? What has happened to Democrats? Why are we letting this bill go by without amendments? Why aren't we standing up and taking on this piece of legislation? Continuing on from the L.A. Times feature, the author goes on to say: Instead, start thinking of your credit card issuer as a slightly sleazy and overbearing salesman who controls one product you want, but who wants to trick you into buying the store. That salesman does not have your best interests at heart. . . . Then in the same column: Last week, a San Francisco law firm filed a law suit against Providian Financial Corp., alleging that the firm delayed postings (of payments), hid terms of its card agreements, and made it seem like a fairly useless $12.95- per-month credit protection plan was a requirement when it wasn't. The city's prosecutors are investigating the firm. I could go on but here is the question. I talked about payday loans. I talked about repossessing cars. When we read S. 625, it is a clear indication of who has clout in the Nation's capital. There is not one provision in this bill that holds the consumer credit industry responsible for their lending habits. There is not one provision in this bill that holds the consumer credit industry responsible for their lending habits. I have spent time on two deplorable practices on which I will have amendments. We will have votes on it next week. But there is nothing in this piece of legislation that has a word to say about any of this. With all due respect, it is not all that surprising why. Who do you think the people are who have to rely on payday loans? Who do you think the people are who have to rely on these car pawn loans? Who do you think the people are who by and large file chapter 7? You will come up with some abusive examples, but I have given you study after study that shows there is very little abuse. Most of the people who do this are hard-pressed people, poor people. You lose your job. You don't have a family you can go to who can help you out. Your car breaks down. You have an illness. You had no health insurance in the first place. Now we have this punitive piece of legislation that targets these citizens, the most vulnerable citizens, but gives the credit card industry all they want. I think this is a sad reflection of who gets to the table and who doesn't and whose voice is heard and whose voice is not.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be pleased, if my colleague needs more time. I would like to make sure that I have the floor after the Senator speaks.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will need some additional time. I was intending to try to finish before 12:30 because that is when we go into conference. My idea would be that I would then come back with these amendments, finish up right before we vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. What I am intending to do is call up my amendments. My understanding, originally, was we were going to perhaps vote today. We are not going to vote. Therefore, I was trying to accommodate my colleagues. I said I wanted some time to talk about the context of these amendments and that I would come out here today. I would lay out my case. Then, when we come back next week and vote, I want a final hour for the two amendments. Then we would vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Utah, I would have to respectfully decline. Originally, I had not agreed to any time agreement on these amendments. I said I would not agree. Then I was told that if I would come out today, try to speak before conference, and then reserve the final hour, agree to a time agreement next week for a final hour on two amendments, I would have an hour and whatever time I need. I said I would do that. I have given up on limited time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as long as Senator Leahy is speaking, I ask unanimous consent, because I do want to finish up and accommodate everyone, that when we come back, I do have a final hour to speak on my two amendments on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I don't think I will--I ask for an hour to make my case. It is not an hour equally divided; it is an hour that I have divided for my two amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks about the overall bill, but let me call up my amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are a few of the truly onerous provisions of this bill affecting hard-pressed, working families. Section 105--someone needs to focus on this--imposes mandatory credit counseling on debtors before they can seek bankruptcy relief, at the debtor's expense. This is regardless of whether the bankruptcy would be the result of simple overspending or something unavoidable such as a serious illness in your family and a medical expense. Forty-four million people in our country do not have health insurance. There is no waiver of this requirement if the debtor needs to make an emergency bankruptcy filing to stave off eviction or a utility shutoff. It is amazing. I can't believe this. Again, you have a situation--I used to do a lot of work organizing with poor people--with a family, and these people are denied. They have to go through mandatory credit card counseling before they can seek bankruptcy relief, even when it is clear it isn't because they just overspent, that it is because something happened to them that was beyond their control, such as an illness in their family. And there isn't even a waiver of this requirement when the family has to get the emergency bankruptcy filing in order to stave off an eviction or a utilities shutoff. It is cold outside today in Washington, DC. Do you know what a utility shutoff would mean to family? Section 311 would end the practice under current law of stopping eviction proceedings against tenants who are behind on rent who file for bankruptcy. What we are saying is if a tenant is filing for bankruptcy right now, they have at least some protection. Section 311 will basically end this protection. You can go on with the eviction proceedings. Section 312 will make a person ineligible to file for chapter 13 bankruptcy if he or she has successfully emerged from bankruptcy within the past 5 years, even if it was a successful chapter 13 reorganization where the debtor paid off all the creditors. If they have been through it successfully before and paid off all of the creditors, and there is an emergency medical bill or whatever happened--they lost their job-- they are ineligible. This is called reform? I started out saying before the Chair came that you have this unbelievable practice right now that I am trying to go after with one amendment--these title car pawn loans and payday loans--car title pawn loans, again, where somebody needs $100, or $200, and basically they get the loan. The unscrupulous creditor says: We give you the loan. You pay us the high interest. In addition, we want the key to your car. We have a loan on your car. If they do not pay it back at the end of the week, or after 2 weeks, they take the car key and sell it. Whatever money they make, they can keep, even if it is above and beyond what they owe the debtor. It is unbelievable. We ought to do something about that. This is a ludicrous business. These are hard-pressed people and this is the only place they can go right now. I talked about these payday loans. In all due respect, again, these folks who do this ought not be covered by this bankruptcy. They ought not be able to collect these payday loans. It is unbelievable. It is the same thing. You need a loan of $100 for a week or two. You are charged 15 percent interest. They roll over again and again. It can be as high as 300 or 400. There have been some cases where it has been as high as 2,000 percent interest. We ought to say, in all due respect, if you folks want to be allowed to claim, we ought to put a limit, and if the limit is going to be at 100-percent interest, it seems to me that is pretty high--100 percent interest payments? Maybe we want to say then we prohibit the recovery of loans.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry to say to my colleague that I have been yielding over and over again. I will try to finish by 12:30. Let me finish, and then I will yield. Mr. President, on this piece of legislation, I started out citing that there are three or four national studies--three or four independent national studies, credible national studies. That is a matter of fact. What is supposed to be a crisis no longer exists, and the trend is that there are going to be fewer bankruptcies. I then went on to say there are still too many. But the irony is that the reason a lot of people have to file for bankruptcy is because we haven't done a darned thing when people do not have health insurance. We haven't done a darned thing to make sure people find a job with descent wages. We haven't done a darned thing about affordable child care. We are doing nothing about the crisis in affordable housing, including in rural areas. All of this impinges on these families, but instead we have this piece of legislation. I then went on to argue, and I cited a number of provisions which are draconian, this piece of legislation targets low-income people. The people who are going to be most harshly treated by this are poor people, senior citizens, women, and single parents. I then went on, and I gave many instances to say that it does nothing about the unscrupulous creditors--nothing at all. There is no accountability there. There was not a call for responsibility on their part. I will be back next week with two amendments. I will have an hour to argue my case. I hope at least on these two amendments I can receive majority support. I have tried to take some time this morning and I will take more time next week to at least get people in the country, people who watch this debate or people who write about this debate, to understand there are a lot of punitive provisions in this piece of legislation. It hardly can be called ``reform.'' There are many organizations--consumer organizations, senior organizations, children's organizations, labor organizations--that have raised important questions about this. I think rather than a step forward, this is a very harsh step backward. I am pleased to yield for a question or comment from my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to debate this subject with my colleague next week.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Judge Rick Solum from Minnesota told me--and I have to have this confirmed; it is dramatically jarring-- there is actually a higher correlation between high school dropout and incarceration than between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It is quite predictable. The Senator from Nevada was talking about his daughter's experience as a second grade teacher. In many ways we harp on the complexity of it all to the point it becomes the ultimate copout, but a lot of these kids by kindergarten are way behind. There is a learning gap and they fall further behind and then they drop out of school and wind up all too often in prison. It does seem to me this is a full agenda that we barely touched. Sorry to interrupt. I am enjoying listening to the discussion.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, there are other colleagues on the floor. I have waited for some time. I think it has been an important discussion, but I am going to try, since there are other Senators on the floor, to abbreviate my remarks. I actually could speak for 3 or 4 or 5 hours right now. I will not. We will see when we are going to finish up today. I would like to build on a little bit of the discussion I just heard, and then I would like to go to the issue at hand, which is the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the way this was done, the impact on my State of Minnesota, and why we have been fighting this out. First of all, I also thank Senator Durbin for his very strong voice on the floor of the Senate. I say to Senator Reid from Nevada, sometimes we come out here and compliment each other to the point it becomes so flowery, people are not sure whether it is sincere or not. I believe it is sincere. Senator Reid is a good example of somebody in politics who, if he suffers from anything, it is modesty. He rarely takes credit. He really has done some tremendous work in the mental health field. He has probably done more than anybody in the Senate to get us to focus on the problem of depression. He never takes the credit. He should have included himself in this discussion. I am talking about Senator Reid. Mr. President, I am not sure how exactly to view this overall omnibus conference report we now have before us. I am a little worried about sounding so negative that it will seem I only come to the floor to be negative. I do not. I think some of what my colleagues have talked about--given the framework we were working within and given where we started, I think there are some things people can feel good about. I am pleased to give the administration and Democrats some credit for at least being able to get some resources for some areas of priorities, such as more teachers and schools and moving toward smaller class size. It was a fix. I know for the State of Minnesota, and I am sure for many States, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the cuts in Medicare reimbursement had, no pun intended, catastrophic consequences, especially for our rural hospitals, some of the nursing homes, home- based health care, and teaching hospitals. At least we were able to make a difference for a couple of years, though, again, it is temporary. I feel pretty good about some investment of resources that are going to be helpful to people in Minnesota. If I had to pick out one priority, it would be $14 million for the Fon du Lac School, a pretty important commitment of resources. I count as one of the best days as a Senator the day I visited Fon du Lac School. It is a pretty horrendous facility, and for years I have been trying to get some money to build a new school for kids in the Indian community. It is interesting, just this past week I was there, and at the end of the discussion I said to the students: I have to leave in 30 seconds, and I am sorry we are finishing. Can any of you talk about one thing you care more about than anything else? This one student who is age 15 said: The thing I think the most about is I would like for the children--I viewed him as a child at age 15--I would like the children to live a better life than we have been able to live, and I would like to live a life that will help kids do better. I said to this student: That was the most beautiful, powerful thing I heard said in any school I have visited, and I have been in a school every 2 weeks for the last 9, 9\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate. I tend to come down more on the side of the editorial debate of the Washington Post. I do not think this Congress has much to be proud of at all. Part of what has happened is we have been engaged in a lot of mutual self-deception. I came out to the floor quite a while ago on an amendment dealing with veterans' health care. I said it was a deliberate effort to bust the budget caps. The ways in which we have been talking about ``not raiding the Social Security surplus'' has been ridiculous. President Clinton started to do it. Tom DeLay has done it. We have put ourselves in a straitjacket. We know that is not what it is about, but it is great political sloganeering. For Republicans who do not believe, when it comes to the most critical issues of people's lives, there is nothing the Government can or should do, then I think you are consistent and I respect your point of view, for those Republicans who take that position, and this is not a problem. But for Democrats and other Republicans who believe there are certain decisive areas of life in America, such as investment in children and education and opportunities for children, decent health care coverage, environmental protection, making sure we have some support for the most vulnerable citizens in the Congress, whether it be congregate dining or Meals on Wheels or affordable child care or, for God's sake, making sure children are not hungry in America, I do not think we have much to be proud of because we have done precious little. As a matter of fact, I say to my colleagues on our side of the aisle, if you were to take the ``non-Social Security surplus,'' 75 percent of it because of cuts in the budget caps of 2 years ago in a lot of these areas we say we care the most about, in real dollar terms we are still not spending as much as we spent several years ago. I do not think we have all that much to be proud of and we have to do a lot better. I said at the beginning I would talk about some positive things. I do not want to come out here appearing to be shrill. I do think, unfortunately, this is a pretty rigorous analysis. We did not pass campaign finance reform. That is the core issue. That is the core issue, the core problem. We did not pass patient protection legislation. We have done precious little to deal with the reality of 44 million people without any health insurance coverage and many other people having health insurance coverage but being underinsured. Under title I--I saw this listed as one of our victories--we are funding about one-third of the kids who are eligible to be helped. These are some of our most vulnerable children in America, to the point where in Minnesota, in St. Paul, after you reach the threshold of a school that has 65 percent low-income population, there is no money for any other schools. It is about a $16 billion shortfall, and we have increased spending by $75 million. We have done hardly anything for affordable child care. We did not include prescription drug coverage as a part of Medicare. On a whole host of amendments I have worked on as a Senator, almost all of them were eliminated in conference committee; whether it be at least some support for kids who witness violence in their homes or trying to deal with the problem of exploitation of women in international sex trafficking or juvenile justice mental health services or having an honest policy evaluation of what the welfare ``reform'' is doing around the country or increasing some funding--I mean real funding, a real increase of funding--for Meals on Wheels or congregate dining or social services support. If you look at it from the point of view of how at least I think we can make life better for others--I am not going to speak for others--I think this has been a do-nothing Congress, I really do. I will make one other point before I talk about this dairy compact, and it is this: I am hearing so much discussion about testing. George W. is talking about testing third graders, and if they do not pass those tests, they do not go on to fourth grade. It is high-stakes testing, and by the way, I will have an amendment next year to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which makes sure we do not start testing at that young of an age. Here is the point. Jonathan Kozol wrote a book ``Savage Inequalities,'' in which he points out--and all of us know this about our States--some school districts have the best technology, a beautiful building, recruit the best teachers, have the best lab facilities, the best textbooks, and other schools have none of that. We do not do anything to change that. I cite a second bit of evidence. We have all these reports and studies, irrefutable evidence that if you do not get it right for children by kindergarten, many of them come to school way behind and they fall further behind and then they drop out. This is critically important, and we invest hardly anything in affordable child care. Third, we do not do anything about the concerns and circumstances of children's lives in New York City or Minneapolis-St. Paul or rural Aitkin County or rural anywhere or inner-suburban anywhere in the country before they go to school and when they go home, whether it be the violence in the homes, or the children who see the violence or the violence in the communities or children who come to school hungry or children who come to school with an abscess because they do not have dental care. It is not very easy for children to do well in school under these conditions. We do not do hardly anything to change any of those conditions for children's lives in America so that we can truly live up to the idea of equal opportunity for every child. But we are going to flunk them. We are going to fail them. We are going to give them standardized tests and fail them. We already know which kids are going to do well and which kids are not. I would argue it is cowardly. I would argue it is a great political slogan, but it is cowardly. There is a difference between testing and standardized--we should have accountability, but there are different ways of testing. If you cannot prove you are giving every child the same opportunity to achieve and do well in the test, what are you doing giving these kids these standardized tests and flunking them and not letting them go on to the next grade? We have done so little when it comes to good health care for every citizen, equal opportunity for every child, jobs at decent wages, and getting money out of politics and bringing people back into politics and speaking to the economic pain that exists among citizens in our country. I start with agriculture. I am from an agricultural State. We have a failed farm policy that is driving family farmers off the land. We have not done a thing about the price crisis. We have had another bailout. We have some money for people so they can live to farm another day, but we have not changed a thing when it comes to farmers being able to get a decent price. We have not changed a thing when it comes to all the concentration of power in agriculture and in the media and in banking and in energy and in health insurance companies. We do not want to take on these big conglomerates. We do not want to talk about antitrust action. So I argue that at the macrolevel this has been a do-nothing Congress. I think people in the country should hold us accountable. I say to the majority party, I think they should especially hold the majority party accountable because I think many of us have wanted to do much more. I think that is what the next election probably will be all about. If people believe education and health care and opportunities for their children and jobs at decent wages are important issues to them-- that is their center; that is the center of their lives--and they believe the Republican majority has not been willing to move on this agenda, and they feel as if there is a big disconnect between what is done here and the lives of people who we are suppose to represent, then I say, let the next election be a referendum. But I certainly wish we had done more.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, final point. Some of us have been fighting for several days. We are out of leverage now. It is toward the end. But to be real clear about it, there was a time, when the Northeast Dairy Compact was brought to the floor, it was going to be part of the 1996 ``Freedom to Farm.'' I think it is the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill. It was defeated. But this compact, which was not in the farm bill that passed in either House, was then put into the conference committee. There is a reform issue on which we ought to work. There is one in which I am really interested. I do not think the conference committee, which has become the ``third House'' of the Congress, should be able to put an amendment, a provision, into conference that was not passed in either House; or, for that matter, take out a provision that was passed in both Houses. So this got snuck in. It was part of a deal. It is how we got the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill, which has visited unbelievable economic pain and misery. The argument that was made for the Freedom to Farm bill was it should all be in the market; there ought not be any safety net; so a family farmer should not have any real leverage for bargaining for a decent price. You name it. It was a great bill for grain companies, a great bill for the packers, but not a very good bill for family farmers. On the other hand, when it came to dairy, it was a different set of rules. And we were going to have these dairy compacts with administered prices. Our dairy producers were just asking for a fair shot--dairy producers in States such as Wisconsin and Minnesota. Let me explain. In my State, we have 8,700 dairy farms. We rank fifth in the Nation in milk production. These farms generate about $1.2 billion for our farmers each year. The average size of the Minnesota dairy farm is about 60 cows--60 cows per farm. We are talking about family-size farm operations. We are going to lose many more because this compact, for all sorts of reasons so negative, impacts on our dairy farmers. Mr. President, I am disgraced by the recent action by the majority party to include such harmful dairy provisions to the State of Minnesota as part of the final spending bill this year. The tactics used to include dairy as part of this bill is yet another illustration of the flagrant abuse of power. I and my fellow colleagues have fought hard and have been successful in defeating previous attempts to extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. We fought openly and fairly on the Senate floor, and now our successful efforts may be unjustly curtailed by clandestine negotiations by those who overtly misuse their power. This type of backroom negotiating style is clearly not the first time that harmful dairy provisions have been attached to the bill. We have been fighting such tactics since the authorization of the compact. In fact, the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact was inserted into the 1996 farm bill as part of a backroom deal. In 1996, I offered an amendment which successfully struck the compact out of the Senate bill and the compact was not in the farm bill initially passed by either House of Congress. Instead, it was later inserted during the bill's conference in the passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill. Yet ironically, the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill was passed with the intent to remove government from the marketplace. Although, I adamantly opposed the bill, many viewed the 1996 farm bill as a way to decouple payments to family farmers. The thought at that time was that farmers should produce for the market and that Congress should eliminate a safety net for our farmers. For some reason, we seemed to play by a different set of rules when it comes to dairy. We told our corn and soybean farmers that to succeed in the 21st century they should pay close attention to market signals, but at the same time we considered implementing compacts that drown out those signals for dairy farmers. And yet even among dairy producers, we scrutinized and only allowed one region of the country to provide a safety net for their farmers, while hurting farmers in other parts of the country. Minnesota is not asking for special favors. All Minnesota dairy producers are asking for is a fair shot. I have spoken here before about the importance of family dairy farming to my State's economy. Minnesota's dairy industry is one of the cornerstones of the State's economy. We have 8,700 dairy farms in Minnesota, ranking fifth in the Nation's milk production. The milk production from Minnesota farms generates more than $1.2 billion for our farmers each year. Yet, the average herd size of a Minnesota dairy farm is about 60 cows. Sixty cows per farm. So we are really talking about family operations in my State. Family businesses with a total of $1.2 billion in sales a year, contributing to their small-town economies, trying to live a productive life on the land. Let me read from a few farmers in my State of Minnesota who are hurting: Eunice Biel, a Harmony, MN dairy farmer: We currently milk 100 cows and just built a new milking parlor. We will be milking 120 cows next year. Our 22-year- old son would like to farm with us. But for us to do so he must buy out my husband's mother (his grandmother) because my husband and I who are 47-years-old, still are unable to take over the family farm. Our son must acquire a beginning farmer loan. But should he shoulder that debt if there is no stable milk price? We continuously are told by bankers, veterinarians and ag suppliers that we need to get bigger or we will not survive. At 120 cows, we can manage our herd and farm effectively and efficiently. We should not be forced to expand in order to survive. Lynn Jostock, a Waseca, MN dairy farmer: I have four children. My 11-year-old son Al helps my husband and I by doing chores. But it often is too much to expect of someone so young. For instance, one day our son came home from school. His father asked Al for some help driving the tractor to another farm about 3 miles away. Al was going to come home right afterward. But he wound up helping his father cut hay. Then he helped rake hay. Then he helped bale hay. My son did not return home until 9:30 p.m. He had not yet eaten supper. He had not yet done his schoolwork. We don't have other help. The price we get at the farm gate isn't enough to allow us to hire any farmhands or to help our community by providing more jobs. And it isn't fair to ask your 11-year-old son to work so hard to keep the family going. When will he burn out? How will he ever want to farm? Les Kyllo, a Goodhue dairy farmer: My grandfather milked 15 cows. My dad milked 26. I have milked as many as 100 cows, and I'm going broke. They made a living out here and I didn't. Since my son went away to college, my farmhands are my 73-year-old father and my 77- year-old father-in-law who has an artificial hip. I have a barn that needs repairs and updates that I can't afford. I have two children that don't want to farm. At one point, in a 30-mile radius, there were 15 Kyllos farming. Now there are three. And now I'm selling my cows. My family has farmed since my ancestors emigrated to the United States. When I leave farming, my community will lose the $15,000 I spend locally each year for cattle feed; the $3,000 I spend at the veterinarian; the $3,600 I spend for electricity; or the money I spend for fuel, cattle insemination and other farm needs. The testimony I just read were from MN farmers who felt comfortable to share their names. I have additional testimony, but the farmers who shared their stories, had requested that I not use their name. This is testimony from a farmer in East Ottertail, MN: Despite the ongoing difficulties, it is amazing the steadfast willingness of this family to try and hold things together. The farm is farmed by two families, a father and his son. Since dairy prices fell in the second quarter of 1999, there was not enough income for this family to make the loan payments and to provide for family living and cover farm operating expenses. The Farm Credit Services would not release a loan for farm operating assistance, and so the family had to borrow money from the lender from which they are already leasing their cows. They have not been able to feed the cows properly because of the lack of funds. Because they cannot adequately feed their dairy herd, their milk production has fallen and is considerably lower than the herd's average production. In addition, because there was no money for family living, the parents had to cash out what little retirement savings they had so that the two families had something to live on day to day. The son and wife had to let their trailerhouse go since they could not make the payments and moved into a home owned by a relative for the winter. Most of their machinery is being liquidated. However, there are a few pieces of machinery that go toward paying off their existing debt. The family will be selling off 120 acres of land in their struggle to reduce the debt. Recently, the father has been having serious back troubles and has been unable to help his son with the work. This is tremendous stress both physically and mentally on the son. The son has decided he is going to have to sell part of the herd in order to reduce the herd to a number that is more manageable for one person. In addition, the money acquired from selling off part of the herd will be applied toward their debt. The son hopes that these three items combined: selling machinery, land and part of the herd can pay off enough of their debt that he might be able to do some restructuring on the remainder of the farm and to reduce loan payments to a manageable amount where there is something left to live on after payments are made. These are just a few of the stories. I read these stories, because it is important that when we consider national dairy policy here in the Senate, we need to keep in mind that we are determining the future of an industry and a way of life that are basic not only to the agricultural economy, but to the very soul of America's rural heartland. I am concerned that the dairy provisions attached to this omnibus bill will hurt Minnesota dairy farmers and frankly dairy farmers throughout the country. I have been on the floor before discussing how the dairy compacts and any reversal to the implementation of an equitable milk marketing system will harm Minnesota dairy farmers. However, the dairy language included in this bill goes even further and could potentially threaten all family dairy farmers throughout the nation. What I am talking about and concerned about as are many Americans is the trend towards factory-farm and concentration in dairy. It is unnecessary and unwise. There is no reason we cannot have a family-farm based dairy system. A dairy system which promotes economic vitality in rural communities and one which is more environmentally sustainable than a factory-farm system. Family dairy farms are efficient and innovative. Family dairy farms can provide a plentiful supply of wholesome milk at a fair price. However, there is a provision stuck in this bill which no one has really discussed, and would harm family dairy farmers everywhere. The provision would establish a pilot program allowing for the expansion of forward contracting of milk. Forward contracting reduces competition in the marketplace and results in lower prices to dairy producers. Forward contracting is not specific to the dairy industry. In fact, one can note the effect of forward contracting by the recent events occurring in the hog industry. Recently, the hog industry has witnessed a significant increase in the number of producers who decided to forward contract. Hog producers will contract with packers to guarantee them a minimum price for their pigs. Contracting is not inherently bad and there are some good contracts. However, what is occurring is that these deals are made often in private and do not reflect the spot market. There is a strong argument that contracting is partly responsible for the depressed hog prices and the rapid increase in the consolidation of the hog industry. What is happening in the hog industry is also happening in dairy. This provision would expand forward contracting of milk by allowing processors to pay producers less than the federal milk price for milk. Under current law, forward contracting is allowed, however, only if the buyer is willing to offer at least as much as the federal minimum price. In other words, this provision will remove an important safety net for our dairy producers. Expanded forward contracting can also reduce the price for producers who do not forward contract by reducing the competition for milk, thereby damaging the entire dairy market structure. This provision could also discriminate against our family farmers because the most likely scenario is that processors would offer forward contracts to the largest producers. Again, we would see the domino effect of losing family farmers. By giving a better deal to larger producers, our family farmers cannot compete and we would see more losses of family farmers. Those who support forward contracting contend that forward contracting is a risk management tool; however, this argument doesn't hold water. In fact, National Farmers' Union and other groups contend that the proposal for forward contracting will actually make it more difficult to manage risk by forcing producers to guess whether the volatile dairy market will go up or down. It is logically deduced that in the absence of an adequate support price, the market will continue to be highly volatile. What can happen is that anytime producers price guess wrong, they lose money under this proposal. The truth is that our family dairy farmers cannot compete in such a volatile market place. We must set policy that keeps family dairy farms in business while ensuring that consumer and taxpayer costs are kept at a reasonable level. What we need to achieve here is a fair, sustainable and stable price system for all dairy farmers. That has clearly not happened, and that's partly why Minnesota continues to lose dairy farmers at an appalling rate. Minnesota is losing dairy farms at the rate of three per day due to base price that are already low and unstable. Let me read to you the past couple of BFP prices for family dairy farmers. The BFP is the basic formula price. It is the monthly base price per hundredweight paid to dairy farmers for their milk. In August the BFP was $15.79 per hundredweight. That was quite high and it is a good price. Farmers could be pleased with that price. In September the BFP rose a little higher to $16.26 per hundredweight. I haven't seen the analysis of why the BFP price rose so high. Back in May of 1999, the BFP was only $11.26. Some would argue that it was due to the drought in the East that prices rose so high for August and September. The milk price was high because cows in the eastern region were strained and produces less milk. Therefore, milk was in demand and thus the price rose. If this is the case, our farmers are getting a decent price for their milk only at the expense of farmers in other parts of the country who are suffering. In October, the BFP took a stumbling tumble from the $16.26-September price to $11.49 per hundredweight. This is a dramatic drop price. The BFP for this month will not be released until December 3rd, but it is predicted to be even lower. Again, as I have stated before with such volatility in the market, it is no question why our farmers are having a difficult time to survive. And if dairy farmers are not struggling enough with the volatility of the market, Congress is now assisting and in some cases is making the price of my dairy farmers worse--and that is what has happened with the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact gives six states the right to join together to raise prices to help producers in the region. While it may help the Northeast, it is cutting into our markets. It is true that the compact provided a safety net this spring to certain farmers when dairy prices plunged. When the price of raw milk dropped by 37 percent, one Massachusetts farmer got a $2,100 check from the compact. Overall, that farmer said, aid from the compact totaled seven percent of his gross income during the first 12 months of its operation. Conversely, Midwest dairy farmers--who also confronted the sharp price decline--got no such price. The Northeast Dairy Compact fixes fluid milk prices at artificially high prices for the benefit of dairy producers in just that region. This artificial price boost of a compact may benefit the producers covered by the compact, but it hurts all other dairy farmers. It is also no secret that the extension of the Northeast Compact encourages other regions such as the Southeast to form their own compact. This would be detrimental to the Upper Midwest. A recent report by University of Missouri dairy economist Ken Baily found that Minnesota's farm-level milk price would drop at least 21 cents per hundredweight if a Southeast dairy compact were allowed to be implemented alongside expanded Northeast dairy compact. This would translate into a $27.2 million annual reduction of Minnesota farm milk sales. The compacts in Baily's study would cover only 27 percent of U.S. milk production, yet would have a sizable negative impact. If more regions adopted compacts Minnesota prices would drop even further. Many, such as I heard Senator Leahy inquire, why doesn't the Upper Midwest form their own compact. Minnesota and Wisconsin farmers would not benefit from organizing their own compact. A compact's price boost applies for only fluid milk. The percentage of Upper Midwest milk going into fluid products is so low that any compact would do little for Minnesota's farmers' income. The negative impact of compacts would far outweigh any minimal boost to fluid prices here in Minnesota. Congress should not accept a policy that so clearly provides benefits to the producers of one region at the expense of consumers and producers elsewhere. Instead, there should be an effort to create a more uniform and rational national dairy policy--a policy without the regional fragmentation caused by compacts. To put it simply, compacts erect trade barriers in our country. By fixing milk prices at artificially high levels, Compact proponents understand that their markets become vulnerable to market forces at work elsewhere in the nation. So in order to prevent milk from other regions entering those Compact markets at lower prices, a tariff-like mechanism is established to ensure that all milk entering the Compact area is priced at the level fixed by the price-fixing commission in the region. It is bad enough that the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact is attached to this bill, but it is unacceptable for Congress to attempt to meddle with USDA's final plan by resurrecting an alternative similar to Option 1-A. As you know, the referendum voted on by producers nationwide overwhelming passed this past summer. Given the prominence of Minnesota's dairy industry, it should be no surprise that I have pushed for reform of the existing milk pricing system. The Secretary's reforms are a step forward in a long overhaul of dairy policy toward a more unified and simplified pricing system that benefits all producers. We need to reduce and eliminate the regional inequities that exist within the federal order system. The current pricing system regulates the price of fluid milk based on the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This policy causes market distortions that disadvantage producers in the Upper Midwest. These reforms must move forward quickly, and be implemented as soon as possible by the Secretary. These dairy provisions are putting at great risk dairy farmers not just in my State, but across the country. It is imperative that we establish a national and equitable dairy system for all. For this reason, and among numerous other inequities included as part of this mammoth omnibus package, I cannot vote for the bill. Mr. President, milk prices per 100 weight were about $16. Now they are down to $11. They are going down further. We do not have any kind of national dairy policy that makes any sense. What has happened, which affects Eunice Biel and Lynn Jostock, and Les Kyllo, and all sorts of other farmers who will remain anonymous but whose statements are included in the Record --they do not want their names used--it is hard when you are going through pain, and you are working 19 hours a day, and you are going to lose your farm. What has happened, to add salt to the wound, insult to injury, is that in the dark of night in a conference committee a few people--it did not pass the Senate; they did not get it through--they put through a provision that extended this Northeast Dairy Compact, which would have run out, and they blocked the Secretary of Agriculture from being able to move forward with milk marketing order reform. They have another provision which would allow for a pilot project for the expansion of the forward contracting of milk. That is what we have had in the hog industry. Contracting is not inherently bad, but what happens is these arrangements are made in private; they do not reflect the spot market. Basically, what happens is, you are going to have this consolidated industry, as in the hog industry. And what will happen is that the processors will be able to pay the producers less than the Federal milk price for milk. In other words, under current law, forward contracting is allowed; however, only if the buyer is willing to offer at least as much as the Federal minimum price. But this little-known provision--never debated on the floor of the Senate--would now remove that important safety net for our dairy producers. Processors are going to offer better forward contracts to the larger producers, to the largest producers, and our dairy farms are going to go under. In Minnesota, we continue to lose dairy farms at an appalling rate. Minnesota is losing dairy farms at the rate of three per day due to a base price that is already so low and so unstable. I say to each and every one of my colleagues that it is a triple blow to agriculture, to dairy farmers, in Minnesota. First of all, again, this horrendous piece of legislation, which was passed in 1996, that I think the Senate should be ashamed of, took the bargaining power away from farmers. They cannot even get a price to survive. We have a depression in agriculture. We are going to lose a whole generation of producers. The way this happened, with the Northeast Dairy Compact, was to put that into the conference report. It never passed on the floor. It was part of the whole deal that made this bill possible. Then this dairy compact was going to expire in 2 years. We had a vote on it. It did not get through the Senate. It came back into the conference committee, in this horrendous process--which will be my last point about this process--no vote, no public discussion, all sorts of provisions, one of which I just mentioned, put into this amendment, and now this omnibus conference report is brought to us, and we cannot amend it. We can't amend it. I can't come to the floor of the Senate and deal with this forward contracting of milk without the safety net. I can't come to the floor of the Senate with an amendment to knock out this amendment. You get a few people who decide in a closed room, outside of any scrutiny, and they put this back in. I am outraged. But we fought this every way we know how. Today is the last day. There will be a vote, and we can't stop that vote--whether it be at 1 a.m. or in midafternoon. To me, that is no longer an issue. We have done everything we can. But I say to my colleagues that I think what has been done to the dairy farmers in the Midwest is an injustice. I think it is an injustice in a piece of legislation that, in and of itself, doesn't represent all that much for America, even though I know everybody will be talking about how great this is. I am certainly going to vote against it. I also say to my colleagues that I hope we will, next year, think about how we can reform the way we operate. On this, I hold the majority leader accountable--to the extent that I can hold him accountable. And I will figure out every way I can next year, when we come back, to keep raising this issue. We didn't get a lot of these appropriations bills done. We had a lot of legislation that came to the floor. We weren't allowed to do amendments. Frankly, I don't know how anybody in here thinks we can be good legislators when we don't have the bills coming to the floor. We need to get them out here in the open and have debates that are introduced, have up-or-down votes, and then we move forward. And if we have to work from 9 in the morning until 9 at night, so be it. But instead, we don't do our work. Those of us who believe the Senate floor is the place to fight for what we believe in and have the debates are not able to do so. Instead, we have this process where six, seven, eight people decide what is in and what is out, and we have this huge monstrosity called the ``omnibus'' bill that is presented to us, which none of us has read--or maybe two people have. But none of us has read this from cover to cover. I doubt whether there are more than two Senators who know everything that is in here. I would like to raise the question, How can we be good legislators with this kind of process? We are not being good legislators. I am speaking for myself. I am not able to be an effective legislator representing Minnesota if we are going to continue making decisions in conference committees and rolling in six, seven, eight major pieces of legislation with no opportunity for me as a Senator from Minnesota to bring amendments to the floor. That was done on the dairy compact, and that is what has been done on a whole lot of other decisions. It is no way to legislate. I contend that that is no way to legislate. I contend that this omnibus bill makes a mockery of the legislative process. I contend on the floor of the Senate today, not only because of what happened to dairy farmers in Minnesota but because of the whole way in which this decisionmaking process has worked, that this is unconscionable. I contend that this kind of decisionmaking process is going to lead to more and more disillusionment on the part of people in the country. People hate the mix of money and politics. They don't like poison politics. They don't like all the hack-attack politics my colleagues, Senator Reid and Senator Durbin, were talking about earlier because they believe that is what is wrong. They don't like what, apparently, some of us relish. They don't like backroom deals, decisionmaking that is not open, accountable, and that people can understand and comprehend. Now, my final point. I am not so sure that some of the major decisionmakers, given the sort of deck of cards they had to work with-- I don't know that I want to point the finger at any one person. I don't think that is probably fair. I am making an argument about process, not about a particular Senator. Some of them who were involved in this probably did everything they could do from their point of view. They are very skillful. But I will tell you one thing. Minnesota dairy farmers came out on the short end of the stick. I regret the fact that this has been done and stuck into a conference report and was not done in an honest way, with open debate on the floor of the Senate, where we could have amendments. I also regret a legislative process where we didn't get to the bills on time, didn't have the debate on the floor, didn't have amendments we could introduce, didn't have the up-or-down votes, and it all got done by a few people, really, basically, with very little opportunity for public scrutiny, for democratic accountability. I am going to vote ``no'' on this bill. I think I would vote ``no'' just on the issue of the way in which these decisions have been made because, again, I think we have made a mockery of what should be the legislative process. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to defer to Senator Kohl, and I will follow him and Senator Feingold. I have literally 30 seconds. I yield to Senator Kohl.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I also would like to thank all of my colleagues. I appreciate their comments. I think the only thing I say that might be a little different is I remain pretty skeptical, to be honest. I am glad to hear what my colleagues have said. I think that is real progress. We are talking about working together. I think we are very committed--I say this to Senator Kohl, to Senator Feingold, and to Senator Grams--to making sure that working together leads to a product. We have to change what we have right now because the compact blocking the milk marketing order reform has a disastrous impact on our dairy farms. I come from a State where we lose about three dairy farms a day. I appreciate the comments that have been made. I know the Senators who have made them have made them in good faith. That gives me confidence. On the other hand, given what has happened, permit me to be skeptical until we see the product. The proof is in the pudding. Finally, since my colleague from Texas mentioned the Freedom to Farm bill--what some of us call the ``freedom to fail'' bill --I think dairy is part, just part of it. We have to write a new farm bill. We have a failed farm policy. We have to change this. We are going to press hard to do so. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.