Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support this conference report and I say, Mr. President, that I am very happy to have been an original cosponsor of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. People all across Minnesota who have contacted my office know the importance of the Work Incentives Improvement Act and how it will further expand the possibilities opened up by the Americans with Disabilities Act which was enacted in 1990. Thanks to the ADA, many people with disabilities in Minnesota and around the country are working, but others still cannot accept jobs because they would lose their health care coverage. This Act will allow them to fulfill their dreams for employment and to be productive citizens. This legislation has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support--with 79 Senate cosponsors. It would make it easier for those receiving disability benefits through Social Security programs to go to work without losing their Medicare or Medicaid health benefits. The legislation also encourages the disabled to seek paid employment by gradually reducing their cash benefits as income increases, rather than cutting them off completely. Let's look at the current situation for disabled individuals who seek employment and require health insurance coverage. For some of these people, employer-based coverage is unavailable because they are self- employed or because their disabilities prevent them from working full- time. For others, coverage is unaffordable because of co-pays and co- insurance for repeated, ongoing treatments. For those offered affordable employer insurance, these plans generally cover only primary and acute care, not the specialized medications, equipment, supplies and other long term care needs that individuals with disabilities unfortunately require. Last year, in the Spring of 1998, the Minnesota Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities surveyed 1200 Minnesotans who have disabilities and found the vast majority were ready to go to work if their current health care benefits remained intact. Here are two examples from Minnesota: Let me tell my colleagues about Steve. Steve is a middle-aged adult with advanced Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy. He is married, has two grown children, and owns his own home in rural Minnesota. As the manifestations of his condition progressively worsen, Steve has struggled to remain self-sufficient as long as possible using all of his personal resources. Steve's desire to remain an independent contributing member of society is evident in his efforts to develop the skills that enable him to work from home in a computer-based business. Steve is on SSDI making him eligible for Medical Assistance that pays for his health care needs. He is growing weaker and cannot afford to lose his medical assistance eligibility. Steve has a fledgling publishing business; ghost-writing and copy-writing. He crafts sales ads and creates direct mail advertising packages. Steve uses the Internet to market his services. He uses his website as a forum for other authors to advertise their books. He sells space as one would a classified ad. Steve is becoming involved with e-bay auctioning focusing onbooks--first editions and autographed copies. Steve says the Work Incentives Improvement Act is his only opportunity to become financially independent. ``If a person in my position is at risk for all of the medical expenses that one could incur, that is a big incentive not to try to get ahead. I still have my pride, my ego, the desire to rise above.'' Another Minnesotan whose story I would like to tell is Jean. Jean is in her mid-forties and has had Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease since early childhood. Her muscles have wasted away from her elbows to her finger tips and from her thighs to her toes. She has trunk weakness and uses a power wheelchair for mobility. Jean works in an office as a clerk- typist using a pencil held between her two hands to strike the computer keys and a trackball to navigate her computer. Jean's career is limited by not being able to accept raises, declining wage rewards for the continuing education and skills she has gained, because if she accepted these well deserved raisers, she would exceed Supplemental Security Income's (SSI) earnings threshold of just $500/month and lose her eligibility for medical assistance. ``It just seems unfair that people with disabilities don't have the same opportunities to advance in their careers. Why can't we earn enough money to live in a house? To purchase a van with a lift? To travel?'' These are but two of the thousands of disabled Americans who, with guaranteed continued health care coverage--coverage they already have-- would be able to lead more productive lives, productive for themselves, for their families and for their communities. In my state there are not enough workers to meet the needs of Minnesota employers. and I know it is also the case in many communities around the country. According to the Disability Institute, in 7 years Minnesota will need 1 million new workers. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will help match the needs of Minnesota's disabled community with Minnesota employers. That is what I call a real win-win situation. When President Bush signed the Americans with Disability Act in 1990, he noted that when you add together all the state, federal, local and private funds, it costs almost $200 billion annually to support people with disabilities--to keep them dependent. The ADA was the first giant step forward to allow Americans with disabilities to be independent. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 which we have before us today is another giant step along the same path, and today I am happy to say that we will be taking that step.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to actually start out on a positive note by raising one question. This Work Incentives Improvement Act is a very important piece of legislation for all the reasons my colleagues have explained. I will go through that in a moment. I don't understand why there is in this piece of legislation a $1.7 billion subsidy for higher education lenders. I don't understand what that is doing in this piece of legislation. We are talking about whether or not people with disabilities are going to be able to work and maintain their health care coverage. That is what is so important about this legislation. It is incredibly important to the disabilities community in my State and across the country. I thank Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Roth, and Moynihan. But I have to raise this question just for the Record. What are we doing putting a $1.7 billion subsidy in here for higher education lenders? Students could use this money by way of expanding the Pell grant. Students could use the money by way of low interest loans. Students could use the money to make higher education more affordable. But why is this provision being linked to another piece of legislation? I must say again that when we get back to how we conduct our business, I hope next time we will not put these kinds of provisions together. This is not the way to legislate. I think it is a great piece of legislation. I am going to support it. But I certainly don't think we should have this $1.7 billion subsidy for the lenders as a part of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I wonder if I can ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Kentucky?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in a while--though it is not clear when--it is my understanding that Congressman Obey from Wisconsin--and I see Senator Feingold from Wisconsin on the floor right now--is in the House with any number of different motions to adjourn before this conference report is acted upon. We will eventually get this huge omnibus conference report. Those of us from the midwest dairy States are indignant about what has been done. It goes beyond dairy. Later on, believe me, we are going to have plenty of time to talk about dairy farmers. We are going to talk about what it means to dairy farmers, what it means to our States, and what it means to the country when, in a conference committee, provisions that extend the Northeast Dairy Compact and also block what Secretary Glickman was trying to do with the milk marketing order reform are put into the overall bill. What I want to focus on is the process. To focus on the process, one might say, is a little bit too inside Washington politics, but I do not think so because actually, I say to my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, this is, in a way, what makes people most distrustful of what we do. By the way, I am not going to argue that everything we do should be looked upon with suspicion by citizens. I am not going to engage in an across-the-board indiscriminate bashing of the whole political process. But I will say, if people do not believe in the process, they do not believe in the product. Again, what has happened, in all due respect to the negotiators, is by not getting the work done on these appropriations bills and by putting all of this into an omnibus bill, we have had a few people negotiating. If the majority party in a conference committee wants to roll the minority party, they can do so. That is what they have done in the House by basically putting in this provision that extends the Northeast Dairy Compact and blocks the milk marketing order reform. We had a vote on this in the Senate. We voted against extending the dairy compact. It was a square and fair debate and vote. Then, in a conference committee, completely unrelated to the appropriations bills, completely unrelated to what the scope of the conference committee was supposed to be, these provisions were put back in the bill in the dark of night. House Majority Leader Armey announced they had done it, and Senate Majority Leader Lott announced the provision was in. There was never debate and discussion. They tucked into the conference report this huge monstrosity of a bill that hardly any of us have had a chance to read yet, which will be coming over here sometime. I come to the floor to say to Congressman Obey in the House: I applaud your efforts. What we have is raw politics--just get this through. That is what they have done with this Northeast Dairy Compact. They could not do it on the floor of the Senate. They stuck it in a conference report. They did it in the dead of night. They did it outside any public scrutiny. And now they present it to us in a conference report as a fait accompli. They set up a continuing resolution that goes into next week. They figure out ways of jamming people, and it is unclear as to what leverage we have left. But, as Congressman Obey is doing in the House, I am sure those of us who are from Wisconsin and Minnesota in the Senate intend to speak out. We intend to be very clear about what has happened, and we will do all we can as Senators. We will go from there. I say to my colleagues that almost as much as the final product, I came to the floor of the Senate to strongly dissent from the way it was done. I understand the rules. I understand what it is all about when people have figured out a way to roll Senators. I think that is what the majority leader, the Senate majority leader, and House Majority Leader Armey have done. I think that is what the Republicans have done in this conference committee. There is no question about it. But I want people in Minnesota to know that we will continue to speak out about this, even as we see less and less opportunities for our leverage. We will fight in whatever way we can. We will certainly not be silent about this. When this bill comes over, I would think, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, we can probably expect a considerable amount of discussion about not only the impact on dairy farmers and what it is going to mean for a lot of people who are going to go under who are already struggling enough, but I think also, I say to Senator Feingold, who has been such a reformer, the way it has been done, the whole process, which I think is profoundly antidemocratic, with a small ``d''--not up-or-down votes, late at night, tucked into a report; by whom, when, how, not at all clear, and then design rules in such a way you can just roll it through--we will certainly be speaking out loudly and clearly about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I shall not--there are some of us who would like to speak on this debate concerning this particular issue and who have been waiting for a while. Could we get some sequence of order perhaps?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be in order of sequence on the Democratic side as we move back and forth.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator Kohl was seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be allowed to speak for 5 minutes after Senator Kerry.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak with some mixed feelings because I have heard several of my colleagues, and I specifically want to talk about the remarks of Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I know when they speak about miners, they speak from their hearts, and they speak from their souls. I haven't looked at the specific wording of the amendment. But I want to raise some questions, if this amendment comes to a vote. I will look at the amendment and then decide. But I think I heard some of my colleagues trivialize this question. Just looking at it from another very important point of view, I can say that I have spent a considerable amount of time in eastern Kentucky. That is where my wife's family is from. I spent some time years ago with an organization called ``Save Our Cumberland Mountains'' in east Tennessee. When my colleagues come to the floor and talk about this as saving some exotic species, they are not talking about what I have seen with strip mining. What I have seen with strip mining in east Tennessee and east Kentucky is a situation where, first of all, the coal mining companies came to the region and took an awful lot of the wealth, and then they left an awful lot of the people poor. But one of the things people had was their streams, rivers, and their creeks. They had the outdoors, and the land that they loved. I want to say to my colleagues that when you take the tops off these mountains with the strip mining as opposed to deep mining, and you let the left-over rock and earth get dumped into the adjacent valleys and bury or pollute streams, it raises a big question. Again, I say, in deference to my colleagues, that I know what they are saying. We will have a chance to analyze this and then decide how to vote. But I do not believe this is a trivial question at all. I have seen communities ravaged by this strip mining. I have seen courageous people who have lived in the mountains their whole lives speak up. So I want to speak up by raising this question on the floor of the Senate. I also want to say to my colleague, Senator Byrd--and others--who, as I said, from his heart cares about the miners, that when I hear some of my colleagues talk about the miners, I hope there will be equal concern for the miners in east Kentucky when they don't have the unions. Right now, they can't see 6 inches in front of them because of the coal dust level. I hope we will have the concern for the health and safety of the miners. When I hear speakers on the floor, I hope we will have the concern on raising wages; I hope we will have concern for civilized working conditions; and I hope we will have a concern for the right of miners and other people to be able to organize and bargain collectively. When I hear about the President's trip to Hazard, KY, where is the concern for poverty? I hope we will also see the same kind of commitment to health care, to education, to affordable child care, to economic development, and all of the rest. It is a little bit too much to hear some colleagues frame this debate in these terms given this broader context. It is a difficult question. I said to Senator Byrd earlier I have not looked at the specific amendment yet. I will do that. But I don't want any Senator to come to the floor and act as if there isn't some question--again, the Senator can clear this up for me--as to whether or not, given section 404 of the Clean Water Act, we are or are not creating a loophole. That is a terribly important question for me to resolve before a final vote on the issue.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object until I can read this.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, could I ask the majority leader, following the motion to proceed by the majority leader, it says ``to be followed by a vote on a motion to proceed.'' Is this going to be read?

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is our understanding.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber, please?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I hope other Senators will want to speak in opposition. I think there should be opposition to this amendment. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues who have offered this amendment. I will say a couple things especially in response to the Senator from Kentucky. I am a Senator who cares a great deal about workers and about mine workers. I am a Senator who appreciates the sentiment behind this amendment. But the question is, What happens when the strip mining takes place, and what are the consequences for the people who live in these communities? I can speak certainly from what I have seen in eastern Kentucky, and it is pretty awful when that leftover rock and earth gets dumped into the streams. Many of the people have the wealth taken away from them, but they still have the land, they still have the streams, they still have the water, and now we see that kind of devastation. My concern is this amendment will create a loophole to the Clean Water Act. I know my colleague from West Virginia believes otherwise, but it is a very real concern. I point out to colleagues that it is my understanding the Federal district judge put a stay on his own decision while it was being appealed to the court of appeals. So it is not operative right now. I do not know why we are taking this action tonight. It is a big mistake from an environmental point of view, and I do not accept, I say to my colleague from Kentucky, the tradeoff that he presents as to workers versus some protection for the environment and some concern about the strip mining. I did not want to be the person to speak in opposition, but I do believe there is another perspective. I will vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 1 minute to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague. It is an honest difference of interpretation of the amendment. The only thing I want to respond to, I do not want to be personal, but I would like to say to my colleague, I do not pretend to know West Virginia like you know West Virginia and Senator Rockefeller does; that is not the position I am taking, but as to the bopping in and bopping out, I will say that I want my colleague to know I have spent quite a bit of time in eastern Kentucky. That is where my wife's family is from. Her grandparents were all coal miners. I have spent time in east Tennessee as well. I spent a lot of time with people. I have seen what the strip mining has done to those communities. I am just expressing my honest viewpoint. That is all I am trying to do, I say to the Senator. 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. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Chair be kind enough to notify me when I have used up 10 minutes of my time?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, before we get right into the debate, I wish to also mention another debate in agriculture and say to my colleagues from some of our Midwest dairy States that I share their indignation at the way in which the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact and the blocking of the milk marketing order reform by the Secretary of Agriculture--kind of two hits on us--has been put into a conference report. We voted on this on the floor of the Senate. This was not passed by either House. Yet it was tucked into a conference report. I think it is an outrageous process. I think people are sick and tired of these backroom deals. I intend to be a part of every single effort that is made by Senators Kohl, Feingold, Grams, myself, others, to raise holy heck about this. After having said that, let me respond to some of the comments on the floor. First of all, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for offering this amendment with me. As long as my colleague from Oregon represents that tradition of populism, this is Senator Dorgan. It is who he is. Frankly, I think it is all about democracy and all about the market. Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Johnson and Feingold be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Oregon and others, that as much respect as I have for the Minnesota Star Tribune, I am not all that troubled that sometimes we disagree and that there is an editorial that is in opposition to this amendment because, frankly, this amendment comes from the countryside. This comes from the heartland. This comes from the heart of our farm and rural communities. That is where this amendment comes from. I say that to all Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike. I also say to my colleague from Oregon, actually this is all about the market. This has nothing to do with Russia or whatever country he mentioned. Quite to the contrary, this is all about putting some free enterprise back into our economy. This is about putting free enterprise back into the free enterprise system. This is about the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and Senator Estes Kefauver and a great tradition of antitrust action. That is what this is about. This is about making sure we have competition. This is making sure that our producers--the one, if you will, free enterprise sector in this food industry--have a chance to survive. That is what this is about. This is as old fashioned and pro-American and a part of the history of our country as you can get, from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson, right up to now. Let me be clear about that. This is a very modest amendment. What it says is that until we develop some kind of comprehensive solution to the problem of extreme concentration in our agricultural markets, and anticompetitive practices of the few large conglomerates that have muscled their way to the dinner table, and are driving our producers out, we ought to take a ``timeout'' on these mergers and acquisitions-- not of small businesses but of large agribusinesses. This timeout could last as long as 18 months but no longer. It could also be terminated well short of 18 months by passage of some legislation, which is what I hope we will be serious about, to deal with this problem of concentration. This is a historic debate and a historic vote because, you know what, we are going to have to deal with the whole question of monopoly power and whether or not we need to have more competition and free enterprise in our free enterprise system in a lot of sectors of this economy. That is what Viacom buying up CBS is all about. That is what the proposed merger of Exxon and Mobil is all about. That is what the rapid consolidations and mergers in all these sectors of the economy, where you have a few firms that dominate, I think to the detriment of our consumers and our small businesses, is all about. If we pass this timeout, we are still going to need to revisit this problem of concentration within the next 18 months. We have to do so and pass legislation. What we cannot do is pass this legislation today. So what we want to do is put a hold on these colossal agribusiness mergers that are occurring on an almost daily basis. What we are saying is, let's pass legislation that puts some competition back into the food industry, that gives our family farmers, our producers a chance. But until we do that, let's take a timeout so we can put a stop to some of these colossal agribusiness mergers that are taking place at a breathtaking pace every single day. This amendment also is intended to create an incentive for the Congress to develop a more comprehensive solution on an expedited basis. Last week, if my colleagues need any evidence, the Wall Street Journal reported that Novartis and Monsanto, two of the largest agribusiness giants, may be merging. The Journal accurately states: . . . the industry landscape seems to be changing every day. In fact, the ground is constantly shifting beneath our feet, and soon it is going to be too late to do anything about it. That is exactly why we need a timeout. These mergers build momentum for more mergers, and these large companies are all saying that we have no other choice, given what is going on right now, but to merge and get bigger and bigger and bigger. Just imagine what the effect of a merger between Monsanto and Novartis would mean. It would obviously put more pressure on more firms to join in on one of these emerging handful of food chain clusters that are poised to control our agricultural markets. This timeout we are proposing today is intended to lessen those pressures and to arrest this trend before it is too late. That is what this is all about. This amendment is all about whether or not our producers are going to have a chance. This is an amendment that is all about whether or not rural communities are going to be able to make it. This amendment is all about whether or not farmers are going to be able to get a decent price. When you are at an auction and you are trying to sell something and you only have three buyers, you are not going to get much of a price. That is exactly what is happening in agriculture today. This is all about competition. This is all about America. This is all about Jeffersonian tradition and whether or not Senators are on the side of family farmers or whether they are on the side of these large conglomerates. We have horizontal concentration taking place. Whether we are looking at the beef packers or at pork or grain or whether we are looking at every single sector, we have four companies that control 50, 60, 70 percent of the market. That is not competition. Economics 101: It is oligopoly, at best, when you have four firms that control over 50 percent of the market. The scarier thing is the vertical integration. When one firm expands its control over various stages of food production, from the development of the animal or plant gene to production of fertilizer and chemical inputs, to actual production, to processing, to marketing and distribution to the supermarket shelf, is that the brave new world of agriculture we want to see? That is exactly the trend we are experiencing today. I quote an April 1999 report by the Minnesota Land Stewardship Project. I think it is right on the mark: Packers' practice of acquiring captive supplies through contracts and direct ownership is reducing the number of opportunities for small- and medium-sized farmers to sell their hogs; As a matter of fact, our hog producers are facing extinction, and these packers are in hog heaven. We want to know, who is making the money? How can it be that these corporate agribusinesses are making record profits while our producers are going under? The Land Stewardship Project goes on to say: With fewer buyers and more captive supply, there is less competition for independent farmers' hogs and insufficient market information regarding price; and lower prices result. Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers Union, recently testified: The increasing level of market concentration, with the resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of the top concerns of farmers and ranchers. At most farm and ranch meetings, market concentration ranks as either the first or second priority of issues of concern. Farmers and ranchers believe that lack of competition is a key factor in the low commodity prices they are receiving. So our corporate agribusinesses grow fat, and our farmers are facing lean times. I wasn't born yesterday. I understand what has been going on since we introduced this amendment. I know the folks who have been making the calls. We are up against some of the largest agribusinesses, some of the largest multinational corporations, some of the largest conglomerates you could ever be up against. Let us talk about this very practical and modest proposal.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First, the standard we use is the standard that now exists under the Clayton Act, which is whether or not a merger may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Second, we are talking about the largest mergers in which both parties have annual net revenues over $100 million. This is not small business--both parties with annual revenues over $100 million. Third, some of my colleagues were concerned about the possibility of facing financial insolvency. We address the problem. In this amendment is language which makes it clear that the Attorney General would have the authority to waive this moratorium in extraordinary circumstances, such as financial insolvency or similar financial distress. We have another waiver authority which goes to the Secretary of Agriculture. Some colleagues said, what about mergers and acquisitions that actually are procompetitive? What we are going to do is to say, under modification, that USDA could waive the moratorium for deals that don't increase concentration to levels that are determined to be detrimental to family farmers. This moratorium or timeout won't even take effect for 18 months because presumably we are going to act earlier. We have to do something about this merger mania. We have to do something about getting some competition back into the food industry. We have to do something that is on the side of family farmers. This timeout, with all of the provisions we have which make it so reasonable--and we are still in negotiation with our colleague from Iowa, who I know cares fiercely about this--ought to lead to an amendment that should generate widespread support. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?