Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleagues discuss this amendment. I want to zero in on what is the poison pill provision of this amendment--no pun intended. The cocaine provision in the Republican drug amendment to the bankruptcy bill would raise powder cocaine penalties to unacceptably high levels, forcing jail overcrowding without offering any concrete solutions to drug addiction. That is the fundamental problem. In short, as much affection as I have for my colleague from Michigan and others, I think this provision is a disaster. The authors say they want to fix racial disparities in crack sentencing by establishing tougher sentences for low-end powder cocaine offenders. In practice, this is going to make the disparities worse. That is the problem. This provision capitalizes upon the common misperception that powder cocaine is principally a ``white drug.'' It seeks to neutralize complaints of racism in the heavy sentences meted out almost exclusively to African American defendants for crack cocaine offenses. In reality, this provision will only worsen the problem of gross overrepresentation of minorities in prison for drug offenses. To the existing flood of young minority males serving draconian sentences for nonviolent low-level crack offenses, it will simply do the same for minor powder cocaine offenses. Only low-end cocaine defendants will have their sentences changed under the Republican proposal. The sentence for a participant in a 50- gram powder transaction will more than double from 27 months to 5 years. Further, the Sentencing Commission's mandate will require it to make comparable increases for lesser quantities. Yet the Commission has documented that as with crack, such low-level street dealers--and these are the ones who are going to be affected by this--of powder cocaine are ``primarily poor, minority youth, generally under the age of 18.'' And overall, minorities constitute over three-quarters of all current powder defendants. They also found that over half of the Federal powder defendants are couriers or mules or lookouts--categories with the lowest income and lowest culpability and the highest representation of minorities. This amendment doesn't go after the kingpins. This amendment, again, is going to have a disproportionate impact on minorities, on kids, on the young and on the poor. I use this as an example. I am not trying to pick on the students. College students at Yale or Harvard who suffer from substance abuse or sell cocaine out of their dorm rooms will not go to jail under this provision. I have no doubt about that. Instead, the vast majority will once again be low-income African American and Hispanic males. I want to read from a statement before the Judiciary Committee--this is not my argument--from 27 former U.S. attorneys who now sit as judges on the Federal court: Having regularly reviewed presentence reports in cases involving powder and crack cocaine, we can attest to the fact that there is generally no consistent, meaningful difference in the type of individuals involved. At the lower levels, the steerers, lookouts, and street-sellers are generally impoverished individuals with limited education whose involvement with crack rather than powder cocaine is more a result of demand than a conscious choice to sell one type of drug rather than another. Indeed, in some cases, a person who is selling crack one day is selling powder cocaine the next. By raising powder cocaine penalties, the amendment reduces the gulf in sentencing between the two drugs, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. The real problem is that crack penalties are way out of proportion to those of other drugs. You are basically trying to argue that two wrongs make a right, and they don't. Reducing the trigger quantity for a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for powder cocaine makes the penalties for both forms of cocaine disproportionately severe compared to other drugs. The same U.S. attorneys say they ``disagree with those who suggest that the disparity in treatment of powder and crack cocaine should be remedied by altering penalties relating to powder cocaine.'' I emphasize this in the former U.S. attorneys' quote: The penalties for powder cocaine . . . are severe and should not be increased. Mr. President, we need to stop and ask ourselves, what are we doing here? If the trigger amount for powder is lowered, almost 10,000 addicts and small-time drug users will be added to the prison population over the next 10 years. That is what we are doing with this amendment. The Bureau of Prisons will have to build six new prisons just to house these people. This will be at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $2 billion. In the next 20 years, the cost will escalate to over $5 billion, and in 30 years it will be $10.6 billion. Haven't we learned yet that jails and prisons are not the sole answer? There are more than 1.5 million people incarcerated in State and Federal prisons and local jails around the country. Another 100,000 young people are confined in juvenile institutions. These numbers have tripled in the past two decades. On any given day, one out of every three African American men in their twenties is either in prison, in jail, on probation, or on parole. I remember reading in the paper that there are more African American men in their twenties--far more--in the State of California in prison than are in college. We have one of the largest prison populations in the world. If more prisons were the sole solution to the problems of drugs and crime, then we should be among the least addicted, safest countries on Earth. Being ``tough on drugs'' makes for a great stump speech, but we also ought to be smart, and we need to be smart. A landmark study of cocaine markets by the conservative Rand Corporation found that, dollar for dollar, providing treatment for cocaine users is 10 times more effective than drug interdiction schemes. A recent study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, has indicated that 48 percent of the need for drug treatment, not including alcohol abuse, is unmet in the United States--48 percent of the need is unmet. Surely, if we can find an endless supply of funding for housing offenders and building new prisons, then we must be able to rectify this shortsighted lack of treatment. Let me simply talk a moment about this disease of alcohol and drug addiction which costs our Nation $246 billion annually--almost $1,000 for every man, woman, and child. There is so much new evidence, so many studies, so much good science work, and we are so far behind the curve. Why aren't we looking at the evidence, the data, the research, and the work that is being done? This disease is treatable. Yet our Nation has an alcohol and drug treatment gap that is 50 percent nationally, 60 percent for women, and 80 percent for youth. Are you ready for this? Since we are now going to throw yet even more of these kids--primarily Hispanic and African American--in jail and prison, access to youth drug treatment is particularly low, with only one in five adolescents able to access drug or alcohol treatment services. We don't provide the funding for the services or for the treatment, and now we have an amendment that basically will assure that even more of these kids will be locked up--without even dealing with the root of the problem. I have a piece of legislation--and Congressman Ramstad from Minnesota has the same legislation on the House side--which says that, at the very minimum, we ought to stop this discrimination and say to the insurance companies that we ought to be treating this disease the same way we treat other physical illnesses because right now, in all too many of these policies, if you are struggling with addiction, you don't get any treatment. We are just saying we are not even mandating it. We are just saying, for gosh sakes, please stop the discrimination, deal with this brain disease, provide some coverage for treatment. There are all these men and women in the recovery community who can testify about how, when they had access to treatment, they were able to rebuild their lives. They are now members of the recovery community; they work; they are successful; they contribute to their families, and they contribute to their communities. What do we have here? We have an amendment that does nothing more than imprison more of these kids and doesn't do a darn thing about getting at the root of the problem. It does nothing about the lack of treatment for these kids. This is a huge mistake. There is one other provision that is now part of this amendment, which is quite unbelievable, at least in my view. As a part of this amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have included a provision that says if a child attends a title I school and becomes a victim of violence on school grounds, the district may use the Federal education funds, including IDEA, title I, and other money, to provide the child with a voucher to attend a private school or to provide transfer costs for the child to attend another public school. Well, now, look, I don't know exactly when this provision was even put in this amendment. It wasn't part of the original amendment I had a chance to see earlier. But I am a little bit skeptical. I think what my colleagues have done is taken a reality--and, God knows, I wish this reality didn't exist in our country, which is too much violence in children's lives, including too much violence in their schools--and then used that as a reason to once again get authorization and funding for vouchers. If for some of these children you were able to transfer money to private schools, what about the 90 percent of children in America who attend public schools, not to mention the fact that the amount of money these kids get to transfer to a private school wouldn't cover anywhere the cost of the private school? And the vast majority of these children are low income. What about the rest of our kids in our schools? I say this by way of conclusion. I will be especially brief because I don't believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to hear this, and I don't even think they want to debate it. Have you expanded funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools? No. Are you willing to support essential and sensible gun control, and drug treatment and drug prevention programs? No. Were you willing--I have this amendment--to dramatically expand the number of counselors in our schools to provide help and support to kids? No. Were you willing to support legislation that would deal with the reality of children who have witnessed violence in their homes? They have seen their mother beaten up over and over again, have trouble in school, sometimes themselves overly aggressive, sometimes themselves getting in trouble. That amendment passed the Senate. It was taken out in conference committee by the Republicans. Do you support that? No. Are you willing to dramatically increase funding for afterschool programs? Law enforcement communities tell us it is so important in getting to a lot of kids who are at risk and who might commit some of this violence or might themselves be victims of this violence. Have you been willing? No. Have you been willing to invest in rebuilding rotting schools? A lot of kids who live in tough neighborhoods who go to tough schools, when they walk into the schools and they see how decrepit they are, say to themselves, you know what, this country doesn't give a damn about us. They devalue themselves and they get into trouble. Have we made any investment here? No. Have you been willing to increase the amount of funding we put into title I? In my State of Minnesota, in the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, after you get to schools that are 60 percent low-income schools, then you go to schools that get 50 or 55 percent, and they don't get any of those funds because they have run out of money and because the title I money reaches, at best, about 30 percent of the kids in the country who need additional help. No. I have to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I would love to debate somebody on this. It strikes me that this is disingenuous at best. You talk about the violence kids experience in our schools. And then you say, therefore, we will now use this as an excuse to try to push through a voucher plan. Yet on 10 different things that you could support that would reduce the violence in children's lives in our public schools, you are not willing to invest one more cent. It is a weak argument you make. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is--let me see if I get this right--that we are in the process of trying to work out some kind of arrangement which may work better for colleagues in terms of their schedules, in which case soon we would start on this debate. We might very well finish up when we come back with a final vote. If that is the case, I would agree to Senator Ashcroft speaking now for 7 minutes while we are working out this agreement; with the understanding that after Senator Ashcroft speaks for 7 minutes, then the pending business would be this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to have to object. I am willing to let some people speak, but I have been waiting for 3 days to get this amendment up and to get this debated.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would object. The only thing I agreed to is Senator Aschroft being allowed to speak for 7 minutes; then I retain the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to colleagues that I will start out--though my guess is that very soon we will probably have an agreement that will enable us to go to an amendment that will be 10 minutes altogether and then a vote for those who need to leave town. I will start out. I want to say to colleagues, this isn't going to be a long debate, and we'll go back to it on Wednesday. Several colleagues have questions and I will start out that way.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that I regain the floor following the agreement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to point out that if there is an objection, people can't leave. I am trying to accommodate people's schedules. I think it would be unfortunate if because of an objection Senators who want to leave to get back for Veterans Day are not able to leave tonight. I was trying to accommodate. I hope the Senator from California will reconsider. Basically, the implication is that many people have many other amendments. This happens to be one of the three amendments that was part of the original agreement about how we would proceed. That is the only difference. Many of us have other amendments. If the Senator wants to object, go ahead.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First, I say to the Senator from Iowa, I hope we can work it out so Senators can leave.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Can we get the agreement?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I still have the floor. I know we want to move forward. I am trying to move forward. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon. He has been waiting.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber? Mr. President, we are now dealing with amendment 2752. Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we will start this debate tonight, and we will conclude the debate on Wednesday. There will be an hour of debate on Wednesday as well. I want to give this a little bit of context. Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber? Would Senators please take their conversation outside the Chamber? I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will start out with some narrative that was written by Jodi Niehoff, who works with me, and who is the daughter of dairy farmers, Jane and Loren Niehoff, in Minnesota from Melrose, MN, and close thereby. Grove Township is 6 miles by 6 miles. It is a typical Midwest township. Fields of wheat, corn, some oats, and alfalfa span across the township line. In Grove Township, as in surrounding townships, the biggest topic of conversation is the economic farm crisis. There are fewer and fewer folks attending to local board meetings. It is not because fewer folks care. It is because there are fewer farmers around. In Grove Township, regardless of which gravel road one chooses to travel along, one will inevitably drive by an abandoned farm. Let me begin by illustrating how the farm crisis affects rural communities. I'll use Grove Township as an example. Sometimes we have these debates, and we never talk about it in terms of people. Reuban Schwieters--Reuban just recently quit farming. Reuban and his wife Paula and their young boys sold half of the farm. Reuban is now pouring cement at a local construction company.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just keep speaking, and if you can't get order, I will get order. Mr. President, I would say to colleagues that we could have had a 4- hour debate tonight. Colleagues wanted to go home. So I was accommodating because I think all of us want to get back for Veterans Day. We start this debate tonight about agriculture. It is taken me probably about 8 weeks to get this amendment on the floor. I would appreciate it if colleagues would take their conversations in the back of the room outside. If we would have order in the Chamber, I am not going to speak until we do. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I don't like reading about people's lives, many of whom have lost their farms, and have Senators out here on the floor and others speaking as if it makes no difference. Reuban Schwieters--as I said, Reuban just recently quit farming. He and his wife Paula and three young boys sold half their farm. Reuben is now pouring cement at a local construction company. Bear again in mind, these loss of farms is just in Grove Township in my State of Minnesota. Steve and Lori Sand lived about 3 miles from Reuben and Paula. Steve and Reuben went to school together. Steve began farming next to his father's farm since at that time his father Wally was not ready to retire. Steve and Lori, their three daughters, and son could not hang on to the farm. The prices were too low to maintain a household of six and still run the family farm. They moved to Cottage Grove, MN, where Steve does construction and his wife Lori is now a computer technician. Incidentally, Steve's father Wally has retired, but none of his children or grandchildren has taken over the family farm. These are Minnesotans willing to let their names be used so I can tell their story, which is the story of what is happening in agriculture. Allen Nathe closed down his farm and is now doing small engine repairs. Gloria Schneider sold the farm to her son Glen. Glen and his wife farmed only a few years before they sold their family farm and he and his wife and small daughter moved to Minneapolis. Dave Feldewerd sold his farm and is also driving a truck. Mike Ellering recently sold his farm and is working construction. Danny Frieler and his family quit farming. They still live on the farm, but the barns stand hollow. Marcy Wochnik recently retired and sold her farm to her son, and her son tried for a few years before he threw in the towel. Marcy moved into a house only a mile from a farm. No one has yet purchased the farm. I am going through the story of farmers and farm families who have quit farming in Grove Township, one township in the State of Minnesota, a small story that tells a large story of what is happening to agriculture and the ``why'' of the amendment I introduced tonight with Senators Dorgan, Daschle, Johnson, Leahy, and other Senators. Alvin and Mary Hoppe also recently sold their farm and moved off the farm. Mary commutes to St. Cloud, and her husband has been doing mechanical jobs. Their son Jason is 12 years old, but he has always been by his father's side eager to learn farming. Despite Jason's enthusiasm and interest to farm, given the current conditions in agriculture, it is difficult for his parents to recommend this occupation. This is only a corner of Grove Township in my State. If one crosses the water, one will be in Oak Township, where I could go through another list of farmers who have also had to quit farming. About a quarter of a mile from the Grove and Oak Township line lies the small town of New Munich. Since 1996, New Munich has also declined in residents. The effects of the farm crisis are apparent just walking along Main Street. Ostendorf Grocery closed. Marvin, who is known as Bud, and his wife Rosie have moved on. Rosie commutes to St. Cloud and sells retail clothes, and Bud works at a factory. Ostendorf Grocery was a practical general store. After Sunday mass, folks from the congregation would make quick stops for any last-minute items or simply visit with Rosie and Bud. During the week, farmers often would run into town to pick up a needed ingredient or item at the store. As in most towns, Ostendorf Grocery also served as the news and information center. Rosie always knew of the current events in the area, and folks enjoyed spending a few minutes to talk to her and Bud. Gone. Since 1996, the elementary school closed. The school closing affected the local businesses. The school also has been used for community events. Schoolchildren, particularly farm kids, now face much longer bus rides to school. Thielen Meats will close by the end of this year. Thielen Meats was a little mom-and-pop meat shop located across from the J.C. Park. Many farmers would bring a hog or a cow to be butchered by their family. The larger shipments of livestock delivered to Thielen Meats were sold directly to residents in the town or in the surrounding area. Kenny and Rita Revermann may also be closing the True Value Hardware store. After the school closing, the grocery store closing, and the recent news of the meat shop closing, the trips made by farmers to New Munich will grow fewer and fewer. I have letters from farmers from Minnesota, Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, and Missouri. Over and over again, if I had to summarize, these farmers say: We have record low prices, we have record low income, we are not going to be able to make it, it doesn't matter whether we work 19 hours a day, it doesn't matter how good a manager we are, there are economic forces that are destroying our lives. So far, Senators have not helped. So far, we have acted as if this crisis didn't exist. This amendment tonight, which calls for a moratorium on all of these mergers and acquisitions of the huge conglomerates makes it hard for our family farmers and producers to have any leverage when they are only dealing with three buyers. If you are at an auction and you have three buyers for a product, what kind of price do you get? This is just the first amendment. The first vote next week will be the beginning of a major floor fight over and over again until we change farm policy in the country. It is not just a question of people losing their farms, it is a question of our rural communities. When people lose their farms, it is more than just a family. We are seeing a rising incidence of divorce. We are seeing all kinds of tensions within families. We have too many suicide lines that are being used now. We have too much depression. We have too many farmers without any life insurance, too many farmers without any health insurance, too many farmers without any health and dental care, too many farmers with too little self-esteem.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, tonight I speak, Wednesday I speak, and Wednesday we debate a crisis that is ravaging rural America. I started out speaking about this crisis in personal terms, in human terms. On present course, the conservative estimate is we will lose 7,000 farmers this next year, but it could be more in Minnesota. On present course, over the next couple of years we are going to lose a whole generation of producers, if we do not change our course of policy. I do not believe family farmers in my State of Minnesota, or family farmers in America, will be able to continue to farm or will their children be able to farm, unless we change the structure of agriculture. Bob Bergland, who was Secretary of Agriculture in the late 1970s, commissioned a report called ``The Structure of Agriculture.'' He now lives in northwest Minnesota. It was prophetic. In the past decade and a half, we have seen an explosion of mergers and acquisitions and anticompetitive practices that have raised concentration in agriculture to record levels. Everywhere family farmers look, whether it is who they buy from or who they sell to, it is but a few firms that dominate the market. The top four pork producers have increased their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent. The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 percent to 80 percent. The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 percent to 62 percent. The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54 percent to 80 percent. The top four turkey processors now control 42 percent of production. Mr. President, 49 percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the four largest firms. The top four firms now control 67 percent of ethanol production. The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent and 57 percent of the market, respectively. The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of elevator operators. The effect of this concentration has basically been to squeeze our producers out. Our family farmers no longer have the leverage or the power in the marketplace to get a decent price. This amendment is a cry from the countryside. Everywhere I go in Minnesota and other States, farmers say: We cannot get a decent price because of this concentration of power, because of this monopoly power. We are not able to survive. When we look at the packers and we look at the grain companies and we look at the exporters and we look at the processors, they are making good profits, sometimes record profits, but we cannot get a decent price. Farmers say to me: Where is the competition in the food industry? This amendment is an effort to put some competition back into the food industry. We are talking about an 18-month moratorium. We are saying what we need to do is take some time out. Something is not working. We passed the Sherman Act. We passed the Clayton Act. Estes Kefauver was a great Senator who talked about antitrust action. But we have had this wave of mergers and acquisitions that have led to precious little competition. Again, these conglomerates have exercised their power over our producers and our producers cannot get a decent price. This amendment is not the be-all or the end-all, but I say to my colleagues, if you believe in competition and if you believe family farmers ought to have a chance in the marketplace, then the very least we can do is pass an amendment that says when it comes to these large agribusinesses, these large conglomerates with $100 million and over revenue buying up a company with at least $10 million, we ought to say we are going to have a moratorium on this. For 18 months, we set up a review commission and then we come up with recommendations and we pass some legislation that gives our producers a fair chance in the marketplace. If we pass that legislation in 2 months or 3 months, then this moratorium is no longer operative. Built into this amendment I introduced with Senator Dorgan and other colleagues is the opportunity, if you will, the waiver that any business can file with the Justice Department, where a business can say: We have to merge or we have to buy because we are facing financial insolvency. We allow for that. But we have to pass this kind of amendment now because over and over again, every single day, we are seeing these acquisitions and mergers; more and more concentrated power, more and more concentrated power which is harmful to our producers and harmful to our consumers and harmful to America. On present course, we are going to see a few large conglomerates that are going to control every phase of the food industry from the seed to the supermarket or grocery shelf. We are going to have a few landowners. Somebody is going to own the land and somebody is going to own the animals, but it is going to be just a few conglomerates. That is dangerous for our country. Thomas Jefferson told us it was dangerous; Andrew Jackson told us it was dangerous; Abraham Lincoln told us it was dangerous; Teddy Roosevelt, later on, told us it was dangerous. Why are we not, in the Senate and House of Representatives, willing to pass some legislation which will promote competition, which will protect consumers, and which will give our farmers and our producers who are going under some leverage in the marketplace? This legislation is also important to the environment, to our rural communities, and to democracy. Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that Novartis and Monsanto, two of the biggest agribusiness giants, may be merging. The Wall Street Journal accurately states: The industry landscape seems to be changing every day. In fact, the ground is constantly shifting beneath our feet and it soon may be too late to do anything about it. That is why we need a time out. That is exactly what this amendment calls for. Too many corporate agribusinesses are growing fat and too many farmers are facing extinction and very lean times. Clearly, we cannot count on the current antitrust statutes and antitrust authorities to address this rapid consolidation. We are going to have to do better. We are going to have to change our laws to enable someone like Joel Klein, who is so skillful and so gifted, to be representing family farmers. Whether or not our antitrust agencies have the authority, we need to move forward. We have to develop a new farm policy and we know it is going to take some time. But we do not have much time left. The question for Senators is, Whose side are we on? Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the packers and the grain companies, or are we on the side of family farmers? I mean this. I mean this very sincerely. I know, because I have heard from other Senators, that you have a lot of these big companies and they are sending in faxes and letters and they are lobbying hard. But aren't we going to be for the producers? Aren't we going to be for the family farmers in our States? For Senators who are not from the farm States, who do you want to control agriculture? Isn't food a precious item? Should we not give these producers a fair shot? Wouldn't it be better for the environment to have family farmers? Wouldn't it be better for our rural communities? Wouldn't it enable us to continue to count on being able to purchase food at a reasonable price? Why in the world would we want to move to a corporatized, industrialized agriculture, where a few conglomerates control the whole food industry? That is not competition. That is not Adam Smith's invisible hand. That is not the United States of America. I offer this amendment tonight with my colleagues. We will have the debate again next week, and then we will have the vote because we need to take some action. We have to act now, otherwise there are going to be more mergers and it is going to be too late, and we are going to lose, as I said earlier, a whole generation of family farms. I have seen some of these faxes and letters that have come in. I do not even have this in writing before me, but I can almost remember it. Some of them say: Oh, my gosh, this is a threat to co-ops. Co-ops are not covered. Some of these letters say: But if you want to sell your farm, then you can't sell your farm. This does not apply to farms, it applies to these agribusinesses. Then some say: This is going to stop all mergers and acquisitions. That is not true either. We set up a test. There is a Hart-Scott- Rodino test right now where, if you have a big company, the Justice Department has to take a look at you to see whether or not you are in violation of antitrust laws. We are applying this to the large conglomerates and large agribusinesses. Then there is the argument, if a company is going under this, this would prohibit them from selling or buying. That is not true either. There is a waiver with the Justice Department for companies faced with financial insolvency. The question is whether or not the Senate is willing to take some action right now that will make a difference. I cannot think, I say to every single colleague, of any vote that we will cast when it comes to family farms and agriculture that is more telling in terms of what the Senate is about. We have a few conglomerates. My case is compelling. They control well over 50 percent of the market. When farmers look to from whom they buy and to whom they sell, it is monopoly or oligopoly at best. They cannot get a decent price. This amendment to the bankruptcy bill--by the way, on present course, more and more farmers will be faced with bankruptcy--let us have at least a moratorium on these mergers of these large conglomerates. Let's at least step back for 18 months, set up a commission, study this, and come up with legislation that will provide some protection for family farmers so they can get a decent price in the marketplace. If we pass that legislation in January or February, then this moratorium is no longer operative. I come from a remarkable State. I want to quote a remarkable Minnesotan, Ignatius Donnelly. I want to quote from a speech he gave at the People's Party Convention in 1892. It reads as if it could have been written yesterday. He was an implacable foe of monopoly power. Donnelly in his speech affirmed that the interests of rural and urban labor are the same. He called for a return to America's egalitarian principles. He said: We seek to restore the Government of the Republic to the hands of the plain people with whom it originated. We should do no less. If we want to sustain a vibrant rural economy and a thriving democracy, we need urgently to reform our farm and antitrust laws, and we have to act now. Time is not neutral. Time rushes on, and if we are not willing to take this action next week, time will leave many farmers behind. Now is the time to act. Next week, I will read from letters of support from any number of different farm organizations, and I will start out with the Farmers Union, which has been so helpful in this whole effort. I especially thank Tom Buis for all of his policy work. This may be the final vote of this session this year. This vote will be very telling for Senators who value a family farm structure of agriculture, for Senators who have seen the anguish of farmers in our rural communities, and for Senators who have seen in personal terms what record low farm prices and record low farm income means. It is important to come to the floor and fight for people. Tonight is the first speech. Wednesday we come back with 1 hour more of debate. Between now and Wednesday, I am going to do everything I can as a Senator to make sure a lot of grassroots people in our farm States and in other States contact Senators because this is a tough fight. A lot of these large companies and a lot of their associations that represent these large companies--and I will read the names of the different organizations that are opposed to this legislation--pour in the faxes and pour in the letters. By the way, I say to my colleagues, a good part of what they are saying is not accurate. I understand there are certain interests who give a lot of money and are heavy hitters, who are well connected and who are the players and investors, maybe too much so in both parties. I understand that a call for antitrust action or at least to call for a moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions of these large companies goes directly at that power. But the truth is--and I conclude on this note--this is but a glimpse of what is to come. In some ways, our country today reminds me a little bit of the gilded age of the 1890s, moving into the next century. We moved into the 20th century. As we went through the 1890s, we had a tremendous consolidation of power which gave rise to the populist movement, gave rise to progressives, gave rise to Teddy Roosevelt, the Sherman Act in 1890, the Clayton Act in the teens, and then the Stockyard Act of 1921 or 1922. This feels the same way. We have CBS being bought by Viacom. We have banks merging, a few banks, a few large insurance companies, a few airlines--concentration of power in telecommunications, concentration of power in agriculture-- the list goes on and on. I am a Senator from a farm State. I am a Senator from an agricultural State. I am a Senator from the Midwest. I am a Senator from the State of Minnesota, and when I look at the need to do something about this monopoly power and I look at the need to do something that will give our producers, our family farmers a fair shake, I cannot think of any more important action we can take than to at least have this temporary moratorium on these mergers. Mr. President, I ask how much time I have left this evening.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the rest of the time I have this evening to Senator Harkin. I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but if my colleague from Oregon is going to speak, I will not do so. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick question? I have to leave to try to get back to Minnesota to mark Veterans Day, but I want to ask my colleague, is he talking about a cooperative with which he was involved?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I see. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution expressing condemnation of the use of children as soldiers and the belief that the United States should support and, where possible, lead efforts to establish and enforce international standards designed to end this abuse of human rights. In 1999, an estimated 300,000 individuals under the age of 18, some as young as age 5, were serving as soldiers in dozens of armed conflicts around the world, some with armed insurgencies, and some in regular armies. Over the past five years, children were combatants in at least 33 countries around the world: in Africa, in the Americas, in Europe, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and in Asia. Throughout the world, children are exploited by adults for cruel purposes. These children have no voice. Some children are kidnaped and forced to become combatants. In the conflict in Sierra Leone, rebel armies willfully conscripted children into their ranks after forcing them to kill their family members and neighbors. Once conscripted, many children are subject to brutal induction ceremonies. The impact of the regular use of physical and emotional abuse involving degradation and humiliation of younger recruits to ``indoctrinate'' discipline, and to induce fear of superiors usually results in low self-esteem, guilt feelings and violent solutions to problems. In addition, children are treated like their adult counterparts. This can have severe physical effects. Poor and inadequate food and medical care have more serious implications for children, whose bodies are still growing and may be weakened by the exertions of military life. Children who cannot ``keep up'' are routinely killed by their leaders so that they cannot reveal any secrets. Child soldiers are sometimes drugged so that they will fight even more fiercely. They may be used as human shields, to protect the more valuable, trained adult soldiers. Some children may appear to become combatants of their own accord. These are children--children without the capacity to judge what is in their own best interest. Children who are subject to subtle manipulations by family and community members may succumb to pressures that lead them to participate in hostilities. Some children become so enraged by the violence against their families and communities they become combatants to seek revenge. These ``volunteers'' are children who have witnessed extremes of physical violence, including death squad killings, disappearances, torture, destruction of home or property and massacres. Young children seldom appreciate the dangers which they face. Alone, orphaned, frightened, bored, and frustrated, they will often finally choose to fight. When a conflict has ended, child soldiers often do not receive any special treatment for their reintegration into civil society. Child soldiers have different needs than adult soldiers and require special services, such as education, training, and social and psychological rehabilitation. Although child soldiers are subjected to unspeakable horrors, the international community has been slow in outlawing the use of children under 18 in armed conflicts. Today, international law regarding child soldiers is governed primarily by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention states that children under 15 cannot be recruited, conscripted, or made to participate in armed conflict. Every country in the United Nations, except the United States and Somalia has ratified the Convention. Currently, a number of governments are working in Geneva to establish an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that would raise the minimum age for recruitment and participation in conflict in 18. The working group has met over the past five years, but so far has been unable to reach consensus as to the wording and terms of the protocol. This delay is in part due to the United States, which does not want to give up its practice of recruiting youths under 18 for military service. Although in the United States conscription is limited to those 18 and over, the United States military has a long standing practice of recruiting youths under the age of 18 and allowing them to be designated to fill combat positions. According to the U.S. Defense Department, children under the age of 18 make up less than one-half of one percent of active U.S. troops, about 7,000 individuals. I urge the Defense Department to examine its policy of recruiting children under the age of 18. Further, I urge the Defense Department to reassign those recruits under 18 to non-combat positions and adopt a clear policy barring those under 18 from participating in armed conflict. These steps would bring the United States closer to the emerging international consensus regarding the minimum age for military service. Further, to move forward, the United States government must drop its objection to an international agreement establishing 18 as the minimum age for recruitment or participation in armed conflict. Since the United States is not even a party to the parent treaty, our opposition is inappropriate. The United States should not object to other countries moving forward in protecting their children even if we choose not to follow suit. Mr. President, I speak today for these children who have grown up surrounded by violence and can only see this as a permanent way of life; for the children who are the victims of unfathomable terror and violence; and, for the children who are forced to perpetrate equal atrocities upon others. I speak for the children who have no other voice to speak for them, and no voice to speak for themselves. I submit this resolution so that the United States Congress can speak for these children. I ask the United States Senate, as we look to the new millennium, to begin the process whereby we eliminate the use of children as soldiers. I ask the Senate to give voice to these children and to future generations of children through passage of this concurrent resolution. The resolution simply provides that (1) the Congress joins the international community in condemning the use of children as soldiers; and (2) it is the sense of the Congress that (A) the United States should not oppose current efforts to negotiate an optional international agreement to raise the international minimum age for military service to the age of 18; (B) The Secretary of State should address positively and expediently this issue in the next session of the United Nations working group relating to child soldiers before this process is abandoned by the international community; and (C) the President and the Congress should work together to enact a law that establishes a fund for the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of child soldiers.