Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment provides for enforceable labor standards. This is about the terms of trade and wanting to make sure with the CBI countries that when it comes to the right to organize and bargain collectively, people are not imprisoned for asserting this right, and that basic human rights and basic labor rights are met. In that way, we will have a trade agreement with enforceable labor standards that says to wage earners in our country: You are not going to lose your job in the apparel industry to other countries because they are paying 35 cents an hour and violate basic labor rights. It also says to workers in CBI countries: It is a benefit to you; you do not have to depend on investment by only making 35 or 40 cents an hour and not able to have basic human rights and labor rights. This amendment calls for enforceable labor rights. It is the right thing to do. It is all about the right terms of trade, and I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today to say a few words about a remarkable farm leader and humanitarian, Anne Kanten. Anne has served for 18 years on the board of directors of the Farmers Legal Action Group (F.L.A.G.), a non-profit law firm based in St. Paul, Minnesota, and dedicated to helping family farmers obtain economic and social justice. I salute Anne Kanten for her enlightened guidance to F.L.A.G. during her years as a director and her years on the board. But far more than that, I want to take this moment to acknowledge Anne Kanten's lifetime of service to others. Anne served as Minnesota's Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture and as Chief Administrator of the Minnesota Farm Advocate Program during the years of farm crisis in the 1980's. She was a founding member of the American Agriculture Movement who, with her husband Chuck and son Kent, helped plan and carry out the Washington, DC Tractorcade of 1979. In addition, Anne has been a long time spokesperson for stewardship of the land and its people through her various leadership roles in her church. Her efforts to achieve justice for farm families continue to this day. Anne Kanten grew up on an Iowa farm, the daughter of immigrants who came to our country in pursuit of a better life. By her own admission, she longed to escape the 1930's Depression of her rural childhood. After attending college and becoming a teacher, Anne became re- connected to the land when she married Chuck Kanten, a young farmer from Milan, Minnesota. Anne and Chuck Kanten represent the best of American Life. They raised a wonderful family on their farm home. They believe strongly in giving of themselves. I consider myself honored and fortunate to count Anne Kanten as my friend. I ask the Senate today to join me in recognizing Anne Kanten for her years of service to the Farmers Legal Action Group and to farm families everywhere.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today to recognize a very special Minnesotan. Ted Winter will be celebrating his 50th birthday the day after Thanksgiving. Friends and family will be gathering at the American Legion in Fulda, Minnesota, to honor this very good and decent man. It is very appropriate that this year his birthday falls so close to Thanksgiving because as a Minnesotan I am very thankful that Ted so ably represents the people of Southwestern Minnesota in the State Legislature; I am thankful that Ted continues to be a strong voice for those struggling to maintain their family farms; I am thankful that Ted struggles daily to ensure the vitality of our rural communities and that he is committed to a vision of Minnesota that is rich and diverse. In the last few years, Ted has been the driving force behind uniting Midwest State Legislators in calling for a change in federal farm policy. He has been central in calling attention to the devastating effect the concentration of power in agriculture is having on family farmers. Day in and day out, Ted spends time away from his own farm to work with farm organizations and other farmers to come up with ways that family farmers can survive to farm another day. He drives throughout the state to make sure that any meeting discussing the future of Minnesota includes a discussion about the future of family farms and rural communities. I am pleased to be able to speak today to honor my friend, Ted Winter.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to Senator Lautenberg of 5 minutes be equally divided between Senator Murray and myself.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleagues, Senator Harkin from Iowa, and Senator Durbin from Illinois. I came here with Senator Graham of Florida when we had this bill on the floor. We talked about the 50-percent cut in title XX block grant social services. That does not sound like much, but let me translate that into human terms. We talked about the need to have an adequate amount of funding for community mental health services, and the number of people who do not get any care whatsoever. How are we going to deal with people during an extreme mental illness and help children when we don't provide the funding? It is unconscionable. We talked about the cuts in congregate dining for elderly people, and we talked about cuts for Meals on Wheels for elderly people who can't get dining. We haven't even fully funded that program. Now we are talking about cuts in that program. What are we about, if we are going to make cuts in these kinds of programs that we haven't adequately funded in the first place? I talked about the particular problem for Minnesota. When we have these kinds of cuts in these block grant and social service programs, they are passed on to the community level. The States are not involved. It is going to take us a year and a half to two years to provide any of this funding at the State level, if we are ever going to be able to do so. I say to my colleagues, what about compassion? What about programs that are so important to the neediest people, to the most vulnerable citizens, to children, to the elderly? What are we doing cutting these programs? I wish Senator Graham was here as well because we restored that 30 percent funding on the floor of the Senate, including community mental health services. All of it has been taken out in conference committee, at least what we were able to add as an increase. I think that is cruel, shortsighted, unfair, and I don't think it is the Senate at its best. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation of great importance to two tribes in Minnesota, the Bois Forte Bank of Chippewa and the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa. This bill would exempt income derived from an agreement between the two bands and the State of Minnesota from being considered as income for purposes of Federal assistance eligibility when the funds from the agreement are distributed to tribal members. Under current law, most payments to Indians derived from trust resources are exempt from consideration as income or resources for the purposes of determining federal benefits under various Federal or federally assisted programs. Regulations promulgated by various Federal agencies reflect the statutory exemptions for income derived from interests of individual Indians in trust or restricted lands and from payments distributed to tribal members as the result of Indian claims awards. This legislation is to accord similar treatment to payments made to the approximately 2,700 members of the Bois Forte Band and the 790 members of the Grand Portage Band. In 1988 the two bands entered into an agreement with the state of Minnesota whereby the State agreed to make an annual payment to the bands in exchange for the bands' restriction of their members' hunting and fishing rights. These rights are guaranteed by the treaty of September 30, 1854. From that payment, the Tribal Councils of the Bands make small annual payments to their members. The Bois Forte Band pays each of its members $500 per year, for example. The shares of minors are paid into a trust fund that cannot and disbursed until the minor reaches the age of 18. The shares of adults are paid directly to them. These payments are intended to compensate the band members for a Federal treaty right that they have elected to forgo in return for these funds. As a result, this constitutes income which is derived from a trust resource. The intent of the Federal law is that such funds--up to a certain level, are not treated as income for purposes of Federal benefit eligibility. This is in recognition of the special status of Indian tribes within the United States, and the trust relationship that the Federal Government maintains to this day. However, while these payments clearly fall within the intent Federal law to protect trust resources, the current statute does not encompass these payments. The result is that for a small number of band members, approximately 10 percent of the Bois Forte band and currently no members of the Grand Portage Band, this income is of no real benefit because it reduces or eliminates their public assistance payment. These members are all extremely poor, elderly, or disabled. Mr. President, these are people who can least afford to bear the brunt of this loophole in Federal law. Additionally, Mr. President, these band members see a spike in their income--an extremely small spike mind you--in 1 month out of the year. Does it serve any public purpose to kick them off of Federal assistance in that 1 month, only to require them to reapply in the following month? Their circumstances are not changed by this payment. These funds will not lift anyone out of poverty, they do not replace an income lost to disability or age. This bill will ensure that members of the Bois Forte and Grand Portage Bands receive fair--though small--compensation for their foregone treaty rights. It is a question of simple equity and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today which will allow the Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota to sell non-trust land which falls outside their reservation borders. Enactment of this bill would give the Lower Sioux the same rights as any other landowner: to conduct real estate transactions without an act of Congress. The Lower Sioux Community has acquired several parcels of land outside its reservation borders. None of these lands are held in trust by the United States. The Community pays state and local property taxes on the land and is not exempted from local zoning ordinances. The Community is treated like any other non-Indian land owner with regard to these parcels under the law--except that federal law requires that Congress approve the sale of land owned in fee simple by Indian tribes. In other words, should the Community wish to engage in almost any kind of land transaction involving these parcels, Congress must pass legislation to allow it to happen. The Community seeks to have this burden lifted from them. It argues that the Community's development projects are unfairly restricted by this requirement. Indeed, my colleagues know how long it can take for Congress to act on even the most parochial and non-controversial of legislation. Last year, we were successful in passing legislation authorizing the sale of a single parcel of land owned by the Lower Sioux. It passed as part of a technical amendments bill, but the entire process took over six months. All of this for a plot of land no bigger than thirteen acres. Obviously, such hurdles can make dealing with the Lower Sioux Community complicated and time consuming. Congress could even choose not to act upon a request. This puts the band at a competitive disadvantage relative to other land owners. The Lower Sioux is not a wealthy community. It can ill afford the hassles of pursuing closure in Washington to deals in Minnesota. This legislation is introduced at the request of the Lower Sioux Community. The legislation does not cover any other tribe besides the Lower Sioux Community, and again, it applies only to land not held in trust by the United States or that is not within the borders of the Community's reservation. This is a narrowly focused bill designed to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the Lower Sioux Community. Mr. President, this legislation will lower barriers to the Lower Sioux's pursuit of economic opportunities to improve the lives of its members. With that in mind, I believe it is both appropriate and necessary and I urge its adoption. I ask that a copy of a tribal council resolution in support of the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Lower Sioux Community Council Resolution No. 08-99 Whereas, The Lower Sioux Community Council is the governing body of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota, a federally recognized Indian tribe; and Whereas, The Lower Sioux Community has in the past purchased land in its own name in fee simple for various Community purposes, including the promotion of economic development that would enable the Community and its members to become self-sufficient; and Whereas, The Community must make additional such purchases in the future for economic development, housing, and other purposes; and Whereas, There is no certainty that the Community will be able to transfer any of its fee land to the United States to hold in trust for the Community; and Whereas, Under current federal law, when the Community purchases land in fee it must pay taxes on such land but it is not allowed to transfer, lease, mortgage, or otherwise convey interests in such land without a congressional statute allowing it to do so; and Whereas, The restrictions on the transfer, lease, and mortgage of Community fee land unfairly burden the Community's development projects, and place the Community in a worse position than any other surrounding landowner. Now Therefore be it Resolved that: The Lower Sioux Community Council urges the Minnesota congressional delegation specifically, and Congress generally, to support legislation that will remove the restrictions on the Community's ability to transfer, lease, mortgage, or otherwise convey interests in land owned by it in fee. The removal of these restrictions will allow the Community to use its fee land in the same manner as any other landowner in order to develop its economy and provide services to its members.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation of great importance to two tribes in Minnesota, the Bois Forte Bank of Chippewa and the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa. This bill would exempt income derived from an agreement between the two bands and the State of Minnesota from being considered as income for purposes of Federal assistance eligibility when the funds from the agreement are distributed to tribal members. Under current law, most payments to Indians derived from trust resources are exempt from consideration as income or resources for the purposes of determining federal benefits under various Federal or federally assisted programs. Regulations promulgated by various Federal agencies reflect the statutory exemptions for income derived from interests of individual Indians in trust or restricted lands and from payments distributed to tribal members as the result of Indian claims awards. This legislation is to accord similar treatment to payments made to the approximately 2,700 members of the Bois Forte Band and the 790 members of the Grand Portage Band. In 1988 the two bands entered into an agreement with the state of Minnesota whereby the State agreed to make an annual payment to the bands in exchange for the bands' restriction of their members' hunting and fishing rights. These rights are guaranteed by the treaty of September 30, 1854. From that payment, the Tribal Councils of the Bands make small annual payments to their members. The Bois Forte Band pays each of its members $500 per year, for example. The shares of minors are paid into a trust fund that cannot and disbursed until the minor reaches the age of 18. The shares of adults are paid directly to them. These payments are intended to compensate the band members for a Federal treaty right that they have elected to forgo in return for these funds. As a result, this constitutes income which is derived from a trust resource. The intent of the Federal law is that such funds--up to a certain level, are not treated as income for purposes of Federal benefit eligibility. This is in recognition of the special status of Indian tribes within the United States, and the trust relationship that the Federal Government maintains to this day. However, while these payments clearly fall within the intent Federal law to protect trust resources, the current statute does not encompass these payments. The result is that for a small number of band members, approximately 10 percent of the Bois Forte band and currently no members of the Grand Portage Band, this income is of no real benefit because it reduces or eliminates their public assistance payment. These members are all extremely poor, elderly, or disabled. Mr. President, these are people who can least afford to bear the brunt of this loophole in Federal law. Additionally, Mr. President, these band members see a spike in their income--an extremely small spike mind you--in 1 month out of the year. Does it serve any public purpose to kick them off of Federal assistance in that 1 month, only to require them to reapply in the following month? Their circumstances are not changed by this payment. These funds will not lift anyone out of poverty, they do not replace an income lost to disability or age. This bill will ensure that members of the Bois Forte and Grand Portage Bands receive fair--though small--compensation for their foregone treaty rights. It is a question of simple equity and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today which will allow the Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota to sell non-trust land which falls outside their reservation borders. Enactment of this bill would give the Lower Sioux the same rights as any other landowner: to conduct real estate transactions without an act of Congress. The Lower Sioux Community has acquired several parcels of land outside its reservation borders. None of these lands are held in trust by the United States. The Community pays state and local property taxes on the land and is not exempted from local zoning ordinances. The Community is treated like any other non-Indian land owner with regard to these parcels under the law--except that federal law requires that Congress approve the sale of land owned in fee simple by Indian tribes. In other words, should the Community wish to engage in almost any kind of land transaction involving these parcels, Congress must pass legislation to allow it to happen. The Community seeks to have this burden lifted from them. It argues that the Community's development projects are unfairly restricted by this requirement. Indeed, my colleagues know how long it can take for Congress to act on even the most parochial and non-controversial of legislation. Last year, we were successful in passing legislation authorizing the sale of a single parcel of land owned by the Lower Sioux. It passed as part of a technical amendments bill, but the entire process took over six months. All of this for a plot of land no bigger than thirteen acres. Obviously, such hurdles can make dealing with the Lower Sioux Community complicated and time consuming. Congress could even choose not to act upon a request. This puts the band at a competitive disadvantage relative to other land owners. The Lower Sioux is not a wealthy community. It can ill afford the hassles of pursuing closure in Washington to deals in Minnesota. This legislation is introduced at the request of the Lower Sioux Community. The legislation does not cover any other tribe besides the Lower Sioux Community, and again, it applies only to land not held in trust by the United States or that is not within the borders of the Community's reservation. This is a narrowly focused bill designed to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the Lower Sioux Community. Mr. President, this legislation will lower barriers to the Lower Sioux's pursuit of economic opportunities to improve the lives of its members. With that in mind, I believe it is both appropriate and necessary and I urge its adoption. I ask that a copy of a tribal council resolution in support of the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Lower Sioux Community Council Resolution No. 08-99 Whereas, The Lower Sioux Community Council is the governing body of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota, a federally recognized Indian tribe; and Whereas, The Lower Sioux Community has in the past purchased land in its own name in fee simple for various Community purposes, including the promotion of economic development that would enable the Community and its members to become self-sufficient; and Whereas, The Community must make additional such purchases in the future for economic development, housing, and other purposes; and Whereas, There is no certainty that the Community will be able to transfer any of its fee land to the United States to hold in trust for the Community; and Whereas, Under current federal law, when the Community purchases land in fee it must pay taxes on such land but it is not allowed to transfer, lease, mortgage, or otherwise convey interests in such land without a congressional statute allowing it to do so; and Whereas, The restrictions on the transfer, lease, and mortgage of Community fee land unfairly burden the Community's development projects, and place the Community in a worse position than any other surrounding landowner. Now Therefore be it Resolved that: The Lower Sioux Community Council urges the Minnesota congressional delegation specifically, and Congress generally, to support legislation that will remove the restrictions on the Community's ability to transfer, lease, mortgage, or otherwise convey interests in land owned by it in fee. The removal of these restrictions will allow the Community to use its fee land in the same manner as any other landowner in order to develop its economy and provide services to its members.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I might ask my colleague to yield 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from South Carolina. I thank him for all his fine work in this Chamber. Mr. President, I want to divide my remarks in 5 minutes and deliver them in two parts. In the first part, I will talk about the African- Caribbean trade bill. I want to repeat two points I made during the course of this debate. There are some very good Senators who in very good conscience can have different viewpoints on this legislation. For my own part, the first point I will make is that I actually do not believe this is about whether or not we as a nation are in an international economy; we are. And I don't think it is about whether or not we are actively involved in trade; we are. It is more about the terms of the trade. I do believe it is a flaw, a fundamental flaw, of this legislation that, again, we have trade legislation that does not have any enforceable labor protections or enforceable environmental protections. At the very minimum, it would seem to me we have to get serious about having clear language in these agreements which gives people the right in countries with which we are trading to be able to organize and bargain collectively for themselves and their families. The same thing can be said for the environment, the same thing can be said for child labor, and the same thing can be said for human rights as a part of these labor agreements. I think basically what this African and Caribbean trade agreement says is two things. It says to workers, to wage earners in our country: If you should decide you want to organize to be able to bargain collectively and get a better wage and better working conditions for yourself so you can do better for your family, then just understand that these companies, these businesses, will just go to other parts of the world where they don't have to deal with you at all. They don't have to deal with the right of the workers to be able to organize. What it says to poor people and what it says to working people in African countries and Caribbean countries is, the way you get the investment is to be willing to work for jobs that pay less than 30 cents an hour, or whatever the case might be, because that is the only way it is going to happen because there are in these agreements no protections, no enforceable labor code--child labor, right to organize, right to bargain collectively--no enforceable environmental code. That is the first point. The second point I will make about this legislation is that I think it is a terrible message to send as we move to the WTO gathering in Seattle. I am in profound disagreement with the administration on this. They think we should pass this and that would be important. To me, I hear the administration, Democrats--I am a Democrat--saying to labor, and saying to environmentalists, and saying to nongovernmental organizations, and saying to a whole lot of other people: Listen, we have a real chance at this WTO gathering of moving toward enforceable labor codes, enforceable environmental protection. Well, if you can't do it in a bilateral agreement, how in the world are you going to do it in a multilateral agreement, multinational agreement? It is not going to happen. So I oppose this legislation on substantive grounds. I hope my colleagues, especially Democrats, will vote against cloture because we have again been shut out of the opportunity to introduce amendments that really go to the heart of whether we can represent people in our States. I have talked about the right to fight for family farmers for 8 weeks. The majority leader said the other day he filled up the tree one time. I said I thought the record would show more than that. I think in the last year it has been 9 or 10 times we have been shut out of the opportunity to even have an up-or-down vote. What is relevant to me is the pain and agony of the family farmers and all the producers who are being driven off the land, and to not have the opportunity to consider amendments, to have a debate and up-or-down votes, and to fight for people back in my state to try to make a difference for family farmers. And other Senators feel the same way. I also said I do not think the debate about campaign finance reform is over. To me, the energy is at the State level. To me, the energy is toward clean money and clean elections, and I want an opportunity to offer an amendment that would give States the authority to have a clean-money, clean-election initiative that would apply not only to State races but to House and Senate races as well. This debate is not over. Just because there are Senators here who block reform, we will not go away. I want to offer an amendment which gives States the ability to pass sweeping campaign finance reform and that would apply to our elections as well. I think that is where the energy is going to be. If we are not going to do it here, if the powerful financial interests are going to block reform, let the States do it. I have an amendment on that. I want to be able to bring up the amendment for debate. That is what the Senate is all about. We are not the House of Representatives. Therefore, I hope Senators will vote against cloture around this fundamental principle that the Senate should be the Senate and we debate and fight for the people in our States.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I heard the majority leader mention he did not want to see amendments that he did not think were directly related, such as agriculture. As the majority leader knows, for the last 5 weeks I have asked him when I would have the opportunity. The majority leader said he thinks this is the first time he has filled up the tree, or second time. I think there may be other times, but I would have to check. I do not remember an opportunity in the last 4 or 5 weeks, or longer than that, to have an amendment out here that I think will speak to the pain of farmers. When might I have an opportunity to introduce this amendment that I think would make a difference for family farmers in Minnesota who are being driven off the land? If the majority leader is filling up the tree and therefore I cannot do this, can he tell me when I might have an opportunity? Will he make a commitment there will be a piece of legislation out here that I can amend?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader be willing to entertain a freestanding bill I might introduce and have debate on? We have to do something, I say to the majority leader, about what is going on in farm country.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate the leader's graciousness. I will not take up any more time with questions to him. Having just heard the majority leader's report about disaster relief, he may want to reconsider his view about whether or not he would vote for or against an amendment or piece of legislation I would introduce because I say to the majority leader in the form of a question: I am quite sure that, as the majority leader travels around the country in rural America, he understands that the financial assistance package did not deal with the price crisis. People are going to be driven off the land and we have to change the policy. I appreciate what he said. I guess it is less a form of a question, but perhaps I will get his support because I am sure the majority leader wants to see the Senate take some action that will make a positive difference for family farmers.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Ohio is here. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me repeat, in about 2 minutes, what I suggested today about the legislation before us, the several trade bills. I think while those who argue, with the WTO meeting that is coming up in Seattle, that we might be able to have some enforceable labor provisions and environmental provisions, and, for that matter, think about a fair shake for farmers in this trade regime, now bring to the floor of the Senate some trade agreements where there is no enforceable labor standards whatsoever, no enforceable environmental standards-- zero--the message of this legislation to working people in this country is: If you should want to organize and bargain collectively to make a decent wage, those companies are gone. And the message to people in other countries, the Caribbean and African countries, is: The only way you get investors to your country is if you are willing to work for less than 30 cents an hour, or whatever. This is hardly legislation that leads to the uplifting of living standards of working families in our country, much less poor and working people in other countries. I am opposed to these trade bills and have had a chance yesterday to lay out my case. And Senator Hollings has spoken today. Others may have spoken, as well. But what I want to do right now is speak to another issue which I think is almost more important than the legislation before us. We now have legislation out here, and the ``tree'' has been filled with amendments, so there is no opportunity whatsoever for those of us who have been saying for a while that we wanted to have an opportunity to offer some amendments, some legislation that we think will make a difference for the people we represent, there is no opportunity for us to be able to do so. That is what is at issue. If the majority leader, to whom I spoke about this earlier, was serious about trying to get this legislation passed, getting the necessary votes for cloture, then certainly we wouldn't have a piece of legislation on the floor with the tree filled with no opportunity for Senators to offer amendments. The majority leader wants to argue they have to be relevant amendments. Who gets to define relevant? One wonders whether or not, if we had amendments to have enforceable labor standards, that would be viewed as relevant. For me, it has been, now, about 6 weeks. This is why I deferred to the Senator from Ohio. First of all, he was on the floor first and I didn't want to precede his speaking. Secondly, I want to take a little bit of time. I think probably I will wait for a more timely time to take more time because one way or the other I am going to force a vote on some agricultural initiatives. The Chair and others can vote for or against it, but I have, for the last 6, 7 weeks, asked the majority leader, when will I have an opportunity to offer legislation I think will fix not all that is wrong but at least could make a positive difference? Other Senators can disagree. But we take responsibility for what we do, and we vote one way or the other. We debate one way or the other, and then we are held accountable. The exchange I had with the majority leader today about this has been going on for quite some time. The majority leader said he was pretty sure if I introduced an amendment, he probably would be opposed to it. That is fine. It think the more important point, which is what I tried to explain--I don't choose to debate the majority leader; he is not here--is that nobody in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, should be under the illusion, because we passed a financial assistance package, emergency package, that we have, in fact, dealt with the price crisis. I don't know of any producers who feel good about this bailout legislation every year. People are sick of it. They want us to get to the root of the problem. They don't think the farm policy is working. I don't think it is working. I don't even choose to point the finger. I thought Freedom to Farm was ``freedom to fail.'' I never liked it. I thought it was a big mistake. I thought it was great for the packers and the grain companies. I didn't think it was good for family farmers. Others take a different position. It seems to me the point is, looking forward not backward, whether or not we are willing to talk about some modification, some adjustment, some changes. If Senators don't think taking the cap off the loan rate makes sense, then what else? If Senators don't think a moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions, which is what I will talk about today-- that is the amendment I wanted to introduce to this legislation, which the majority leader shut me out from doing right now--makes sense, then perhaps Senators will have other proposals. In farm country in Minnesota--maybe it isn't that way in Montana-- almost everybody I know thinks there is a correlation between monopoly power, the power of a few companies that muscled their way to the dinner table and have control, and their low prices. The farm retail spread grows wider and wider, a lot of our producers face extinction, and the packers are in hog heaven. IBP makes record profits, and pork producers are going under. I thought I could introduce this amendment today, which I will explain. Mr. President, I came to the floor probably for the sixth or seventh time today to ask the majority leader when I would have an opportunity to submit an amendment to introduce legislation that I believe will speak at least in part to the economic convulsion that is taking place in agriculture. We have too many family farms that are going under the auctioneer's hammer. There are too many of our producers who are being driven off the land. If I had to pick one ``issue'' that means the most to me right now just in terms of the emotion of it, it would be what is happening to our producers. What is happening to our producers is they are being driven off the land. This is not only where they work. It is where they live. I think it is all quite unnecessary. I think if we were willing to change some of the policies, this wouldn't be happening. I am determined one way or another to force the Senate to vote up or down on several initiatives that I believe would make a difference. If there are other Senators who have a better idea than having a moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions that are leading to more monopoly power by these conglomerates and driving farmers off the land, or have a better idea of taking the cap off the loan rate, or creating a farmer loan reserve, or extending the payment period on the loan rate so that farmers have some leverage vis-a-vis these huge conglomerates, then come out on the floor of the Senate with your ideas. If there are Senators who believe we should leave in the next week or two without taking any action whatsoever to deal with the price crisis, to deal with what is really going on in agriculture, then come on out and make the argument. I appreciate the exchange with the majority leader. But, to tell you the truth, I think what is going on in the countryside doesn't have much to do with whether or not the majority leader says something that is fairly clever, or I say something that is fairly clever, or we have a kind of back and forth discussion. That is fine. Each of us is saying what we believe. Each of us is representing what we think is right. The only thing I know is that October 25, 1999, at the Bird Island Elevator in Renville County, wheat was $2.89 a bushel; corn was $1.43 a bushel; soybeans were $4.04 a bushel; and this is way below the cost of production. These farmers can work 19 hours a day, be the best managers in the world, and they are still going to go under. If U.S. Senators want to come out on the floor and amend the ``freedom to fail'' bill, feel free to do so. But let's have the debate. More importantly, let's all come out here with some legislation, some change in policy, that will make a difference so we don't lose a whole generation of family farmers. In Minnesota, farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1966, and more than 25 percent of the remaining farmers may not be able to cover expenses, or won't be able to cover expenses in 1999. That is why I take it so personally when I am essentially told again: We are going to shut you out. We are going to bring this legislation to the floor. We are going to fill up the tree, and we are going to make sure, Senator Wellstone, that you can't come out here with an amendment, or with legislation that you think would help farmers in your State. I hope my colleagues will vote against cloture, whether or not they are for this trade legislation, just because of the way business is being conducted in the Senate. The way business should be conducted in the Senate is that when we have a piece of legislation, Senators must be able to come out with amendments they believe are an important part of their work to represent people in their State. If other Senators don't agree, they can come out and disagree. If other Senators want to come out and say you have no business bringing legislation to the floor of the Senate that deals with agriculture because we are on a trade bill, then I would ask you: When have I had the opportunity over the last several months or for the last year? The majority leader alluded to some of my colleagues who think that because we passed the financial assistance package we have dealt with the problem. Spend one second in Minnesota, come on out to northwest Minnesota, or west central Minnesota, or southwest Minnesota, or southeast Minnesota, and meet with some of our producers. Look in their faces and see grown men and women break down and cry. Why don't you come out to do that? Since, again, we are not going to take any action--this legislation is now filled up with amendments--people in greater Minnesota don't know and have any idea what ``fill up a tree'' means. It means, once again, we can't come out here and fight for the people in our State. Dear Farm Aid: My husband and two of our sons live on the farm in Missouri. My husband has loved the farm ever since he was a little boy. It would just kill him if he loses it. And in fact it might just kill him. I am so very concerned. We have been farming several years, and we have gone in and out of bankruptcy. That is why we cannot get financing to save our farm. I will make a long story short. I am not used to this. We have no place to go. Our farm may be sold at the end of September on the courthouse steps. Many lives will be affected. I am really worried about what will happen if we can't hold onto our farm. We have worked our entire lives and made many improvements to the farm. I do not know how you can help. You cannot give farmers a price for what they sell, but anything you can do would be appreciated. The banks are demanding $200,000 from us. Time is very critical. If you can save our family farm, we will be forever grateful. You may even save one's life. Actually, we can do something about the price. When we talk about taking the cap off the loan rate, we are saying to farmers, get more leverage in the marketplace to get a better price. When we talk about farmer on reserve, we are talking about farmers being able to withhold their grain until they get a decent price. When we are talking about the need to take antitrust action and a moratorium on the acquisitions and mergers, we are simply saying to our livestock producers when there is less concentration of power, there is a much better chance of getting a decent price. When a farmer is at an auction and there are three buyers for what is being sold, one does not get a very good price. Dear Farm Aid: We are at our wit's end. This farm has been in our family since 1908. We are one of the only original homestead families still surviving. We fought off foreclosure three times since the 1980s. We have four children and we don't live a fancy lifestyle. We built a new home 6 years ago. Or rather we tried to build a home 6 years ago. We still hope to have siding on the house one day. We got running water 3 years ago, and fortunately we have electricity. We were able to purchase a window for the house in 1997, and some day the house will have flooring and sheet rock. This is our only luxury. We don't have any retirement, life insurance or health insurance. I repeat: We don't have any retirement, life insurance or health insurance. Our farm has been listed for sale 5 times but so have all our neighbors' farms. There is not employment in this area and the nearest city is 78 miles from us [Montana farm.] Yet we do not want to leave. We owe the bank $39,000 currently and we know they will not release any income for our land payment that is due this January. Therefore, we face foreclosure in 2000. We don't know which way to jump. Should we declare bankruptcy? We cannot afford a lawyer. We don't even have money for groceries. We are not ignorant and we are not bad farmers. We cannot compete against the large companies. Last year we couldn't even sell our grain and it had to go under the CCC loan. We delivered the grain for loan repayment but it didn't bring enough to cover the CCC loan and we owe an additional $1,765 on that, as well. What can we do? Should we concede defeat and lose our legacy? Our son would have been the 6th generation to work this land. Where will he go? We can no longer qualify for conventional loans. What's next? What do we do? We are so scared. In 1 year we can lose what has taken 92 years to build. We have tightened our belts as far as we can. We live on less than $3,000 a year. Senators, are you listening to that? Please tell us what we should do. We live on less than $3,000 a year. Please tell us what we should do. What we should do, come early February when we come back in session, before spring planting season, is have 10,000 farmers and rural people coming to the Capitol and rocking the Capitol. That is what we need to do. We need to have farmers, rural people, the religious community, labor and supporters coming right here--people are not going to come by jet because they don't have the money--buses of people coming from the Midwest, the South, and other agricultural States, joined by allies, have face-to-face meetings in every Senator's office, every Representative's office, be he or she a Democrat or a Republican. That is what we are going to need to do. It is clear to me with a week to go we are not going to take this action. I can't even get an up-or-down vote on one amendment. I can't even get an up-or-down vote. I can't even get a debate. On this piece of legislation, the tree is filled. No amendments can be introduced. But today won't be the day because the Senate right now is waiting until the cloture vote on Friday. The first opportunity I get to get the floor when we do need to do a lot of business, I will be out here talking for hours about agriculture--for hours. A Kansas farmer's daughter: My father is a farmer and the bank is foreclosing on his farm. Due to circumstances beyond his control he has been unable to make his mortgage payments. He was able to forestall the sale scheduled for June 9, 1999. I don't know how much longer he can put them off. He has been farming since he got out of the army in 1945. He is 77 years old and he is still trying to make a living. He has no life insurance and I am fearful that his health will not hold out. Is there any help for him? What can be done to help him maintain his farm? All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. Including the deaf ears of the Senate. At this moment, I hold the majority party accountable for not enabling us to come to the floor with amendments to try to change the situation for the better. All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. This farm has been in our family since the 1800s. We don't want to lose it. But it seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken. Either the stress and his health will kill him, or losing the farm will kill him. Please help. I am going to repeat that so often on the floor of the Senate. We debate statistics. It is all abstractions. It is all party strategy. Several hours ago when I came out ready to go with this good bill to impose a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and establish a commission to review large agricultural mergers and the concentration of market power with Senator Dorgan, the majority leader came out and through several motions filled up the tree. That is what we are talking about--filling up the tree. Don't let Senators have any amendments. Then I heard the majority leader say: We certainly don't want to have something dealing with agriculture. It seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken. Either the stress and his health will kill him or losing the farm will kill him. Please help. I guess this woman in Kansas isn't going to get any help today from the Senate. Won't get any help tomorrow. Since the majority leader has filled up the tree, there is not opportunity for any amendments at all, no opportunity to bring legislation to the floor to try to make a difference. No opportunity. Please help. I am going to read this again quickly because several other colleagues have come to the floor. This woman is talking about her dad. He is a World War II vet. He is 77 years old. He is trying to make it on the farm. She says: What can be done to help him maintain his farm? With these record low prices and record low income. All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. This farm has been in our family since the 1800s. We don't want to lose it but it seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken. Either the stress and his health will kill him or losing the farm will kill him. Please help. There is no help from the Senate today because the majority leader has filled up the tree and I don't have the right to come to the floor with an amendment to try to help this woman, this farmer or other farmers in our country. When are we going to do something about agriculture? Are we sleepwalking through history? I see my colleague, Senator Grassley from Iowa. He knows what is going on in the countryside. I know he knows. But I just believe the Senate does not. We are going to go with the current policy? Do Senators not believe that we need to make perhaps some modification, maybe some adjustments when farmers are getting prices way below the cost of production? When the men and women who produce the food and fiber for our country cannot even make a decent living, do we think we should not be doing anything about this? Iowa farmer: I am a hog farmer and as you know times are tough. I want to make some changes in my farm business that would necessitate an off farm job. I do not have much choice. I have to get an off farm job, or I will have no farm. I'm 54 years old, I'm healthy, and I have a BA in history. When I go to the employment agencies, I feel like the counselors do not know how to help me. The only jobs out in my area are low paying factory or sales jobs. Do you have any suggestions? I feel that time is running out. I hear that so often. I hear that so often from farmers. They say, ``I feel like time is running out.'' That is the way I feel, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota. I feel that time is running out. I feel that time is not neutral. I feel if we stand still and we do not pass any legislation that will make a difference and we do not change this failed farm policy, a whole generation of producers are going to be wiped out in my State of Minnesota. The majority leader fills up the tree, denying me and denying other Senators an opportunity to come out here with legislation we think would help people in our States. By the way, I am pleased to debate this with any Senator, the majority leader and others. An Illinois farmer wife: Dear Farm Aid: My mother and father-in-law saved and borrowed enough money in 1945 to buy an 80-acre farm in Illinois. They farmed with horses, milked cows, raised hogs in the Timber Creek Bed and raised 12 children. My husband now has had the farm turned over to him since his parents have passed away and his sister was killed in a car accident 2 years ago. My husband is, has always been, a very hard worker. Boy, I tell you, this sounds like my mother, Mensha Daneshevsky. If she really liked somebody, this was her ultimate compliment. She would say, ``He's a hard worker'' or ``She's a hard worker.'' My mother is no longer alive. I tell you, family farmers in Minnesota and around the country are hard workers. We both work at jobs full-time, our other jobs outside the farm. We were both raised on a farm and we both love to farm. We cash rent three other farms close by to get along, but we are still having an awful time. The prices are so low that we just cannot seem to make ends meet. That is the point. I cannot believe it when Senators come out here on the floor, or at least one Senator today, and talk about this emergency financial crisis bill we passed, this disaster relief bill we passed, as if this is a response. It does not have anything to do with low prices. All that money we have been spending, more than we ever spent before in the ``freedom to fail'' bill, is only enabling people to live to farm another day. There will be no ``other day'' for these farmers until we deal with the price crisis. I am told by this majority party that I cannot bring an amendment to the floor to try to enable this family to make a living? Prices are so low that we cannot seem to make ends meet. If it wasn't for our jobs in town we would have lost everything my husband's parents worked so hard for. We are doing all we can, but we just cannot get out of debt. In fact, we are going deeper and deeper into debt every year. My husband and I have shed many tears and had many sleepless nights trying to figure out just what to do to save our family farm. We do not want to lose it. Do you have any help for us or anything else that we can do? We lost over $20,000 this year. It breaks my heart to see my husband work so hard and get so tired of working two jobs and still not making it. Please help us. If we could just get a break, even on this year, things would be easier. Thank you for listening and I hope you will be able to help my husband save his deeply loved family farm. I have hours of stories, especially from Minnesota farmers. I am going to pick the right time on the floor of the Senate to go through all of that, especially when the Senate most needs to do business. But this is what I hear over and over and over again. ``Thank you for listening and I hope you will be able to help my husband and save our farm.'' The answer is: I can't. I can't. I can't help save family farmers in my State or in other States because the Senate, and in particular--I don't usually come out on the floor and do this, but I am doing it today--the majority party which filled up this legislation with amendments has turned its back on agriculture. I heard today we do not want to deal with agriculture. When are we going to deal with agriculture? Exactly how much longer do you think these people have? How many farmers do we want to see driven off the land? How much more pain do we want to see? How many more families do we want to see shattered before we do something? This is about the angriest I have ever been since I have been on the floor of the Senate because I was ready to do this amendment. I say this to my colleague from Iowa, who is a good friend, he has nothing to do with anything I am talking about. But I was ready to have a debate. I was ready to bring out this amendment. I was going to say I think we ought to have a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers because they are taking place at such a breathtaking pace, and I think what is happening is we are moving to monopoly and our family farmers cannot get a break. Let's have a study of this and let's put a moratorium on it for 18 months. I tried. I have an amendment that is I don't know how many pages. It is well thought out. My colleague from Iowa could agree or disagree. We even had some discussion. He raised some questions I thought were important questions. But as long as we have legislation out here with the tree filled and no opportunity to do the amendment, there is just no opportunity to do it. I would not be out here today saying this, but this is the sixth or seventh time. For the last several months, I have been saying: When do we have the opportunity to have this debate? It is hard to go home and meet with people and know people are hoping for some change and know this disaster package we passed does not do anything but enable people to survive. But then what about next year and next year? People want to know: Do I have a future? Do my children have a future? What is going to be done? Basically, what we get out here today on the floor of the Senate is a parliamentary maneuver which basically denies any Senator from coming out here with amendments. Therefore, I do not know what is going to happen, but I certainly hope my colleagues will vote against cloture. Then, of course, it becomes a game again. Then the President, who wants this legislation, will not get the legislation. Then some people can say that is good; we don't care one way or the other anyway. Or people can point the finger and some people can say: Those who voted against cloture, they are the ones who killed it, and many of them were Democrats. It goes on and on and on, this grand political strategy. Look, I don't support this legislation. I was out on the floor the other day stating my reasons why. But, frankly, I think there is a larger question. That has to do with whether or not we are going to have debate on issues that are important to the lives of people in our country and whether we are going to have the opportunity to represent and fight for people in our States. Today certainly is not such a day. I have at least a 2-hour historical analysis, but not today--I got the attention of my friend from Iowa--at least a 2-hour historical analysis of concentration in the food industry. I will go back to the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and some of the work of Estes Kefauver. I will talk about the Farmers Alliance, the populist movement, the gilded age, Teddy Roosevelt, and what we should be doing. As a matter of fact, tomorrow I have the opportunity to testify about Viacom buying up CBS. It is pretty incredible. There we have concentration in the media, telecommunications, which deals with the flow of information in a representative democracy. I think food is a pretty precious commodity. I will summarize what this amendment would have done, if adopted. This amendment represents comprehensive legislation. I would have offered this with Senator Dorgan--he would be out here, Senator Harkin would be out here, and other Senators would be out here--to deal with the problem of market concentration in agriculture. Anybody who does not think we do not have a problem of market concentration in agriculture just does not know what is going on in the countryside. If anything, we are looking to put free enterprise back into the food industry. Given this concentration, given the mergers, given the anticompetitive practices, and given the failure of our antitrust authorities to remedy the situation, we need to do something. A moratorium on these large agribusiness mergers is something the Congress can do right now. This would apply to mergers and acquisitions among firms that do at least $10 million of business annually. It would apply to mergers and acquisitions that, under current law, must already be filed with the Justice Department and FTC; namely, the mergers and acquisitions in which one party has net revenue or assets over $100 million and the second party more than $10 million. The moratorium would last 18 months or until the Congress enacted comprehensive legislation to address the problem of concentration in agriculture, whichever occurred first. We also would set up an agriculture antitrust review commission to study the nature and consequences of concentration in the agricultural sector. We have a long history in our country, a glorious history, of ordinary people who have been willing to take on concentrations of wealth, of economic power, and of political power that are unhealthy for democracy. They were some of our greatest leaders: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson; think about the New Deal, the Progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt, and the People's Party of the late 1800s. The populist platform of 1892 at the nominating convention in Omaha declared: The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few unprecedented in the history of mankind. The People's Party founder, Tom Watson, thundered: The People's Party is the protest of the plundered against the plunderers. The late 1800s and the early 1900s is the way it seems to me in this country now. I keep referring to my colleague from Iowa because he is a friend. I do not know what his experience is, but when I speak, for example, to pork producers--there may be several hundred there--it seems as if I am in the late 1800s when the deck was stacked against producers. It really does. They work hard. There are just a few packers who pretty much control everything. The producers do not understand why they cannot even make a living and IBP is making millions. Come on, what is going on? Where is the competition? Let's give our producers a fair shot, a fair shake. That is all they are asking. I have not met anyone in the countryside--and this transcends all party differences--who does not believe there is some correlation between the concentration of power and the low prices they receive. Everybody thinks this is a problem, and we are sitting on our thumbs. I am told today by the majority leader, in filling up the tree: We don't want these amendments such as agriculture; that is unrelated; that is not relevant. An amendment on agriculture is relevant to me. It is relevant to Minnesota. It is relevant to family farmers in the Midwest. It is relevant to rural America. If I cannot meet the majority leader's definition of relevant, then I will just have to come to the floor whenever I can and take as many hours as I can to talk about what is relevant. There is nothing more relevant to me right now than the pain and agony of family farmers in my State of Minnesota, and there is nothing more urgent, from my point of view, than for me to try, even if I lose--I may very well. Cargill, IBP, ConAgra, and Monsanto have a fair amount of clout, but I think it is worth trying to take them on. I really do. At least I am going to try to fight for it, and at least I am going to try to continue to force this question in the Senate. If I cannot get an up-or-down vote and keep getting blocked, then I will just have to figure out ways to block the Senate as we try to do our business because to me this is the relevant question. What is relevant to me is that on the present course, we lose a generation of producers. We can change the course. We can change some of our policy. We can make some modifications. We can make some adjustments. We can get the price up. We can give our producers some protection against these monopolies. We can do something that will make much more sense on trade policy, and we can make a difference. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a question. If the Senator from Florida is going to speak now, I am not actually trying to get the floor ahead of him. I wanted to ask the Senator from Florida, is it his intention to speak on this legislation now?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. Of course.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, for those who might be watching our deliberations, I had a chance to speak yesterday about Senator Chafee. I will get back to the debate on this legislation. As I listened to my colleagues, I was reminded of a press conference that we had several months ago on some work I have been doing with Senator Domenici. The legislation is called the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, which we very much want to pass this year. Certainly, we won't get it done in the next 2 weeks, but I hope we will when we come back. I remembered that one of the original cosponsors was Senator Chafee. I agree with what everybody has said about him. It will be a tremendous loss for the Senate and our country. Again, today, I extend my love to Senator Chafee's family.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, both colleagues have been gracious to those of us who are in opposition to this legislation. We will be taking some time to lay out our case against the legislation. Senator Hollings, of course, is one of the leading opponents. Because of the necessity to go back to his family experience of the real agony of having a home burned down, he needs to be away for this afternoon. A number of us will be here because a number of Senators want to speak. I will divide up my time and take about a half hour now, and I will be back this afternoon as other Senators speak. I have a letter that went out to Senators, signed by many African American religious leaders who oppose the African Growth and Opportunity Act and support the HOPE for Africa Act. That is the title. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Florida, given the remarks I am about to make, that I know when it comes to the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, although we have a number of trade bills that are lumped together right now--he is interested in one of the questions that I am going to be raising today and one of the reasons I oppose this. I certainly hope we can have some enforceable labor standards. I will talk about that in a moment. I want to say one of two things. Either the debate on S. 1387 and S. 1389 is not the debate that we should be having now, or if we do move on to this legislation--I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to proceed.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If we go forward, I want to make the case that either we should not be considering this legislation, or if we go forward, a number of Senators are very anxious to have the opportunity to bring amendments to the floor that are all about our work and representation of the people in our States. In particular, I want to make the case that I have an amendment that I have said to the majority leader for the last 4 weeks--I have had to even put holds on other bills of some Senators, making the point that I am not opposed to your legislation. I don't want it going through by unanimous consent, and I only want an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on this amendment that deals with the mergers and acquisitions that are taking place in agriculture. My view is we ought to have a moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions at least for the next 18 months. We ought to do that because, right now, this frightening concentration of power on the part of these packers and grain companies and on the part of these middle men, on the part of these exporters is driving our family farmers and producers off the land--that along with record low prices. The two are interrelated. I certainly, as I speak today--and probably this afternoon--will talk about that amendment and talk about why I believe so strongly that I should have the opportunity to--and I intend to-- bring that amendment out on this legislation if we go forward. I also want to say I don't think the debate on campaign finance reform should be over. It is too central an issue to politics and public life in America. I think it is the core problem. I think it is one of the major reasons why people are so disillusioned. I had an amendment that I brought to the floor, which basically went down when those who were opposed to campaign finance reform were able to block the legislation. The amendment I am focused on says, look, if we are not prepared to enact bold reform, then at least let's not get in the way of citizens around the country who, at the grassroots level, are making a difference. And if the people in Maine, Vermont, Missouri, Massachusetts, and other States are going to go forward with the clean money/clean election initiative, which is a way of getting the big, private interest money out and basically making sure the public financing means these elections belong to the people, they ought to be able to apply that to Federal races as well, the Senate races and House races. For any Senator or Representative, it would be voluntary on our part as to whether we want to be part of that system. But States ought to be able to pass legislation to present that option. I will have that amendment, and I will be ready to introduce that amendment to this legislation. I don't think the debate on campaign finance reform should be over. I hope other Senators will come out here with other amendments to deal with campaign finance reform. If we think this is such a central issue, if we think this is an issue perhaps of the same importance as the civil rights question and legislation that we passed in 1964 and 1965, we ought not to be abandoning this fight. And there are a number of us with amendments. For me, again, my answer on that is, first and foremost, the producers and the family farmers of my State are being driven off the land. I think the farm policy is a miserable failure. I think we have to make some changes. I am hoping people on both sides of the aisle will agree. I am not interested in pointing fingers and saying you cast the wrong vote X number of years ago; you are wrong, and you are wrong. I am interested in making some modifications and changes to get farm prices up and farm income up to give our producers a fair shake. That is what I am interested in. I certainly am interested in this whole question of campaign finance reform. I also want to say to colleagues that I certainly hope we consider an amendment on raising the minimum wage. We have been trying to get this amendment up for some time now. Senators should have an up-or-down vote. If Senators are opposed to raising the minimum wage $1 over 2 years, then Senators can come out here and say they are opposed and make their case. I think that is the way it should be. I am sure I will hear some good arguments on the other side of the aisle, or maybe even among some Democrats. I don't know why they oppose raising the minimum wage. I think some of them will be forceful arguments. But the point is, we ought to be accountable. The point is, we ought to be willing to have an up-or-down vote. I am assuming there will be Senators who will want to have an amendment on raising the minimum wage, Senator Kennedy being the leader of this effort with any number of us joining in. Finally, before I get to the substance of this bill, I want to bring up another topic which I am sure some of my colleagues are tired of. This will be the fourth round where I have been making the appeal that we ought to have the courage to do the policy evaluation to know what is happening with the welfare bill. Every time I do this, I am either defeated by a close vote or it is passed and then dropped in conference. I think that has happened again. To me, it is outrageous. I will have an opportunity to talk about this when I introduce this amendment. But to make a very long story short, to cut the welfare rolls in half does not necessarily mean we have success. We have success when we have cut poverty in half; we have success when welfare recipients, who by definition are basically single-parent families--women and children primarily--are better off economically. So we ought to know, as women and children are essentially no longer receiving welfare assistance, do women have jobs now? What kind of wages do they pay? We need to understand. The Families U.S.A. study says 670,000 of America's children have no medical assistance because of this bill. Do they still have health care coverage or not? In addition, we ought to know with the 30- to 35-percent drop in food stamp participation--the Food Stamp Program being the major safety net program for children's nutrition-- does this mean more children are now going hungry today in our country? Finally, we need to know whether or not there is affordable child care. We ought to at least do the honest policy evaluation. Given, again, the conference committee dropped this, I will be back with this amendment. After having said that, in particular, again, let me emphasis my primary focus--there are a number of amendments--which is, more than anything else, I want to make the fight on agriculture. I want to have the opportunity to bring to the floor of the Senate an amendment and legislation that I think will help alleviate some of the suffering among family farmers. I want to do that. I think we should have, before we leave, the opportunity to have a debate about ways in which we can change agricultural policy for the better. If other Senators have other ideas, I think that is great as well. I do not want to see us leave without trying to take some positive action. After having said that, I think this debate about the CBI and the African trade bill could be useful and enlightening. I said this on Friday as well. The question really is, when we talk about trade policy, we want to know whether we can make the global economy work for working families. That is the test: Can we make this new global economy work for working families in our country. I am an internationalist. I argue for the people of the other countries as well. Senator Feingold introduced an impressive and innovative bill based on legislation that was introduced in the House by Jesse Jackson, Jr., that blazes a trail for U.S. trade policy. It is truly ground breaking. Finally, people who want our trade policy to work for working families will have an alternative that I think they can wholeheartedly support. I don't think the issue is whether or not we expand trade. I don't think the issue is whether or not the United States of America is part of an international economy. I certainly don't think the issue is that we should put walls up on our borders. I think the issue is, on whose terms are we going to expand trade? What are the rules and who benefits from those rules? I am interested in the rules of trade. I am not interested in trade without rules. Let me say that again. I am interested in the rules of trade, which means I am interested in trade. I am not interested in trade without rules. In this case, the choice could hardly be clearer. The Feingold- Jackson legislation, called the HOPE for Africa Act, says the expansion of trade should benefit working families and poor families in America and in Africa. Trade agreements should be about making the global economy work for ordinary citizens. The HOPE for Africa bill says if you are really serious about raising labor and environmental standards across the globe, then we have to have enforceable--let me mention that two or three times--enforceable protections built into our trade agreements. The HOPE for Africa bill says that we can't be serious about wanting to help African countries develop economically if we don't do anything about their crushing debt burden. The HOPE for Africa bill says that the lives of Americans or the lives of Africans suffering from AIDS are more important than the monopoly profits of the pharmaceutical companies. The HOPE for Africa bill has its priorities set straight. It expands trade the right way by putting people first. We have heard that before. Why don't we make it a reality? Our other option, I fear, is more of the same, more NAFTAs--NAFTA for the Caribbean, NAFTA for all of South America, NAFTA for Africa. I certainly don't want to see IMF-style economic policies that I think have been impoverishing one country after another all over the world with the austerity measures--raise interest rates, try to export your way out of a crisis, and more investment protections for multinationals to export jobs overseas so they can avoid complying with American-style labor and environmental standards. That is what we are talking about-- more investment protection for multinationals to export jobs overseas so they can avoid complying with American-style labor and environmental standards--more trade incentives so multinationals can shift those goods right back into the United States, competing against American workers trying to organize a union. The message is: Try to organize a union and we go to another country. More enforceable protections for the interests of multinationals and foreign investors and more unenforceable lip service for the interests of working families. This is a policy that says to working Americans: Don't even try to organize a union. This is the main basis of my opposition. Do that and we will move jobs overseas with special trade and investment incentives. It says to workers overseas, don't try to organize a union; the only way to compete for foreign investment is by accepting rock bottom wages. That is the flaw in this trade legislation. It is a pretty good deal for an investor who wants to save labor costs, but it is a pretty rotten deal for an American worker or worker overseas. That is what is at issue. We are basically saying to working Americans: Don't even try to organize a union; do that and we will move your jobs overseas. That is what we are saying. It says to the workers overseas: Don't try to organize a union; the only way to get the foreign investment is by accepting rock bottom wages. It is great for the investors who want to save labor costs, but it is a rotten deal for an American worker and it is a rotten deal for a low- wage worker in another country. I want to see a global trade policy that works for workers. I want to see a trade policy that lifts the living standards of workers. This is a developmental model that has failed time after time. This is the way of the past. It is time to say good riddance once and for all. It is not as if we don't have any choice. The Feingold bill gives a clear alternative. It is called the HOPE for Africa Act. We need something similar for the Caribbean. I know my colleague from Florida is now working on trying to have some enforceable labor standards. That would make a huge difference. We have a World Trade Organization meeting coming up in Seattle. I hear the discussion from the administration and others who want this trade legislation to pass. They think it is possible we could push for meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental standards. What kind of message are we now conveying, with about a month to go before this critical WTO meeting, when we are talking about a bilateral trade agreement which does not have any enforceable labor and environmental standards? I ask the administration: Where are you going with this? What is your message to labor? What is your message to the environmental groups? What is your message to the human rights groups? What is your message to all the nongovernment organizations that are going to be out in Seattle? As a Senator, I will be proud to join them. On the one hand, we have the rhetoric that says we think it is possible through WTO to have enforceable labor and environmental standards. That is implied in the rhetoric. At the same time, we have some trade bills that the administration is saying we have to pass; this is a No. 1 priority; we have to pass them before the WTO, which communicates the exact opposite message. They basically say we are not interested in enforceable labor standards; we are not interested in enforceable environmental standards. And, by the way, the message for farmers and producers in my State: If we don't have an opportunity to offer amendments, we are also not interested in trade policy that gives them any kind of fair shake. Both Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad will be out here, as well. I will say that 1,000 times over the next X number of hours: If we don't have the commitment to enforceable labor and environmental standards in our bilateral trade agreements, how can we credibly expect to include them in multilateral agreements? I think this legislation in its present form sets a terrible precedent. I think it goes in exactly the opposite direction from the words I hear the administration speak. I think it goes in the exact opposite direction from the rhetoric of at least some of my colleagues. I am interested in negotiations. Senator Graham has talked about the United States-Caribbean trade agreement and is trying to work on enforceable labor standards. However, I don't now see it in any of these trade bills. From my point of view, I think we have to have some enforceable labor standards that give working people in these other countries the right to organize and bargain collectively. If someone in the Senate says that my insistence as a Senator from Minnesota on some enforceable global labor standard is protectionist and that is the case, then we might as well say the Fair Labor Standards Act is also protectionist. That is the piece of legislation that relates to commerce in States in our country. We are saying we are going to apply this to all the States. Companies are not going to be able to have these atrocious child labor conditions. We will have protection dealing with child labor. Senator Harkin will probably be here with an amendment dealing with that. We will make sure people have a right to organize and bargain collectively. If we live in a global instead of a national economy--haven't I heard all Members say that--then we need the same kind of rules on the global level that we have on the national level for exactly the same kinds of reasons. I will come back later this afternoon to critique the legislation. I am preparing amendments to introduce. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak this morning and I don't really want to repeat what I said, except to mention one point which is both an argument I want to make to my colleagues here and an argument I want to also make to the administration. We have a WTO meeting coming up next month in Seattle. There will be many rank-and-file labor people and labor leaders attending, farm organizations, nongovernment organizations, environmentalists. We have been told by the administration that maybe within WTO we can have some enforceable labor standards, some enforceable environmental standards, so we are raising everything up rather than racing to the bottom. This is important because with NAFTA, in spite of what was said, the truth is, the environmental standards and labor standards were an afterthought and not enforceable. What kind of message are we sending to people when, on the one hand, we have the administration and others saying with WTO we will try to have enforceable standards, and then we have a bilateral agreement, several trade agreements, without enforceable labor standards, without enforceable environmental standards? As a Senator my bottom line is that I am in favor of the right of people to organize and bargain collectively in our country and in other countries. I am in favor of the rights of ordinary citizens to be able to bargain collectively and have the right to organize so they can make a decent wage and support their families. That is what is sorely lacking in this legislation. I will mention one amendment. I mentioned several this morning. If we go forward with this legislation tomorrow, I certainly want to have the right to introduce amendments. I talked about a number of amendments. One dealt with campaign finance reform and for the right to apply for clean money, clean elections for Federal offices. I don't think we should abandon this debate or issue. The amendment I want to introduce tomorrow, if that is the direction in which we are heading, deals with this economic convulsion that is taking place in agriculture. On October 25, Bird Island Elevator, Renville, MN, crop prices: Wheat, $2.89 a bushel; corn, $1.43 a bushel; soybeans, $4.04 a bushel. This has nothing to do with what our livestock producers are getting. Let me say to those who don't know agriculture, this is way below what it costs farmers to produce a bushel of wheat or corn. Let me say to my colleagues, in my State of Minnesota, farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1996, and more than 25 percent--a quarter of our farmers--may not be able to cover expenses for 1999. At the same time, you have these conglomerates that have muscled their way to the dinner table, exercising their power over family farmers. They will do it over consumers, and they are driving our family farmers out. According to a recent study at the University of Missouri, five firms now control over 80 percent of beef packing; six firms, 75 percent of the pork packing, and the list, frankly, goes on and on. I want to give a few more figures, then mention the amendment and finish up. The top four pork packers have increased their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent. That is what has been occurring. Smithfield is buying up Murphy, and now they are about to buy part of Tyson Foods that deals with pork production. Our pork producers are facing extinction and these packers are in hog heaven. The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 percent to 80 percent just in recent years. The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 percent to 62 percent. The top four turkey processors now control 42 percent. The list goes on and on. What we have is a food industry where we are looking for the competition. So here is the amendment I will introduce with Senator Dorgan. I think we may get a majority of votes. I hope so. This will be an amendment to address the market concentration in agriculture. What we would call for is a moratorium that would apply to these mergers and acquisitions over the next 18 months, during which time there are a couple of things that will happen. This would deal with companies that had assets of over $100 million and the second party had more than $10 million. This is the threshold test right now under which these firms would have to apply to the Justice Department and FTC. The moratorium would last for 18 months or until Congress passes comprehensive antitrust legislation to deal with this problem of the concentration in agriculture, whichever comes first. Moreover, our amendment will establish an antitrust review division to look at this concentration in agriculture and to make recommendations as to what kind of regulations are necessary and what kind of action we should take. I finish this way. We will be talking about this legislation today. I spoke about it earlier. If we move forward tomorrow, as a Senator from Minnesota I want to have the opportunity to introduce this amendment with Senator Dorgan that calls for a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers. I want to do it because these big conglomerates are pushing our family farmers off the land. I want to do it because there is a direct correlation between their concentrated market power and the record low prices that our producers are receiving. I want to do it because if we do not have a moratorium over the way in which these huge conglomerates are taking over agriculture, then our rural communities will be devastated and more and more family farmers will be driven off the land. Someone will own the land, someone will own the livestock, but it will be the few. I think that kind of concentration of power is frightening. It is frightening for our family farmers. It is driving them off the land. It is frightening for our rural communities that depend upon the number of family farmers who live in the communities and buy there. Do you know what else? It is frightening for America. Food is a very precious commodity. We ought not have just a few conglomerates that control all phases of this food industry from seed all the way to grocery shelf. This is wrong. It is not acceptable. As a Senator from Minnesota, I hope my colleagues will excuse me for saying that for 4 weeks I have asked the majority leader for an opportunity to introduce the amendment. Tomorrow morning, if we go forward with this legislation, I will be here first thing and this is the first amendment I am going to introduce to this legislation. Then we can have an up-or-down vote, and I am hoping we will get a majority vote. I see my colleague from North Carolina. I gather he wants to spend some time. I yield the floor.