Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the conference committee on H.R. 1906, the Agricultural appropriations bill for FY 2000 included a legislative rider sponsored by Senator McConnell that would fundamentally change the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program. I am concerned that the McConnell rider would be harmful to both foreign and domestic farm workers. The McConnell rider would essentially allow agribusinesses to import as many H-2A foreign guest workers as they want, regardless of whether there are workers here in America who want those jobs. That would be harmful to the U.S. farm workers who want the jobs, obviously. But it would also be harmful to other farm workers, who would then have to compete with more easily exploitable foreign labor. And I believe it would not be good for the guest workers themselves, who would have few of the protections and benefits to which Americans are entitled. The Administration opposes the McConnell rider. So does the U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Council of La Raza, the Farmworker Justice Fund, and the United Farm Workers. The McConnell rider also flatly contradicts the recommendations of the General Accounting Office. Let me take a moment to describe how the H-2A foreign guest worker program works, and maybe that will help explain what the McConnell rider does. The H-2A program allows agricultural employers to import foreign workers on a temporary basis, but only when there is a shortage locally of available U.S. workers. The Labor Department has to issue a labor certification that there is a shortage of available U.S. workers. But before employers can get that certification from the Labor Department, they have to recruit U.S. workers during a period of 28 to 33 days. The McConnell rider would substantially shorten the period during which agricultural employers have to recruit U.S. workers. Under current law, the recruitment period is 28 days, though it can be extended to 33 days if employers have to refile their application. The McConnell rider would shorten the recruitment period to 3 days, with a 5-day extension for refiling. The recruitment period would shrink from 28 days to three days. Three days! Does anyone think any kind of meaningful recruitment is going to take place in a period of three days? Of course not. Shortening the recruitment period to three days would turn the labor certification process into a sham and a charade. The result would be that U.S. farmworkers who want those jobs wouldn't be able to get them, and employers would have almost automatic access to cheap, exploitable foreign guest workers. GAO agrees that shortening the recruitment period to three days would undermine the labor certification process. A December 1997 GAO report looked at this very proposal and found that ``employers will not have sufficient time to meet their duties as required by the program and domestic workers will not have ample opportunity to compete for agricultural employment.'' The issue here is whether we should make the deplorable working conditions of farmworkers in this country even worse, because that would be the effect of the McConnell rider. I don't think my colleagues really want to do that. Given the--frankly--miserable working conditions that many farm workers have to endure, I think it would be unconscionable for us to add to their burdens. Farm workers don't have a lot of power. They don't have a lot of economic power, and they don't have a lot of political power. They don't have a lot of money to contribute to political campaigns. You don't see a lot of farm worker faces among the lobbying groups that visit our offices. Yes, there are some people who advocate on their behalf--groups like the U.S. Catholic Conference, National Council of La Raza, the Farmworker Justice Fund, the UFW. But farmworkers are largely disenfranchised and disempowered. Ultimately, they are dependent on our good will. I hope we can show a little good will towards people who don't have much leverage over us, but people who are very decent and hardworking and deserve better.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my father, over a half century ago, wrote an article the day after Hiroshima, and he focused on the problem of a proliferation of atomic bombs and nuclear weaponry. He was worried about his children, and he was worried about his grandchildren to come. Today I come to the floor of the Senate, and I say I really was hoping this Senator would be a part of a vote that would ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I think it would be an enormous step forward for our children and our grandchildren in our effort to put a stop to the proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction. I will say very honestly and truthfully to my colleagues that I don't understand why we didn't put this vote off. I don't understand why Senators, on a procedural vote, voted to essentially go forward with this vote today. I think the defeat of this agreement is an enormous step backward for humankind. I think it is a profound mistake. I think now I have to say to the people in Minnesota and to the people in our country I am saddened that this treaty is going to be defeated. I don't think we should have this vote. But to the American people and Minnesotans, hold each and every Senator accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The Senator from New York and the Senator from North Dakota want to speak. On a personal level, I thank Senator Cochran from Mississippi for his fine work. I am sympathetic to what my colleagues from the Northeast have to say. They do not believe they really have been in the picture when it comes to disaster relief. I make a commitment, as a Senator from the Midwest, to fight very hard with them to do better on disaster relief before we leave here over the next 4 weeks or 5 weeks. As a matter of fact, I have a lot of concerns about this disaster relief bill as well and this financial package. I am not sure the farmers in northwest Minnesota are going to figure in. We have had a lot of wet weather. They haven't been able to plant their crops. I am very worried that they actually are not going to get this disaster assistance. I also worry about the formula. Altogether, this is an $8.7 billion relief package. I worry about the way in which it is delivered. As I have said before, I think the AMTA payments all too often go to those least in need without enough going to those most in need. Finally, on the negative side, this is all a very painful way of acknowledging that our farm policy is not working. It is a price crisis. Our farmers can't make it on these prices. We are going to lose a whole generation of producers unless we get the loan rate up and get prices up and unless we have a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers. I am determined to have a vote on the moratorium bill. I am determined to have a vote on doing something to get the prices up for family farmers. That is what speaks to the root of this crisis, which is a very painful economic crisis and a very painful personal crisis because an awful lot of good people are being driven off the land. The only thing this does is enable people to live to maybe farm another day. I say one more time to the majority leader, I want the opportunity to come out with amendments and legislation that will alleviate some of this pain and suffering. I know other Senators feel the same way. Finally, I think I lean heavily toward voting for this only because we need to get some assistance out to people. In Redwood County, which has really been through it, we get about $23 million more to cover production losses in beans and corn from AMTA payments. I am told by Tracy Beckman, who directs our FSA office, that Minnesota will receive about $620 million in AMTA payments to be distributed to about 62,000 eligible producers. I don't think this emergency financial package is anywhere near close to perfect. I think it is flawed in a number of ways. I think we are going to have to do better on disaster relief. But I desperately want to get some help out to people. I think at least this is a step in that direction. We all can come back over the next couple of weeks and do more. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my father, Leon Wellstone, was born in Odessa in the Ukraine. His family moved several times to stay ahead of the pogroms. Most of his earlier years he spent in Khabarovsk, Siberia, Far East Russia. He came to our country in 1914. He fled persecution. He never could go back home. In all likelihood, his parents were murdered by Stalin. Mr. President, my father spent most of his life in our country in Washington, DC, and during the night of August 7, 1945, he wrote this essay to himself: I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Would it be in order for me to call up my amendment in order to move on? I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment numbered 1842.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just to be clear to colleagues, I thought we were finished and were trying to move along. I am willing to wait, if Senator Bingaman wishes to continue.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Very well.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder whether I could ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes as in morning business to make a statement while we are in deliberations. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. I am trying to make the best use of our time, Mr. President.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just support the remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. I understand all the emotion that surrounds this issue, but I think it would be a profound mistake on our part to now pass an amendment that would take away an important discretion from the Secretary of Health and Human Services as to whether or not the needle exchange program is badly needed and would be effective in some of our local communities. I think to have an across-the-board prohibition without taking a really close look at this question could have tragic consequences. So I say to my colleagues I think if we no longer enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have some discretion and to know when Federal funds would make a huge difference, and to make sure this is all being done in an above-board manner, then I think we are passing a prohibition which, in personal terms, will translate into more of our citizens--many of them inner city, many poor, and too many of them children--becoming HIV infected and dying from AIDS. I rise to support the comments of my colleague from Pennsylvania. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object for just a moment, could we look at it for a second, the second degree?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the time agreement is fine on our side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thirty minutes equally divided on the second degree.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with the support of this side, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I probably will not even take 2 minutes. I rise to support the Bingaman amendment. I appreciate what my colleague from New Mexico said earlier in his remarks, which was that the focus on accountability is terribly important. We also have to make sure we invest the resources that will enable each child to have the same opportunity to succeed. I think that is extremely important as well. The two go together. But I do believe this is very helpful to States. It is very helpful to low-income children. I think it is terribly important that States devise and put into effect strategies that make sure we have the highest quality title I programs, which are, after all, all about expanding opportunities for low-income children, dealing with the learning gap, enabling a child to do well in school and therefore well in his or her life. I applaud his emphasis on accountability and rise to indicate my support.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I will be pleased to use his additional time if he wants me to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will shortly outline my amendment, which is a very important amendment dealing with community block grant mental health services. I want to start out, however, in a very personal way. Mr. President, the Governor of Minnesota, Governor Ventura, in an interview with Playboy magazine said that he did not read books by Ernest Hemingway because the writer killed himself. And he want on to say: I've seen too many people fight for their lives. I have no respect for anyone who would kill himself. If you're a feeble, weak-minded person to begin with, I don't have time for you. At Harvard University yesterday Governor Ventura was asked about his remarks, that suicide was for the feeble, weak-minded. And he said: I do upwards of 25 interviews a week . . . over 1,000 interviews a year. I'm human. You got good days; you got bad days. He continued: I don't have sympathy, is what my feelings are on suicide. . . . To me it's something that doesn't have to happen if people take a positive attitude on life like I do. Today the Surgeon General, David Satcher, gave a very eloquent speech. Today is the ninth annual National Depression Screening Day. He pointed out that suicide is the ninth leading cause of mortality in the United States, responsible for 31,000 deaths. Mr. President, 85 Americans die every day having taken their lives. Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14. I want to respond to these remarks by Governor Ventura because I have devoted so much of my work as a Senator in the mental health area, with Senator Domenici, my colleague from New Mexico, who is a Republican, and Senator Reid from Nevada. First of all, let me acknowledge the work of Al and Mary Kluesner. The Kluesners are wonderful people. Al and Mary Kluesner started an organization 10 years ago called SA/VE. This is an organization made up of family members. Many of them are parents who have lost their children. Al and Mary Kluesner have lost two children to suicide. The Governor of Minnesota and all Americans need to understand that suicide is directly linked to mental illness. The form of mental illness we are talking about is severe depression. When people struggle with severe depression, they lose hope. I want the Governor of Minnesota to understand that this mental illness is not a moral failing. I want Governor Ventura to understand that all these families that have gone through so much pain need support. They do not need ridicule. Today is the ninth annual National Depression Screening Day. This is when communities set up free confidential screening opportunities for people to talk privately with mental health professionals, receive educational material about the symptoms and treatment for depression and, when appropriate obtain referrals for care. Clinical depression is one of the most common illnesses. It affects more than 19 million Americans a year. These educational programs are to be commended. But if we do not have the resources to fund proper treatment for mental health illnesses, then all of this research and all of this education and all of this information may be for nothing. The clinical care that is needed may never reach those who need it the most. Why? Because they cannot afford it. Why? Because we do not have fairness--parity--in mental health coverage. Why? Because we drastically underfund public programs for mental health care, such as the mental health block grant program. Why? Because of problems with mental health services provided through the Medicaid programs, which represent 19 percent of nationwide mental health care. Why? Because it seems we would rather incarcerate children with mental illness than to provide community treatment programs that are so desperately needed. Why? Because we do not provide coverage for medication in so many health care programs. Untreated mental illness so often leads to tragedy such as suicide. We know from today's congressional briefing on depression and the elderly an outstanding fact: The highest suicide rate--often the result of undiagnosed and untreated depression--is for white men over 85 years old--65.3 per 100,000 persons. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24. We need to increase funding for mental health services, not decrease it. This amendment, which I will summarize in a moment----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will use 3 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to be brief because other colleagues are going to speak, and then I will come back later as we go forward in this debate. I say to my colleagues on the other side, what Senator Durbin from Illinois said is right on the mark. As ranking minority member on the Labor Committee, now called HELP, which has jurisdiction over OSHA and occupational health and safety issues which are very important to working people, I have a lot to say about this amendment. What I will say, as this debate goes forward, will be substantive, and it will be important in determining how all of us vote. This is an incredibly important issue. I will start out for a few brief minutes right now and then turn it over to other colleagues. I will come back later as this debate develops. This Bond amendment will basically stop OSHA from doing its job, which is the mission of the mandate of keeping American workers from getting injured at work. It basically stops OSHA from doing its job, and OSHA's job is to prevent workers from being injured at work. This amendment will shut down the normal rulemaking process and stop OSHA from doing anything at all about ergonomic job hazards that are seriously injuring over 600,000 workers every year. That is a statistic my colleagues do not like to talk about. I have heard the arguments about bureaucrats and big government and all of the rest, but we ought not be too generous with the suffering of others. We are talking about 600,000 workers who are seriously injured every year. That is what this debate is all about. Ergonomic injuries are serious injuries from repetitive motions, overexertion, and physical stress. They include carpal tunnel syndrome, back injuries, and tendonitis. The amendment before us will stop OSHA from issuing a standard to prevent these injuries until the National Academy of Sciences completes a new study which will take somewhere between 18 to 24 months. This amendment will stop OSHA from issuing not only a regulation, but even voluntary guidelines or standards. This amendment is an extreme amendment, extremely harsh in its impact on working people. Last week, Secretary of Labor Herman wrote that she would recommend a veto of S. 1650 if this amendment is adopted. By the way, I also say to my colleagues, the reason Senator Durbin was right in what he said earlier--that this debate will take some time--is because it is important to put a focus on the people and their lives and who is going to be affected by this. With all due respect, quite often--and this particular case is a perfect example--when we talk about OSHA or NIOSH, when we talk about occupational health and safety, we are talking about a group of Americans who are rarely in the Senate or the House. These are not in the main, our sons or daughters. These are not in the main, our brothers or sisters or our parents. In fact, I think if they were, this amendment would not even be before the Senate. I do not want to lose sight of about whom we are talking. There are four points I want to make as this debate develops. I will not develop any of these points right now, but I will mention them. First, I want to spend some time later on talking about the people, real people who are affected by this debate. As we speak, there are workers who are injured needlessly because of the continuing efforts by this Congress, as represented by the Bond amendment, to keep OSHA from doing its job. These are real people with real health problems who are hurt at the workplace with disabling injuries. I want to spend a lot of time talking about who these people are. I want to present stories. I want to talk about these people in the most personal terms possible so we know what is at stake. Second, I want to make the case that something can be done to stop people from being injured in this way, from stopping these physically disabling injuries, from stopping the pain. There is no need to wait another 2 years for another study. We do not need another study to show that ergonomic hazards cause injuries and these injuries can be prevented. We already know it. There are already reams of scientific evidence to prove it, and one more review of the scientific literature is not going to change anything. Later on in this debate, I will talk about the studies that have already taken place and what their conclusions are, all of which say we need to go forward right now. Third, I want to dispel the mistaken impression among some Senators that a deal was worked out last year whereby OSHA would delay this rulemaking until the National Academy of Sciences completes its second study. Actually, that appears to be just the opposite of what happened. According to the parties involved in those negotiations, there was an understanding that this new NAS study would not prevent OSHA from going forward. There was a clear understanding that this new NAS study would not prevent OSHA from going forward. Finally, I want to make it clear that the issue is not the substance of OSHA's proposal. There is already a process in place for addressing any criticisms or any modifications that Senators and others may have. It is the same rulemaking process that is used for any other regulation: Interested parties are encouraged to comment and suggest changes. Criticisms or quibbles with OSHA's current proposal should not be used as an excuse to stop OSHA from doing anything whatsoever, and that is exactly what is happening. This ergonomic standard has been delayed for far too long. It was first proposed in 1990 by then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole. I will go back through that history as well, but I will conclude right now by saying that this amendment just shuts down the normal rulemaking process. It stops OSHA from doing its job. It does not speak to the 600,000 workers right now who are being injured and who are struggling because, in fact, we do not have ergonomic job standards. These injuries are serious injuries. They are disabling injuries. Surely, we can take action right now. This is all about working people. It is all about making sure there is some safety at the workplace. It is all about our responsibility to move forward with a standard that will provide some protection. It is all about making sure OSHA is not gutted. It is all about making sure this amendment, which I view as a direct threat to many hard-working people, does not go forward. Yes, we are here to debate this. My colleague, Senator Durbin, is ready to speak. Senator Harkin is going to speak. Senator Kennedy will be here. And later on in the debate, I will come back and lay out story after story of families that will be affected by this amendment. I will talk about what this means in personal terms. I will talk about all the studies that have already taken place and what the science clearly suggests to us. We will have a major debate on this. I have no doubt the vast majority of people in this country expect the Senate to be on the side of providing some decent protection for hard-working Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we are in the midst of an unprecedented wave of mergers and concentration in the media and the communications industries. We are talking about the flow of information in democracy and whether a few are going to control this. But instead of doing anything about it, to protect American consumers or to safeguard the flow of information that our democracy depends upon, I am troubled by efforts underway to undermine protections that are already on the books. I cite that the CBS-Viacom merger announced last month would be the biggest media deal ever. Today, the FCC announced its approval of a merger between SBC and Ameritech. On Tuesday, Clear Channel Communications announced that it is buying AMFM to create a huge radio conglomerate with 830 stations that will dominate American radio. I am amazed so few people are concerned about these developments. The reason I rise to speak about this is that when FCC Chairman Bill Kennard is so bold as to point out that the MCI-Sprint deal would undermine competition, he is simply doing his job. I want to say on the floor of the Senate, he should not be punished for doing his job. Last year, when the FCC approved the merger of Worldcom and MCI, Chairman Kennard said the industry was one merger away from undue concentration. Now this merger would be the one that pushes us over the top. So when Antitrust Division Chief Joel Klein of the Justice Department brings some very difficult cases to enforce our country's antitrust laws, he is simply doing his job. When FCC Chairman Bill Kennard raises these kinds of questions, he is simply doing his job. We cannot expect these agencies to enforce our laws, to do their job, if we take away their budgets or their statutory authority every time they do it. We need to strengthen our review of these mergers. We need to strength our antitrust laws, on which I think we have to do much better. And we need to give the Justice Department, the FTC, and the FCC the resources they need to enforce the law. So more than anything else, I rise to support Bill Kennard's concerns, to tell him he is doing his job, and urge my colleagues to understand that he has an important responsibility to protect the consumers. The flow of information in our democracy is the most important thing we have. He certainly should not be punished for doing his job and doing his job well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.