Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to go, first of all, to the substance of what has been said about veterans' health care. Then I will talk to staff about how we might debate my motion to waive the Budget Act. Let me, first of all, say my good friend from Missouri said we didn't have a flatline budget. If we increase the budget $100 million, $200 million a year, compared to medical inflation, that is a flatline budget. Spend time with veterans anywhere and one knows it did not work. The budget ran way behind health care needs. That is to what the amendment tries to speak. Second, I ask my colleagues, deciding what we need to do by way of making sure we are providing good health care for veterans, my colleague talks about what the Veterans' Administration has said to him. They have to deal with OMB and the bean counters. Or are you going to pay some attention to this independent budget put together by many veterans organizations, which calls for the need for an additional $3 billion above the President's proposal, which is now, my amendment, $1.3 billion. We are getting there because the veterans community has organized and the veterans community has been heard. I am glad they have done so. Here is a list of independent budget endorsers: National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, Veterans of the Vietnam War, Vietnam Veterans of America, Retired Officers Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans. There are 40 different organizations that endorse this budget. It is interesting to me; we have been saying to the veterans: You have to stop complaining. Tell us what the needs are. They did the research. They put this budget together. They say: Here are the gaps; here are the needs; here is what it will take. My colleagues come to the floor on a budget resolution and 99 of them vote for exactly what this amendment calls for. Then I cite as evidence our own Senate veterans committee, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I serve. Its views and estimates are the VA will require over $3 billion in additional discretionary spending to meet the needs of the aging, to meet the needs of an increasingly female veteran population. That is what we say we need to do. We have an independent budget, our own Senate veterans committee, saying this is what we need. In addition, I sent this letter to the VISN directors and asked what was happening--I do not get the straight story--the same people my colleague from Missouri says on whom we are relying. I supported the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. I did not second degree. I think it is a step in the right direction. However, I ask my colleagues this question: Aren't we going to live up to the commitment we made in a vote not that long ago? Then I am told this is going to come out of Social Security. This comes out of the surplus the same way your additional expenditures for defense come out of the surplus, the same way your tax cuts come out of the surplus. Why don't you put as high a priority on veterans as you do on additional defense expenditures or in tax cuts? My colleague, Senator Smith, obviously does. I think other colleagues will, too, when it comes time to vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Johnson be included as an original cosponsor, if he is not.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague eventually propounds this, I wonder if I might have a few minutes after he speaks to waive it--5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, what we have here, I think, is a philosophical debate. But actually it is more on the lines of what the other Senator from New Hampshire said. It is a matter of where veterans fit in. Apparently, they come in last. We have this arcane rule that I am supposedly in violation of with this amendment which, by the way, makes it easy for my colleagues to go with tax cuts, it makes it easy for my colleagues to put much more into defense, and makes it easy for my colleagues to then come out on the floor and say there is no more money left for veterans. Veterans should not come last. With all due respect, if Senators want to vote, cast a vote that says this amendment, which provides the resources we need for veterans' health care, is in violation of this arcane rule. That is the fact. The reality here is, we have this arcane rule, all part of this agreement that we had which is not working, and everybody here knows it is not working, and we still went forward with all the money for tax cuts and we still put more into defense. I say to my colleagues, again, the President has only signed two appropriations bills. But now what we are told is, the veterans are last. All of a sudden, there is no money for the veterans. All of a sudden, the veterans are to be pitted against Social Security. It does not mean a thing. Let me tell you what the facts are. The facts are that there are a lot of elderly veterans. It is an aging population. And we are nowhere near where we should be in terms home-based health care for them, and we are nowhere near where we should be when it comes to institutional nursing home care for those who need to be in nursing homes. The facts are, as my colleague from New Hampshire mentioned earlier, that we have a scandal of maybe as many as a third of the homeless population being veterans. The facts are that we have long waits in too many places. We have staff working double time. We have veterans who do not have the accessibility to the specialty services they need. We have a VA medical system that is not working the way it should work for veterans. Those are the facts. Next set of facts: My colleagues are on record in this budget resolution calling for exactly the same expenditure I call for in this amendment. Next fact: The veterans independent budget, put together by veterans, not the VA, talks about these gaps and what we need and comes up with this investment that is in this amendment. Next fact: Our own Senate Veterans' Committee admits that this is what we need if we are going to fill these gaps. Next fact: Since I could not get a straight answer from the VA--where are you now, Jesse Brown, when we need you?--I sent out my own questionnaire to all these different VISNs and directors, and 22 of them responded; and they talked about the gaps, and the need, and what kind of investment it would take to get our veterans' health care system up to where it should be for veterans, if you really want to say thank you to veterans. Those are the facts. Last fact: I voted for Senator Bond's amendment. I think it is good. It helps, but it still is inadequate. It is not what we should be doing. We all talk about how much we care for the veterans. We all talk about how we are for the veterans. Then we ought to match the rhetoric with the resources. I do not think my colleagues should be able to vote against this, arguing that it is in violation of this arcane Budget rule that we have. I do not think that means a thing to veterans. I do not think it means a thing to them. I think what means something to veterans is whether or not they are going to have the health care they thought they were promised, whether or not our Government is going to live up to its commitment. That is what this amendment calls for us to do. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take this time to speak. I want to make a couple of compelling points for my colleagues. First, our own Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has gone on record saying, if we really want to fill these gaps in veterans' health care, we require what this amendment calls for above what we have spent, which is $1.3 billion more. Second, I cite as evidence this independent budget put together by many different veterans organizations. We asked the veterans to really look at veterans' health care and come up with recommendations. Third, I cite as evidence, again, a study my office conducted when we really could not get good straight information from the VA, called Veterans Health Care and Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Flat-Line. Fourth, I want to again remind my colleagues that all of us, on an amendment in the budget resolution, have been on record, in a 99-0 vote, saying we ought to make this additional investment. I think that is extremely important. My second point is, what is at stake? We have traveled a long way from where this budget once was. The President's budget was inadequate. I think what the House and the Senate were doing was inadequate. Colleagues have stepped forward. I am glad to see we have made some progress. The veterans community, I think, has spoken up and has made it clear to us that they want to see us respond to their needs and the circumstances of their lives. What I am saying in this amendment is that what is at stake is the quality of care. It is just simply true. There is not enough good care for elderly veterans, and many veterans are living to be 80 and 85 years of age. There is not enough good care for those veterans struggling with posttraumatic stress syndrome. The waits for care are too long. Too many of our facilities are understaffed. I do not know why we would not go forward with what we have already gone on record saying we are committed to. I do not think that is acceptable. What is being used against this amendment is that it is in violation of this arcane rule of the Budget Act. But I say to my colleagues--this is the point I want to make; and I will make it in the last 2 minutes if Senator Johnson is not here--we have, whatever it is, $15 billion in surplus. We know darn well we are going to be breaking these caps and we are going to be spending that money. We know that. Every single Senator knows we are going to be spending that money. We are going to be spending that money later on. When we do that later on, and we invest that money in whatever areas we invest in, then you are going to have to come back and tell the veterans why you voted against this amendment. If you do not believe that we are going to break the budget caps and spend that additional surplus money on some important domestic needs, then I guess you could vote against this amendment. But if you know in your heart of hearts what everybody I think in the Senate knows, that we are going to spend that money, we are going to break the caps, then why would you want to put veterans at the bottom of the list? Why wouldn't you up front vote for the additional resources that we need for veterans' health care? I thought maybe we would have an up-or-down vote, maybe it would be a vote to table the amendment. I did not realize we were going to have this budget debate. But I think now we have two issues. No. 1, are we going to follow through on the commitment we made to veterans? We are all on record saying we need to make this additional investment. No. 2, are we going to sort of play this game, knowing full well we are going to spend the surplus, we are going to spend this $15 billion surplus? We know that. We are going to break the caps and do that. We have too many glaring needs in this country, too many draconian cuts that are mean-spirited in their effects on many citizens-- vulnerable citizens, children. Start with children. What are we going to cut? Low-income energy assistance? Are we going to cut Head Start? Early Head Start? Child care? What exactly do people think we are going to do with these budgets we have with these caps? I say to my colleagues, you know we are going to spend that surplus. And if you know that, and later on you are going to vote to spend it, as you should, on some of these needs, then why wouldn't you vote for it right now for veterans? This is really a test case about whether or not we are going to follow through on a commitment. It is also a test case not just about a commitment to veterans and doing what we need to do to get the resources to veterans' health care--I believe so strongly about that question--but now I have come to believe as strongly about the other question, which is: Let's be honest about this in terms of where we are at in this budget process. We cannot live within these caps. Our appropriators are two great Senators--I do not know why the Senator from Missouri is wrong on so many issues, but he is a darn good Senator, there is no question about it--and they are trying to deal with this in housing for veterans. It is a nightmare. So I do not accept this, even though they are two colleagues who I respect. I do not accept this argument. I do not accept this argument that we are going to use this arcane rule, we are going to use these caps, we are going to use this budget rule as a reason for not voting for the investment in resources that would make a huge difference in the quality of health care for veterans in this country, especially when we know we are going to go into this surplus and use this surplus on some critical needs in our country. I am here to argue this is a critical need--veterans' health care. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know we have 5 minutes left for wrapup. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think that I can do it in 1 minute because my colleagues have been gracious enough. Again, I cite as evidence our vote on the budget resolution calling for this additional investment that is in this amendment; second, the independent budget from the veterans; third, our own Senate veterans' health care committee, which said we need to spend the additional $3 billion, this gets us up to that point; fourth, the study where I sent a questionnaire out to all the VISN directors, when I could not get the straight information from the VA about the needs; fifth, I translated this into human terms, in terms of the not adequate care for elderly vets, not adequate care for vets struggling with PTSD, not adequate home-based care, longer lines than there should be, longer waits, not the access to specialists. This is important if we want to fill these gaps. Finally, I say to my colleagues, I am being told this violates the budget caps, but everybody knows we are going to take that $15 billion in surplus and spend it. We know that. There are too many glaring needs in this country. If later on you are going to vote to spend it on something, then why would you put veterans' needs at the very bottom? Why wouldn't you vote for veterans' health care right now? I think we ought to be straightforward and honest about what we are doing. I think that has to do with the budget, but I also think it has to do with what we need to do to try to make sure veterans' health care is as high a quality as possible. We have a long ways to go. This amendment takes us far in that direction.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, for his questions and his work on this issue. He has really been tireless in his advocacy for dairy farmers in Minnesota. I actually have two questions for the Senator from Wisconsin to which I would like him to respond. The first question is whether or not the Senator, since he is out here on the floor right now, could translate this debate about the dairy compact in personal terms. In other words, there is a reason why you must be out here. If you could give other Senators a feel for what it has been like to be out at dairy farms, meet with dairy farmers, and what is happening to the families in Wisconsin and Minnesota. My second question would be, since the Senator is out here--and I don't know what is the period of time; I know the Senator from Maryland wants to get some clarity on that, and I imagine the Senator will do what he needs to do and then move on with this bill, with the VA-HUD bill--I want to ask the Senator the other question, which is, again, the particular concern that he has about the nature of this process in the conference committee. You are out here to basically sound an alarm. You are out here to say: Listen, I want to make it clear that in no way, shape, or form should you be able in conference committee--which is almost behind the scenes basically--to negate a vote we had already. So I wonder whether you could deal with those: In personal terms, what this is about for dairy farmers in our States; and second, the particular point you intend to make right here on the floor of the Senate about what is happening right now in conference. You said it before, but I think it needs to be repeated.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one final question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator has talked about his indignation about what might happen in conference committee, and we are on the floor trying to make it clear that it will be unacceptable and we will fight it all the way, if there should be an effort to undo the vote of the Senate. The Senator has talked in personal terms. I want to say to him as a friend--I am not trying to get psychological here--but he spoke differently than I have ever heard him speak on the floor of the Senate when he talked about some of the farmers and conversations and how people start out very eloquent and rational and then just break down crying. I have had the same thing going on right now with many of our producers, dairy and crop and livestock, across the board. That is the convulsion in agriculture right now. It is awful. We have to change it. Could the Senator explain for people the connection between this fight, the plight of dairy farmers, and the national interests. Could he make a linkage as to why he thinks it is in the interest of our country not to have these compacts and to make sure that dairy farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota have a fair shake and have the opportunity to be able to earn a decent living. In other words, I can see how some would say, he is out here doing it for Wisconsin--we are doing it for our States--but what is the connection to the rest of us?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator is going to continue to speak, then that is one thing. I don't want to hold up deliberations. I think the Senator from Maryland has a question to ask. I will just simply defer.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I opposed the District of Columbia appropriations conference report for a number of reasons but the reason I speak out today is my grave concern with provisions in the report that continue to prohibit the government of the District of Columbia from engaging in needle exchange programs. These valuable programs curb the spread of HIV/AIDS by allowing injecting drug users to exchange their used, potentially contaminated needles for sterile ones. Yet, the District of Columbia appropriations conference report not only banned the use of Federal funds but prohibited the District from using its own monies to support this valuable program. We in the Senate wisely did not include such a provision in the DC appropriations bill that passed this body, and it should not have been in the conference report. Therefore, I opposed the conference report because it was an attack on this city's public health. AIDS is the leading cause of death for D.C. residents ages 30 to 44, an AIDS death rate seven times the national average. What this conference report did to needle exchange programs was both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Indeed, including a needle exchange prohibition in this conference report is a hazard to the public health. The prohibition in this report is unnecessary because there was already a ban on Federal funding for needle exchange programs. This ban dates to 1989, when Congress declared that no Federal funds could be spent to support needle exchange programs until there was scientific evidence that the programs, first, could reduce the spread of HIV and, second, did not encourage drug use. There are thus two main questions facing us as we decide the fate of federal needle exchange program funding: Do these programs achieve their public health purpose of slowing the spread of a deadly, infectious disease? And do these programs compromise our drug abuse prevention efforts by encouraging illicit drug use? Science has provided answers to these questions. A preponderance of evidence shows that needle exchange programs cause a decrease in HIV infection rates. The National Institutes of Health found that needle exchange programs reduce risk behaviors by as much as 80 percent in injecting drug users while reducing HIV infection rates by an estimated 30 percent. In addition, a 1997 study published in Lancet, the respected British medical journal, compared HIV seroprevalence over time among injecting drug users in 29 cities with needle exchange programs and 52 cities without needle exchange programs. While seroprevalence increased by 5.9 percent per year in the 52 cities without needle exchange programs, it decreased by 5.8 percent per year in the 29 cities with programs. Similarly, in the city of Baltimore, HIV infections among IV drug users have declined 30 percent since the start of its needle exchange in 1993 while the infection rate has increased 5 percent in Baltimore County, which has no exchange program. Numerous studies also show that needle exchange programs decrease needle sharing; decrease unsafe disposal of syringes; decrease re-use and passing of syringes; and increase needle disinfection. Needle exchanges also do not encourage drug use--they compliment our efforts to stop drug use. Needle exchange programs can be linked with greater entry of addicts into drug treatment. After using a needle exchange program for more than 6 months, 58 percent of participants report having enrolled in detox or drug treatment. In New Haven, Connecticut, drug treatment entries doubled in the three years following the opening to its needle exchange. In Tacoma, Washington, needle exchange programs constitute the largest referral source for drug treatment, accounting for 43 percent of treatment participants. In addition, injection drug users referred by needle exchange programs are more likely to enter drug treatment and to be retained, even in the face of the greater severity of drug use and psychosocial problems common among this population. Needle exchanges therefore supply a valuable opportunity to provide additional preventive services to difficult-to-reach individuals. Furthermore, studies show that needle exchange programs decrease the frequency of injection among participants and do not tempt individuals to begin using drugs. These overwhelmingly conclusive results have fostered wide support for improving access to sterile needles. Groups supporting needle exchange programs include: the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of County & City Health Officials, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. As a National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement concludes ``There is no longer any doubt that these programs work, yet there is a striking disjunction between what science dictates and what policy delivers. . . . Can the opposition to needle exchange in the United States be justified on scientific grounds? Our answer is simple and emphatic-- no.'' Because of this evidence I believe policies that inhibit the creation and expansion of needle exchange programs are unjustifiable. I am baffled and outraged by such policies. We all come to Washington to make laws that help the American people, that combat social ills and that raise the quality of life in our country. We all want to win the war on drugs. We all want to stop the spread of HIV. So then why, when we have evidence that needle exchange programs work, do we continue to put millions of citizens at unnecessary risk? Cutting funding to these programs is a death sentence to thousands of men, women, and children. I want you all to think for a moment about those children. It is imperative to realize that needle exchange programs go far beyond aiding addicts; they protects the partners and children of addicts. 70 percent of cases of women of childbearing age with HIV are directly or indirectly linked to IV drug use, causing 75 percent of the cases of babies born HIV positive to be the result of the use of dirty needles. For this reason, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports needle exchange programs as a means of reducing the spread of HIV to infants, children and adolescents. These programs are pro-family and pro-child. We should not be undermining the District of Columbia's local control of pubic health decisions and to setting a dangerous precedent for the many states and localities that fund needle exchange programs through a combination of local, state, and private funds. Right now more than 110 communities in 30 states use needle exchange programs to slow the spread of HIV. Despite continued lack of federal funding, needle exchange programs have expanded in terms of the number of syringes exchanged, the geographic distribution of programs, and the range of services offered. Needle exchange programs were able to do this because they are supported by two-thirds of the American people as well as many state and local governments. In Minnesota, needle exchange programs are an important component of efforts to decrease the transmission of HIV and to end drug use. Minnesota has two successful needle exchange programs. One program, Women with a Point, has exchanged approximately 63,000 syringes in the past 18 months while providing on-site HIV testing, referrals for chemical abuse recovery programs, information on risk reduction techniques and Hepatitis C, and case management for HIV positive injection drug users. The other, Minnesota AIDS Project, has also exchanged thousands of needles and provided users with HIV testing, needle disinfection kits, numerous services for HIV positive individuals, and information about risk reduction techniques. We must face the reality that the second most frequent reported risk behavior for HIV infection is injecting drug use. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that approximately one- third of AIDS cases in the United States are directly or indirectly associated with injecting drug use. Moreover, according to a report in the American Journal of Public Health, 50 percent of new HIV infections are occurring among injection drug users. We know that lowering the rate of injection-related HIV infections requires increasing the availability of drug treatment and increasing access to clean needles. We have scientific evidence that broad implementation of needle exchange programs would aid us in our battle against HIV. In other words, we have scientific evidence that legal impediments to clean needle possession encourage high-risk behavior and do nothing to reduce drug use. We should not therefore be passing legislation that further hinders the establishment and expansion of needle exchange programs. We should instead of pushing for the removal of the Federal ban on funding--not enacting legislation that prohibits local governments, like the District of Columbia, from adopting good public health practices, practices that have been shown in communities across the United States to reduce the circulation of contaminated needles and the rate of HIV infection. My colleagues in the Senate, President Clinton has threatened to veto this conference report because of its unwarranted intrusion into the public health of the citizens of the District of Columbia. And he is right. Colleagues, I ask you to avoid that veto, and to send this report back to the conference committee so this intrusion can be eliminated. Please join me and vote ``no'' on this conference report as it now reads.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will speak briefly in opposition to cutting off debate on S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. I say to my colleagues, the entire concept of the bill is wrong. It addresses a ``crisis'' that appears to be self-correcting. It rewards the predatory and reckless lending by banks and credit card companies which fed the crisis in the first place, and it does nothing to actually prevent bankruptcy by promoting economic security for working families. To support, if you will, my case on the floor, I will talk about a couple of amendments I intended to offer to this bill which I think will make a huge difference. Let me give a couple of examples. One amendment will prevent claims in bankruptcy on high-cost credit transactions in which the annual interest rate exceeds 100 percent, such as pay-day loans and car title pawns. Pay-day loans are intended to extend small amounts of credit, typically $100 to $500, for an extremely short period of time, usually 1 week or 2 weeks. These loans are marketed as giving the borrower a little extra until pay day, hence the term ``pay-day'' loan. The loans work like this: The borrower writes a check for the loan amount plus a fee. The lender agrees to hold the check until an agreed-upon date and gives the borrower the cash. On the due date, the lender either cashes the check or allows the borrower to extend the loan by writing a new check for the loan. In any case, the annual interest rate can get as high as 391 percent. We ought to do something about that, Mr. President. I have an amendment that will make a difference. I believe I would win if I offered this amendment to address this problem. Another amendment I want to offer is about making sure banks offer low-cost banking services to their customers. For about 12 million Americans, having a checking account is a simple convenience which they cannot afford. Why? Because quite often there is a large minimum or you have fees that are really too high, and therefore people cannot even have these accounts. I want to make sure these banks are responsive to low-income citizens as well. Mr. President, I was on the floor last week for several hours talking about the crisis in agriculture. I said that those of us from the farm States want an opportunity to pass legislation that would change the course of policy and prevent our family farmers from being driven off the land and prevent, really, what is right now the devastation of our rural communities. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has an amendment to get the loan rate up, to get prices up, which I support. I have an amendment-- and Senator Dorgan will join me--which basically says we are going to-- for 18 months, until we pass some antitrust action--put a moratorium on a lot of these mergers and acquisitions. We want to have some competition in the food industry. I think I can get a lot of support from Republicans as well as Democrats. I think there will be a lot of support on the floor of the Senate for these amendments that try to do something about changing farm policy so our producers--whether they be in Minnesota, whether they be in Idaho, whether they be in the Midwest, or whether they be in the South--are able to make a living and support their families. In all due respect--I hate to say this--bankruptcy is all too relevant to what these family farmers are going through. I have an amendment that says we ought to do some policy evaluation if we are going to be talking about bankruptcy and we are not going to do a darn thing to deal with the predatory policies of these credit companies, that we are not going to do a darn thing about the ways in which they hook people in who have precious little consumer protection, that if we are going to talk about low-income citizens, I would like to see some policy evaluation. I would like to see us have some understanding about what is going on in welfare. Where are these mothers and children who are no longer on the rolls? What are their wage levels? Is there affordable child care? Do these families have health care coverage or do they not have health care coverage? It is also the case that my colleague who sits right next to me, Senator Kennedy, has an amendment he wants to offer to raise the minimum wage. I find it interesting that what we have here is a piece of legislation that does nothing by way of providing consumer protection, does nothing by way of challenging these credit card companies, and does absolutely nothing to prevent the bankruptcy in the first place. We have the evidence that shows that very few people--maybe 3 percent--have abused the law. And because of that, we are passing a draconian, harsh piece of legislation which imposes enormous difficulties on the poorest families, on working-income families. Yet when some of us say we want to bring some amendments to the floor that deal with exorbitant interest rates, to make sure that low-income people have access to banking services, and to make sure we do something about the economic security for working families--and I include family farmers who are going bankrupt--we are told by the majority leader we are going to be shut out from being able to offer amendments, and therefore the majority leader files cloture. We will have a cloture vote. I am going to vote against cloture; I am sure many of my colleagues are going to vote against cloture, and then I am sure the majority leader is going to pull the bill. If he pulls the bill, that will be actually a plus for Americans. This is a deeply flawed piece of legislation--great for the credit companies, terrible for consumers. But if he pulls the bill, also that is basically a message to those of us who for weeks now have been saying we want to come to the floor with substantive amendments, to fight for the people we represent, to do something about making sure they have a decent chance--and I am talking in particular about family farmers. Basically what I am hearing from the majority leader is: Anytime you say you are going to come to the floor with these amendments, I am going to pull the legislation. I am not going to give you a vehicle. We are not going to have an up-or-down vote on minimum wage. Apparently, a lot of my colleagues on the other side do not want to be on record; we are not going to have an up-or-down vote on getting farm prices up; we are not going to have an up-or-down vote on a moratorium dealing with these mergers and acquisitions; We are not going to have an up-or-down vote on amendments that really do deal with these payday loans, with these exorbitant interest rates, making sure again that low-income people have access to banking services. I think there will not be enough votes for cloture. I do not think there should be enough votes for cloture. I want to say today on the floor of the Senate, especially to the majority leader--not so much to my colleague from Utah--if each and every time, as a Senator from an agricultural State, I am going to be shut out from having any vehicles whereby I can bring some amendments to the floor to change farm policy so these producers do not go under in my State, then I am going to have to look for whatever leverage I have as a Senator to force some cooperation on the other side so we can have a genuine, substantive debate about a lot of issues that are important to people's lives. Let's talk about raising the minimum wage. Let's talk about what is happening to family farmers. Let's talk about health care policy. Let's talk about consumer protection. This effort on the part of the majority leader--and I guess, therefore, the majority party--to shut us out from introducing substantive legislation that would make all the difference in the world to the people we represent is just simply unacceptable. I do not think this is any way for us to operate as a Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. (for himself and Mr. Dorgan) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill, S. 625, supra; as follows: At the end of the bill, add the following:

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I speak today in recognition of the 25th anniversary of Women's Advocates, Inc., our Nation's first battered women's shelter, located in St. Paul, MN. It is with gratitude and with pride that I recognize the unyielding dedication of the staff, the volunteers and the supporters of Women's Advocates. It was in 1974 that the doors of this shelter first opened to women and their children seeking respite from domestic violence. At a time when it took great courage and strength, women stood together to say that violence in our homes must end. Today, having provided advocacy, shelter and support services to over 25,000 women and children, and having spent countless hours teaching our school children and community members about the impact of domestic violence, Women's Advocates stands as a pillar of grace and triumph in the great state of Minnesota. So today we hail Executive Director, Lisbet Wolf, and the courageous women at Women's Advocates, who 25 years ago, gave women and children's safety a permanent place in our nation's history.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999 introduced today by Senator Kerry. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure which, if enacted, will make a real difference in the growth of small business, and the creation of quality jobs, in underdeveloped areas around the country. I think the critical issue in communities which experience enduring poverty is job creation through promotion of business opportunities and entrepreneurship. This has been my experience when I have traveled to places like rural Appalachia, inner city Minneapolis or Chicago or the Iron Range in Minnesota. I also believe that an area can be made as pro-business as possible though tax policies and zoning ordinances, but at some point businesses simply need capital so that they can grow and create good jobs. No business can grow without infusions of capital for equipment purchases, to conduct research, to expand capacity, or to build infrastructure. At some point all successful ventures outgrow incubation in the entrepreneur's garage or living room; additional staff must be hired and the complexity of managing supply and demand increases. Yet it is clear that throughout the country there are small business owners who are being starved of the capital necessary to take this step. They have viable businesses or ideas for businesses but cannot fully transform their aspirations into reality because of this financial roadblock. Businesses can secure capital through loans, but there is a limit to the amount of debt that a business can safely carry and lenders are wary of businesses with low equity. Equity investment also differs from lending in that the equity investor acquires an ownership stake in the business. The fortunes of the investor rise and fall with the success of the venture. This means making an equity investment is riskier than making a loan, and it also means that the investor has a greater vested interest in promoting healthy growth. Investment of equity capital into an enterprise has a multiplier effect in that it allows the business owner to access necessary credit. Traditional venture capital firms are not meeting the need for equity capital in disadvantaged communities. In addition, the Small Business Administration's Small Business Investment Companies program--with a few exceptions--has not reached into the most economically backward communities in the country. Such investments are risky in the best of circumstances, but they can and do succeed with adequate time and attention. These communities need patient investors who are willing to work closely with small business owners to realize a financial return over the long term. Often, the investments needed are smaller than those made by traditional sources. There is no question that the lack of access to equity capital in disadvantaged areas around the country is a prime reason why those communities have been left behind by the historic economic expansion that the rest of the nation has enjoyed. But there are success stories in many states which I believe that we can emulate and build on to allow distressed communities to reach their full potential. Throughout America, organizations known as Community Development Venture Capital funds are making these kinds of equity investments in communities and are producing excellent results. CDVC funds make equity investments in small businesses for two purposes: to reap a financial return to the fund, and to generate a social benefit for the community through creation of well paying jobs. This ``double bottom line'' is what makes CDVC funds unique. There are around 40 CDVC funds currently operating throughout the country, in both rural and urban areas. These funds are demonstrating the success of socially conscious investment and entrepreneurial solutions to social and economic problems. My own state of Minnesota is home to a good example of a seasoned, and successful CDVC fund: Northeast Ventures Corporation of Duluth. NEV serves a seven country rural area and focuses on creating good jobs in high value-added industries. NEV targets 50% of the jobs created through investments to women, and to low-income and structurally unemployed persons. In 1990 a group a entrepreneurs approached Northeast Ventures about setting up a car wash equipment manufacturing facility in Tower, a town of 508 people, in one of the poorest parts of northeastern Minnesota. While NEV thought that the market opportunity was attractive, the company, called Powerain, had an incomplete business plan and lacked a Chief Operating Officer. NEV also felt that the business provided a good opportunity to create jobs and bring some economic vitality to an area that needed it badly. Other assistance was needed before NEV could provide financing for the effort. Northeast worked closely with Powerain's founders to revise the business plan and identify a strong CEO candidate for the company. Northeast also invested $200,000 in equity into the business. NEV staff conducted the strategic planning sessions of Powerain and continue to be essential in developing the company's strategic plan. They assist in identifying the need for key personnel; recruit the necessary staff; and are integral in qualifying the short list of candidates. Over a multi-year period, NEV has talked daily with the Powerain CEO regarding subjects as diverse as sales, distributor relationships and the financial structure of loans. Over an eight year period, NEV has assisted Powerain in all subsequent rounds of financing totaling $826,932. Powerain had a record sales year in 1998 and is expecting another record year in 1999. The company currently employs 20 full-time people, and expects to increase that number significantly in the future. The company provides ongoing training to its staff and entry level positions begin at $8 an hour--with full benefits. Most employees earn well in excess of $10 per hour. The Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999 is designed to build on the successful CDVC model by promoting equity investment in economically distressed communities. The first title of this legislation would create the New Market Venture Capital Companies Program, a new program within SBA that will fund at least ten venture capital companies dedicated to new markets--low- and moderate-income communities. $15 million in annual appropriations would support a $100 million program level for SBA-guaranteed debentures, and $30 million in matching technical assistance grants. Title II of the bill basically consists of legislation I introduced last year, and again this year, entitled the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance Act. Last year, the Senate passed this legislation as part of a SBA technical amendments bill. This title is intended to build the capacity of the existing CDVC industry through technical assistance and SBA grants to colleges, universities, and other firms or organizations--public or private--to create and operate training programs, intern programs, a national conference, and academic research and study dealing with community development venture capital. Title III would build on the BusinessLINC grant program which is a public-private partnership that the SBA and Department of Treasury launched last June. It encourages larger businesses to mentor smaller businesses, promoting the viability of small businesses located in disadvantaged areas. I think this legislation speaks to the heart of reversing persistent poverty in America by promoting entrepreneurship, and encouraging responsible equity investment. The small business growth sparked by this legislation would in turn create jobs and wealth in those communities which have heretofore been overlooked. It is an absolutely essential addition to the SBA's current program offerings and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was just at a gathering of family farmers from the State of Minnesota. I want to give a report on what many of these farmers from Minnesota had to say. I know the Chair has met with farmers from his State and is well aware of the economic pain. This was a gathering of the Farmers Union farmers, although I think as they have traveled from Senate office to Senate office and House office to House office, they speak for many farmers in the country. Their focus is on what can only be described as an economic convulsion in agriculture. I know this is not only a crisis in the Midwest but it is also a crisis in the South and throughout the entire nation. On present course, we are going to lose a generation of producers. Whether we are talking about farmers in Minnesota or farmers in Arkansas, many very hard-working people are asking nothing more than a decent price for the commodities they produce. These farmers, who want a decent price so they can have a decent standard of living and so they can support their children, are going to go under. I will talk a little bit about policy, but, most importantly, I want to talk about families. I think it is important to bring this to the attention of the Senate. On the policy part, I would prefer, if at all possible, to avoid a confrontation about the Freedom to Farm bill. I thought it was ``freedom to fail'' when the bill passed in 1996. I thought it was a terrible piece of legislation; other Senators at that time thought differently. Part of the legislation gave producers more flexibility, which was good. However, the problem we are facing now is the flexibility doesn't do any good because, across the board prices are low and farmers can't cash-flow. I don't know whether the Chair has had this experience in Arkansas. He probably has. Many farmers will come up to me, and often these farmers will be in their 40's or 50's. They will say: Right now, I am just burning up my equity. I am digging into everything I have in order to keep going. I want to ask you a question: Should I continue to do that? Do I have a future, or should I just get out of farming? People don't want to get out of farming. They don't want to leave. This is where they farm. This is where they live. This is where they work. The farm has been in their family for four generations. We have to make a major modification in our farm policy. The modification has to deal with the problem of price. It is a price crisis in rural America. We have to get this emergency assistance package passed. Conferees must meet and report a bill to Congress so that we can get assistance out to farmers now. I think the emergency package must include a disaster relief piece. The Senate version includes no funding for weather related disasters. Although I am supportive of an emergency relief package, I still don't think the Senate-passed version targeted the assistance towards those people who need the most help. The point is, these producers want to know whether they have a future beyond 1 year. They can't cash-flow on these prices, whether it be for wheat, for corn, for cotton, for rice, for peanuts, or whether it be for livestock producers. They simply cannot cash-flow. They cannot make it. They can work 20 hours a day and be the best managers in the world, and they still won't make it. I do think we have to raise the loan rate to get the price up. We have to do that. We have to have some kind of a way that our producers have some leverage in the marketplace to get a better price. I think we also need to have a farmer-owned reserve. A farmer-owned reserve would enable our producers to hold on to their grain until they can get a better price from the grain companies. Whatever the proposal is, I say to all of my colleagues, for our producers--and I imagine it is the same in Arkansas--time is not neutral. It is not on their side. I don't think we can leave this fall without making a change. We have to pass the emergency assistance package, and we have to deal with the price crisis. I have heard discussion about how we are going to leave early. We cannot leave early. I also want to talk about the whole problem of concentration of power. This is an unbelievable situation. What we have is a situation where our producers, such as our livestock producers, when negotiating to sell, only have three or four processors. They have the Smithfields, the ConAgras, the IPBs, the Hormels and the Cargills. The point is, you have two, three or four firms that control over 40 percent, over 50 percent, sometimes 70-80 percent of the market. Pork producers are facing extinction, and the packers are in hog heaven. The mergers continue, and we have all of these acquisitions. We need to put free enterprise back into the food industry. I have had a chance to review the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and the work of Estes Kefauver and others. We have had two major public hearings, one in Minnesota and one in Iowa, with Joel Klein, who leads the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and Mike Dunn, head of the Packers and Stockyards Administration within the Department of Agriculture. Our producers are asking the question: Why, with these laws on the books, isn't there some protection for us? We have all sorts of examples of monopoly. We want to know where is the protection for producers. It is critical to pass some stronger antitrust legislation. I know Senator Leahy is doing a great job with his legislation. I am pleased to join with him. I know part of what the Leahy legislation is going to emphasize is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture can ask for a family farm rural community impact statement. It must address the impact these acquisitions and mergers will have on communities. We want to see that USDA has the authority to review these mergers and acquisitions. We want to see that when people break the law and are practicing collusive activities, there are going to be very stiff penalties. We want to set up a separate division within the Justice Department that deals with agriculture and conducts an investigation and an impact study. Again, we need to have some strong antitrust legislation on the books. This ought to be a bipartisan issue. I think this is one issue on which all the farm organizations agree. We must have some antitrust action. We must have some bargaining power for the producers. We must put free enterprise back into the food industry. Until we pass this legislation, I will have an amendment on the floor calling for a moratorium on any further acquisitions or mergers for agribusinesses with over $50 million in revenue. We need to take a look at what is going on. We need to pass some legislation now or we need to have a moratorium for one year until we pass legislation. I think there is going to be a considerable amount of support for this. The reason I think there is going to be a lot of support is that I think many of my colleagues have been back in their States, and for those of us who come from rural States, from agricultural States, you can't meet with people and not know we have to take some kind of action. I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues just what this crisis means in personal terms. I get nervous about the discussions we have about statistics. We talk about loan rates, we talk about target prices, deficiency payments and LPDs. I want to put this crisis in personal terms. Let me talk, first of all, about the wonderful wisdom of a Kansas farmer. I want to share a conversation I had with a Kansas farmer, who offered a great analogy that goes right to the heart of what is happening to our livestock producers, in particular, pork producers who are facing extinction while the packers are in hog heaven: Hogs can be mean, nasty and greedy animals. When a hog farmer raises hogs, he knows well enough to separate the big boars from the little hogs. No hog producer would put a boar in the same pen with small pigs. The boar would literally attack and kill the smaller pigs. Yet while no producer would make such an illogical decision, we as a nation have shamelessly allowed the big boars within our own market pen. That is exactly what is happening. The large corporate ``pigs'' have been attacking and killing the smaller producers. Now, let me just recite a little bit of historical context. These are words that were spoken on the floor. I read this piece and thought of the latest Smithfield effort to gobble up another company. These words were spoken on the floor of the Senate by Wyoming Senator John B. Kendrick in 1921, in support of the Packers and Stockyards Act: Nothing under the sun would do more to conduce to increase production in this country and ultimately to cheapen food products for the people of the Nation than a dependable market, one wherein the producer would understand beyond a shadow of doubt that he would not merely get what is called a fair market, but would get the market for his products based on the law of supply and demand. The average producer in this country is a pretty good sport. He is not afraid to take his chances, but he wants to know that he meets the other man on the dead level and does not have to go against stacked cards. That is exactly what is at issue. Everywhere the family farmers look, whether it be on the input side, or to whom they sell, you have monopolies. We have to, as Senators, be willing to be on the side of family farmers and take on these monopolies. Who do we represent? Are we Senators from Smithfield, ConAgra or Cargill, which is a huge company in my State. Or, are we Senators who represent family farmers in rural communities? I had a meeting with about 35 small bankers, independent bankers, community bankers, from rural Minnesota. It was unbelievable; all of them were saying they have not seen anything such as this crisis in their lifetimes. They said if we continue the way we are going right now, we are going to lose these farms. Our hospitals are going to shut down, our businesses are in trouble, our dealers and banks are in trouble. We are not going to be able to support our schools. This is about the survival of many of our communities, and these bankers they are right. I would, in 1999, like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator John B. Kendrick in 1921. He goes on to say: It has been brought to such a high degree of concentration that it is dominated by a few men. The big packers, so- called, stand between hundreds of thousands of producers on the one hand, and millions of consumers on the other. They have their fingers on the pulse of both the producing and consuming markets, and are in such a position of strategic advantage; they have unrestrained powers to manipulate both markets to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of over 99 percent of the people of our country. Such power is too great, Mr. President, to repose it to the hands of any man. I have been doing a lot of traveling during August meeting with farmers. I have been, certainly, to every single rural community in Minnesota and to gatherings in South Dakota, Iowa, North Dakota, Missouri, and Texas. Each and every time, I will tell you, it is incredible when you speak to farmers. You have 700 or 800 pork producers at a rally, for example, and they know from personal experience who the enemy is. They can't believe that IBP is making record profits while they are going under. How can it be these packers make all this money and the prices for our products don't go down in the grocery stores? Meanwhile, our family farmers, our producers, are facing extinction? What is going on? When we passed the Sherman Act in late the 1800s, we did it, to protect consumers; but, we also said we as a nation value competition. We thought the food industry was important. We thought we ought to have a lot of producers. We thought we ought to have a wide distribution of land ownership. We thought it was important to have rural communities. Somebody is going to farm land in America. When our family farmers in the Midwest or the South are driven off the land, the mentality seems to be not to worry about it. The argument is made that somebody will farm the land. Somebody will own the animals. But the problem is that it will be these big conglomerates owning the land and the animals. The health and vitality of rural America is not based upon the number of acres of land somebody owns or the number of animals; it is based upon the number of family farmers who live in the community, buy in the community, care about the community. As far as our national interest is concerned, this is a food scarcity issue. When these big conglomerates finish muscling their way to the dinner table and driving these family farmers out, what will be the price we pay for the food? Will it be safe? Will it be nutritious? Will there be land stewardship? Will you have producers that care about the environment? I think the answer is no. This is a transition that America will deeply regret. We in the Senate must take action. We must take action to deal with this crisis, and it is a crisis. It is a price crisis. We have to get the loan rate up to get the price up. We have to have a moratorium on all of these acquisitions and mergers. Eunice Biel from Harmony, MN, a dairy farmer, said: We currently milk 100 cows and just built a new milking parlor. We will be milking 120 cows next year. Our 22-year- old son would like to farm with us. But for us to do so he must buy out my husband's mother (his grandmother) because my husband and I who are 46-years-old, still are unable to take over the family farm. Our son must acquire a beginning farmer loan. But should he shoulder that debt if there is no stable milk price? We continuously are told by bankers, veterinarians and ag suppliers that we need to get bigger or we will not survive. At 120 cows, we can manage our herd and farm effectively and efficiently. We should not be forced to expand in order to survive. Lynn Jostock, a Waseca, MN, dairy farmer, said: I have four children. My 11-year-old son Al helps my husband and I by doing chores. But it often is too much to expect of someone so young. For instance, one day our son came home from school. His father asked Al for some help driving the tractor to another farm about 3 miles away. Al was going to come home right afterward. But he wound up helping his father cut hay. Then he helped rake hay. Then he helped bale hay. My son did not return home until 9:30 p.m. He had not yet eaten supper. He had not yet done his schoolwork. We don't have other help. The price we get at the farm gate isn't enough to allow us to hire any farmhands or to help our community by providing more jobs. And it isn't fair to ask your 11-year-old son to work so hard to keep the family going. When will he burn out? How will he ever want to farm? Above and beyond that, I will just tell you that there is a lot of strain in the families. Families are under tremendous economic pressure, and they are under tremendous personal pressure. As long as I am talking about families, I want to tell you that in my State of Minnesota there are farmers who talk about taking their lives. There are a number of people who are involved in the social services who are doing an awful lot of visits now to farms. And an awful lot of farmers are right on the edge. Do you want to know something? Their suffering is needless and unnecessary. This is not the result of Adam Smith's ``invisible hand.'' This is not some inexorable economic law. It is not the law of physics. It is not gravity that dictates that family farmers must fall. We have it within our power to change farm policy and to give these producers a chance. We should not leave. We should not go home until we write some new agricultural policy, a new farm policy that will really make a difference for people. I am open to all suggestions. I am not arrogant about this. But I will tell you one thing I am insistent upon. I am going to be out on the floor talking about this issue. I am insistent that we take some action. We can't just turn our gaze away from this and act as if it is not happening. Jan Lundebrek from Benson, a Minnesota bank loan officer: As a loan officer at a small town bank, I received a check for $19 for the sale of a 240-pound hog. I immediately went across the street to the grocery store and looked at the price of ham. The store was selling hams for $49. I wrote down that price and showed it to the producer. Then we decided to ask the grocer about the difference. Where does it go? Somebody is getting it, but it isn't the farmer. We have policies to keep our country safe. We have a defense policy, we have an education policy, but we don't have a policy to protect our strength. We don't have a food policy that protects our farm communities and consumers who spend $49 for a 10-pound ham that the farmer can't even buy through the sale of a 240-pound hog. Now we have Smithfield that says it wants to buy Murphy. A merger of yet two more of these large packers is just outrageous. I want a moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions. I don't want these big livestock packers to be pushing around family farmers and driving them off the land. Jan Lundebrek, this is a brilliant example. I want to speak for you, Jan, on the floor of the Senate--A Benson, MN, bank loan officer: As a loan officer at a small town bank, I received a check for $19 for the sale of a 240-pound hog. I immediately went across the street to the grocery store and looked at the price of hams. The store was selling hams for $49. I wrote down that price and showed it to the producer. Then we decided to ask the grocer about the difference. Where does it go? Somebody is getting it, but it isn't the farmer. Let me again point this out. You spend $49 for a 10-pound ham, and this farmer is getting $19 for a 240-pound hog. I mentioned the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. I feel as if I am speaking on the floor of the Senate in the late 1800s. Where is the call for antitrust action? Teddy Roosevelt, where are you when we need you? We have to get serious about this. Richard Berg, Clements farmer: My dad died when I was 9-years-old. Two years later, when I turned 11, I began to farm full time with my older brother. He and I still farm together. This year I will bring in my 48th crop. The farm we own has been in the Berg family for more than 112 years. When we began farming we would get up at 4 a.m. to do chores. Then we would go to school. During the evening, after we returned from school, we went back to work farming. My brother and I each own 360 acres. I never had a line of credit until the past five years. We always made enough to save some and buy machinery when we needed it. Now I have a line of credit against the land that I own that I am always using. I invested in a hog co-op a few years ago and a corn processing facility. I have a lot of equity tied up there. Neither venture is making money. They're losing money. There's no one after me who is going to farm. Les Kyllo, Goodhue dairy farmer: My grandfather milked 15 cows. My dad milked 26. I have milked as many as 100 cows, and I'm going broke. They made a living out here and I didn't. Since my son went away to college, my farmhands are my 73-year-old father and my 77- year-old father-in-law who has an artificial hip. I have a barn that needs repairs and updates that I can't afford. I have two children that don't want to farm. At one point, in a 30-mile radius, there were 15 Kyllos farming. Now there are three. And now I'm selling my cows. My family has farmed since my ancestors emigrated to the United States. When I leave farming, my community will lose the $15,000 I spend locally each year for cattle feed; the $3,000 I spend at the veterinarian; the $3,600 I spend for electricity; or the money I spend for fuel, cattle insemination and other farm needs. By the way, I would like to thank these farmers. I don't know whether other Senators realize this. I am sure they do. I am sure that people listening to our discussion on the floor realize this. But you know, when people tell you the story of their lives and allow you to talk about them and their strains, they do not do that except if they hope that if enough of us realize what is really going on, we will make the change. That is what they are hoping for. That is what they are hoping for, and that is what we should do. Alphonse Mathiowetz, Comfrey farmer: ``We were there 43 years and it took 43 seconds to take it all away.'' Alphonse and LaDonna, his spouse, farmed the same land in Comfrey for 43 years. In the spring of 1998 a tornado tore through their community taking with it the work of their lifetime, their farm machinery, their buildings, their trees, their corn bins and their retirement. The Mathiowetz family lost more than $200,000 of equity to the tornado, none of which will be recovered. Alphonse and LaDonna chose to rebuild their home on the farmstead. Not because they wanted to, but because if they did otherwise the reimbursement they received from their insurance company would have been highly taxed. It was the only financial decision available to the couple. ``I guess it's a blessing to retire, but not this way, watching the farm go away in bulk on an iron truck.'' Steve Cattnach, Luverne small businessperson (insurance agent): Two local farmers who raise hogs came in both in the same week to withdraw money from their Individual Retirement Accounts. During the course of 10 days the time it takes for the money to arrive both were in twice asking about when their checks would arrive. A local farmer who has 2 1,200-hog finishing facilities wanted to help his cash-flow by reducing the insurance coverage on his hog buildings from $180,000 each to $165,000 each. The terms of the policy allowed the coverage to be reduced, but the farmer's lender wouldn't allow the coverage to be reduced because the farmer, after 3 years of finishing hogs in those buildings, still owed $180,000 on each building. During those 3 years, he had only paid interest on the money he had borrowed. Laura Resler, Owatonna farmer: I have farmed with my husband for 20 years. When we started, we raised two breeds of purebred hogs and sold their offspring as breeding stock. Each animal sold for $300 to $500 per animal. But the increase in size of hog operations made our small breeding stock operation a money-losing venture. Also milked cows to produce manufacturing grade (Grade B) milk. But $10 per hundredweight is not enough to pay the bills, so we had to give up the cows. From the time my husband, Todd, was 18 until now, when he's 41, he's worked for absolutely nothing. Now he works at a job in town so we have funds on which to retire. Our hope is to give our son the farm that's been in the family for generations and let our daughter have the house. But you can't cash-flow a 4-H livestock project. How can he cash-flow the farm? Many of these youngsters growing up on these farms are not going to be able to farm because these farmers are going to be gone. I have heard people say: Senator Wellstone, you come out here and talk about this. What is to be done? Raise the loan rate; get the price up. If Members don't want to do that, come out here and talk about other ways we can change policy in order to make it work. Is there any Senator who wants to come to the floor of the Senate, given the economic pain, the economic convulsion, the broken dreams, the broken lives and broken families in rural America, who wants to say stay the course? Is there any Senator who wants to do that? I don't know of any Senator who thinks we should stay the course. If that is the case, let's have an opportunity for those who have some ideas about how to change this policy so people can get a decent price and there can be some real competition. We want an opportunity to be out here, to introduce those amendments, to introduce those bills, to have votes, and to try to change this. That is what I am talking about. Darrel Mosel has been farming for 18 years. When he started farming in Sibley County, which is one of Minnesota's largest agricultural counties, there were four implement dealers in Gaylord, the county seat. Today there is none. There is not even an implement dealer in Sibley County. The same thing has happened to feedstores and grain elevators. Since the farm policies of the 1980s and the resulting reduction in prices, farmers don't buy any new equipment; they either use baling wire to hold things together or they quit. The farmhouses have people in them, but they don't farm. There is something wrong with that. Again, when he started farming in Sibley County there were four implement dealers in Gaylord, the county seat. Today there is not one-- not one. This isn't just the family farmers going under, it is the implement dealers, the businesses, our communities. This is all about whether or not rural America will survive. Ernie Anderson, a Benson farmer: Crop insurance has and is ruining the farmer. Because yields of disaster years are figured when calculating the premiums costs, a farmer's yield on which he can buy insurance decreases. As it decreases, it becomes apparent that paying a crop insurance premium doesn't make financial sense because when there is a loss, the claim amount of damaged crops isn't enough to pay the price to put crops in the ground. Crop insurance is supposed to help me. It's not supposed to put me out of business. Randy Olson, strong, articulate Randy Olson, a college student, beginning farmer, comes home from college each weekend to help on the farm. In March he came home from school and his parents looked like they aged 5 years. The price of milk had dropped from $16.10 in February to $12.10 in March. No business can afford a drop in price like that over a short period of time. You love your parents, you see them hurt, and it makes you mad. And prices are going up right now, but it is a heck of a dairy policy if, due to the drought in some areas of the country, Minnesota dairy farmers can do better. That is not a dairy policy. Gary Wilson, an Odin farmer, received the church newsletter in the mail. What is normally addressed to the entire congregation had been addressed only to farmers. The newsletter said farmers should quit farming if it is not profitable. If larger, corporate-style farms were the way to turn a profit, the independent farmer should let go and find something else to do. What he doesn't understand is that farmers are his congregation. If we go he won't have a church. Not only that, Gary, but, again, I will just repeat it. The health and the vitality of our rural communities are not based upon how many acres of land someone owns or how many animals someone owns; it is how many family farmers live and buy in the community. The health and the vitality and the national interests of our Nation are not having a few conglomerate exercising their power over producers, consumers and taxpayers. Testimony from Northwest Minnesota--this is more painful. John Doe 1 from East Ottertail, MN. Despite the ongoing difficulties, it is amazing, the steadfast willingness of this family to try to hold things together. The farm is farmed by two families, a father and his son. Since dairy prices fell in the second quarter of 1999, there was not enough income for this family to make the loan payments and to provide for family living and cover farm operating expenses. The farm credit services would not release the loan for farm operating assistance, so the family had to borrow money from the lender from which they are already leasing their cows. They have not been able to feed the cows properly because of the lack of funds. Because they cannot adequately feed their dairy herd, their milk production has fallen and is considerably lower than the herd's average production. In addition, because there was no money for family living expenses, the parents had to cash out what little retirement savings they had so the two families had something to live on day to day. The son and wife had to let their trailer house go since they could not make the payments, and they moved into a home owned by a relative for the winter. Most of their machinery is being liquidated. However, there are a few pieces of machinery that go toward paying off their existing debt. The family will sell off 120 acres of land in their struggle to reduce their debt. Recently, the father has been having serious back troubles and has been unable to help his son with the work. This is tremendous stress, both physically and mentally, on the son. The son has decided he is going to have to sell part of the herd in order to reduce the herd to a number that is more manageable for one person. In addition, the money acquired from selling off part of the herd will be applied toward their debt. The son hopes these three items combined--selling machinery, land, and parts of the herd--can pay off enough of their debt that he might be able to do some restructuring on the reminder of the farm and to reduce loan repayments to a manageable amount where there is something left to live on after the payments are made. That is what they hope for. By the way, as long as we are talking about bad luck, in a very bitter, ironic way, at least for me, my travel in farm country in Minnesota and many other States in the country has made me acutely aware of the fact that we are going to have to talk again. Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska was eloquent when he mentioned we will have to talk about health care that goes with health care coverage that comes with being a citizen in this country. Do you know what is happening with our farmers? A lot of the farmers, because of this failed policy, because of these record low prices, because of record low income, because, financially, they have their backs to the wall, what do they give up on? They give up on health insurance coverage. So they do not even have any health insurance. Of course, for many of these producers, being able to afford this health insurance coverage in the first place is very difficult. They don't get the same deal that you get if you are working for a big employer. Now many of them say: We cannot afford it. So they have given up on their health insurance coverage, hoping they and their loved ones will not be ill. But you know what? The more stress there is, whether it is more mental stress or more physical stress, the more likely people will be struggling with illness. John Doe 2, from Goodridge, MN--I say John Doe 2 because these are farmers who do not want their names used, and I respect that. This family has gone through a divorce. The father and three children are operating the farm. The farmer has taken an off-farm job to make payments to the bank and has his a 12-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter operating the farming operation unassisted while he is away at work. The neighbors have threatened to turn him in to Human Services for child abandonment, so he had to have his 18-year-old daughter quit work and stay home to watch the younger children. The 12-year-old boy is working heavy farm equipment, mostly alone. He is driving these big machines and can hardly reach the clutch on the tractor. It is this or lose the farm. This story really gets to me because this is really complicated. One more time. The family has gone through a divorce and the father and three children are operating the farm. As long as I am going to take some time to talk about what is happening to family farmers, this is unfortunately not uncommon. The strain on families is unbelievable. So the father, since he is alone, a single parent, was forced to take an off-farm job to make payments to the bank. His 12-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter are operating the farming operation unassisted while he is at work. I think a lot of us would say: Wait a minute. You cannot do this. The neighbors, thinking the same thing, have threatened to turn him in to Human Services because they say this is not right. He has an 18-year-old daughter. He says to her: You have to quit work and stay home to watch the two younger children. The 12-year-old boy is working heavy farm equipment, mostly alone. He is driving these big machines and he can hardly reach the clutch on the tractor. But it is this or lose the farm. That is what is happening out there. This is a convulsion. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, who is on the floor, I have been saying the reason the farmers in Minnesota have given me their stories and the reason I want to take the time to focus on this is we want an opportunity to change this policy. We want an opportunity to be out here with amendments and with legislation that will lead to some improvement. Mr. President, John Doe 3.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will not yield the floor but I will be pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me give my colleague from North Dakota kind of a two-part answer to that question; first of all, farmers and citizens in the community are speaking out, because this is all about rural America. It is a strong and clear voice saying: You have to change the policy. This is not working. We are going under. We cannot get a decent price for what we produce. We cannot cash-flow. So I can very honestly, truthfully say not at one farm gathering anywhere in Minnesota, and I was at a lot of them that not just the farmers showed up at these gatherings. It was farmers bankers, business people, implement dealers, and clergy. It was the community. I promise you, that in the parts of the State I visited approximately fifty percent of the crowd was Republican. But not one of them was defending this farm policy, this Freedom to Farm or ``freedom to fail.'' The second thing I said on the floor of the Senate, and my colleague might want to ask me a follow-up question, I do not see how anybody in the Senate or House of Representatives who has been out there with people can say stay the course. You cannot. We have to change the course. There is just no question about it. I do not care if we call it a modification. You know what I mean. We can go over it. People can talk about a modification; they can talk about a correction. I used to hear people on the floor of the Senate say ``stay the course.'' I do not hear them saying ``stay the course'' anymore. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, the reason I am out here for a while is because I want to make it clear that we want an opportunity to be on this floor with legislation that will make a difference, that will raise the loan rate, get the price up, deal with the problems of all the acquisitions and mergers, and try to put free enterprise back into the food industry. We want to make a difference in order to get this emergency financial assistance package passed. We want to be out here, and we want that opportunity. The second thing I was saying is that in no way, shape, or form should we adjourn without addressing this crisis. I cannot believe when I read in the papers there is this discussion about leaving. I cannot believe there are people who are saying let's get out of here as soon as possible. No, we have work to do. We should not leave until we take the responsibility as legislators, as Senators who represent our States, to write a new farm bill or make the corrections or modifications that will deal with the price; that will give people a chance to farm and stay on their land. My colleague is absolutely right with his question. He is right on the mark.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his question. I appreciate it. First of all, let me go back to a comment I made earlier, as long as the Senator from North Dakota brings up the example of Europe. I am going to continue to give other examples and talk about what is happening to other farmers in my State of Minnesota in a moment. I intend to stay out on the floor of the Senate and talk about farm prices for a while. I have a ruptured disk in my back, and as long as I can stand, which maybe not be that much longer but a while, I will continue to speak. What is happening is this pain is not Adam Smith's invisible hand. It is not the law of physics. It is not gravity that farmers must fall down. The only inevitability to what is happening to our producers is the inevitability of a stacked deck, a stacked deck which basically ripped away in the ``freedom to fail'' bill any kind of safety net, a stacked deck that does not give our farmers any kind of leverage in the marketplace. Whatever happened to farmer-owned reserves? Whatever happened to raising the loan rate to give people better targeting power, a better target price vis-a-vis the grain companies? And what in the world are we doing about three and four packers who dominate 60 to 70 percent of the market vis-a-vis our livestock producers? So I say to my colleague from North Dakota, yes, the Europeans have decided, given their experience in two wars, food is precious. They do not want people going hungry. They value family farmers, and they think it is in their national interest to support family farmers, and therefore the Europeans have a policy that protects that. I completely agree with my colleague who says we ought to also care as much about family farmers as the Europeans do. When some of my colleagues say, let's rely on the market, farmers kind of smile and say: Free enterprise? Where is it? We want free enterprise. We want competition. But please explain to your colleagues in the Senate that a few packers dominate the market. They are making record profits while we're facing extinction. One example that I think says it all is an example I read earlier, which I cannot find right now. I will have to come back to it. It is about the economics of this. I will talk about John Doe 3 from Euclid, MN, a farmer waiting for a foreclosure of his real estate. But first, I ask my staff to find the example of a grocery store and what farmers are being paid for hogs. Here is the example: Again, Jan Lundebrek of Benson, MN, a loan officer at a small town bank, received a check for $19 from the sale of a 240-pound hog: ``I immediately went across the street to the grocery store and looked at the price of hams. The store was selling hams for $49. I wrote down that price and showed it to the producer. Then we decided to go ask the grocer about the difference.'' She is the loan officer. ``Where does it go? Somebody's getting it, but it isn't the farmer,'' says this Minnesota bank loan officer, Jan Lundebrek of Benson. ``We have policies to keep our country safe. We have a defense policy. We have an education policy. But we don't have a policy to protect our strength. We don't have a food policy to protect our farms, communities, and consumers who spend $49 for a 10-pound ham that the farmers can't even buy through the sale of a 240-pound hog.'' So $49 for a 10-pound ham, and this farmer gets $19 for a 240-pound hog. I am going to go back to the stories of farmers in my State, but as long as I am taking some time on the floor of the Senate seeing Senator Dorgan out here triggered another thought. He was saying the other night, at a Farmers Union gathering, that his parents were Farmers Union members, and he went to many blessed Farmers Union picnics and gatherings. And then he went on to say: My parents would never have believed that. Senator Dorgan, his roots are rural America. He said: My parents would have never believed I would have had a chance to be a Senator. They certainly would not believe that I would be getting an award from the Farmers Union. The only thing I could think of saying at this gathering to the pork producers that were there was: I'm more committed to you than any other Senator, which catches people's attention. I heard Senator Dorgan talk about his background and I thought of my own. The reason why I bring up this story is every time I am at a gathering of pork producers, I am thinking of my mother, Minnie Wellstone, who is up there in Heaven, smiling, I am sure, and saying: Paul, good Jewish boy that you are, what are you doing speaking at all these gatherings of pork producers and organizing with these farmers? So I said at this gathering to Senator Dorgan: If you think your parents would be surprised, believe me, my mother and father would be very surprised. My mother, Minnie Wellstone, was a cafeteria worker. This was her life. Her philosophy was that people should get a decent wage for their work. In many ways, this is what we are talking about. We are saying, if we believe as a country that a person who works hard, 40-hours a week, almost 52 weeks a year, ought to make a living wage and be able to support his or her family, then shouldn't the men and women who provide the food and fiber for our nation make at least a living wage? I think the vast majority of the people agree they should. The vast majority of people believe they should get a decent price. But that is not what is happening right now. This is a crisis. This is a crisis in rural America: Broken dreams and broken lives and broken families, all of it unnecessary. Here is an example: This farmer, John Doe 3, is waiting for a foreclosure on his real estate in northwest Minnesota. He is waiting to see whether FSA can help him. By the way, the Farm Services Administration in Minnesota is doing an excellent job. I say to Tracy Beckman, the director, thank you for your work. But you know what? The Farm Service Administration in Minnesota, and this may very well be the same in the State of Washington and the State of Montana, the FSA local offices are severely understaffed. They cannot even begin to deal with the number of people who are knocking at their door for emergency loans. They are under incredible tension, incredible stress. As a Senator from Minnesota, I would like to thank all of the FSA people for all of their work. It is incredible. We are getting pretty close in Minnesota to asking for an emergency declaration by the President. We are not asking for the declaration because of a tornado, not because of a flood, not because of a hurricane, but because of record low prices that are driving people out. We are arguing that this is a food scarcity crisis for our country. A case worker in northwest Minnesota is working to strike a deal with FSA to take a mortgage on a 16-acre building site, which is all these folks have left. By doing this, she was hoping to encumber the land so the IRS couldn't force these folks to take out a loan against their home. Since the family did not complete FSA forms in a timely manner, they no longer qualify for any kind of servicing action with FSA except for a straight cash settlement. According to the case worker, since the family filed bankruptcy 2 years ago, no bank will touch them. So they couldn't borrow against their home if they decided on this option. As things stand now, foreclosure on the land is proceeding; and debt settlement proceedings are continuing with the IRS, and at a very slow and difficult pace. It appears this family's only hope is at the mercy of the IRS and to let the IRS do whatever they want to them for another 4 years. Their wages are already being garnished while judgment on the home site is pending, until they can file bankruptcy again to get rid of the huge IRS tax debt. In the meantime, they work for $8 an hour, out of which they lose 25 percent on the IRS garnishment. They live in their home that the IRS values at $30,000, and this includes the 16-acre building site. They drive vehicles that are in such poor condition it is a daily question of whether they will even make it out of the driveway. This is what is happening to people. This year Minnesota ranks the highest in the Nation in understaffed FSA employees. Around 6,000 and I have seen more; this is the most conservative estimate, farms are predicted to go out of existence this year. About 10 percent of farmers are predicted to go out in Minnesota this year, and the number of farmers going out in northwest Minnesota will be much higher. People are going to go under if we continue this failed policy. I don't even see any opportunities. I see a game plan to bring to the floor legislation on which we can't offer amendments. That would basically block us from being able to come to the floor and say: We have some ideas about how we could change farm policy so people could get a decent price, so they and their families can earn a decent living. The reason I am on the floor today and I know this is inconvenient to other Senators, is because it is my job to fight for people in my State. All of us do that. I am saying I want some assurance that we will have the opportunity to come out with amendments on legislation to change farm policy. All of us. That is point 1. The second point is, I certainly want to sound the alarm. I want to say to farmers and rural citizens in our States that are agriculture States: Put the pressure on. Don't let the Senate adjourn without taking action. Don't let people say: We will do these appropriations bills; and we are out of here. That is not acceptable given what is happening to people. That would be the height of irresponsibility. John Doe 4 from Thief River Falls, MN, this is another story of a father and his son. The bank forced the liquidation last year and there was not enough collateral to cover old loans. The father had never mortgaged the home quarter, thinking that if nothing else, they would always have a place to live. As it turns out, the liquidation has caused a major tax liability which they cannot pay. The father is ill and in his 70s, surviving on Social Security payments. The son is working at an $8-an-hour job that leaves little left to pay bills. Currently, the IRS and the bank are fighting it out to see who gets to put a lien on the father's home quarter and his home. This man was once a respected leader in his community. After all that has happened now, there isn't much left but bitterness in his heart and a future of poverty and destitution. I can see the reaction of some people saying: Well, isn't this so sad. Don't be so callous. Let's not be so generous with other people's suffering. I do not believe we should ignore these families, these stories, these lives, this crisis. One more time, I think the end is really rather important. Currently, the IRS and the bank are fighting it out to see who gets to put a lien on the father's home quarter and his home. This man was once a respected leader in the community. After all that has happened now, there isn't much left but bitterness in his heart and a future of poverty and destitution. John Doe 5. For anyone who might be watching right now, as opposed to before, the ``John Doe'' is because I am not using the names of families. These are people who have given me stories of their lives, what is happening to them, because they hope that if we can talk about this in the Senate and make it clear that we will fight for people, that it will make a difference. It is hard for people to have somebody talking about them in public. Here is another story of two families trying to hold on to the farm, still clinging to hope as their farm crumbles. They applied for an FSA loan guarantee, and FSA managed to process the loan for the bank. They are now proceeding with restructuring. However, some of the family members have become very nervous about the large debt that needs to be refinanced and things have begun to fall apart. As it stands now, the two families have decided to abandon the FSA loan and have laid out a partial liquidation plan with the bank. The bank wants the families to sign a plan, agreeing to a formal and inflexible liquidation schedule. The family was hoping to work things out more informally to accommodate tax consequences and adjust for seasonal livestock prices, as their assets are sold. At this point, the families are not sure the bank will agree and are waiting, hoping, and praying that they will make it through. Again, the problem with this particular situation, as in all these stories, is these are people who can't cash-flow. They are just trying to hold on. That is what this is all about. Farmer suicides are one of the deepest tragedies of our Nation's farm crisis. For many men and women, the grueling daily battle against circumstances beyond their control rips away at their spirits. They are haunted that they may be the ones who lose possession of the lands that their great, great grandparents homesteaded and that their grandparents held on to during the darkest days of the Great Depression. That is what people feel. This tragedy is made all the more haunting and real in this letter left by a young farmer, the father of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old. He committed suicide July 26. After 6 years of hard work and heroic efforts, he knew that bankruptcy was inevitable. He listened to the failing crop prices on the radio report one last time, and he killed himself. His widow made parts of the suicide letter public in an attempt to show the desperation that is gripping farmers throughout rural America. In releasing the letter, she explained that the farm had been in the family for over 100 years. It was the land where her husband was born, worked, dreamed, and died. From the letter: Farming has brought me a lot of memories, some happy but most of all grief. The grief has finally won out, the low prices, bills piling up, just everything. The kids deserve better and so do you. All I ever wanted was to farm since I was a little kid and especially this place. I know now that it's never going to happen. I don't blame anybody but myself for sticking around farming for as long as I have. That's why you have to get away with the kids from this and me. I'm just a failure at everything it seems like. They finally won. I think it is worth reading again. There are some people in northwest Minnesota, Willard Brunelle and others, who are involved in what basically they call Suicide Watch. I think in the last month, Willard said they have paid something like 30 or 40 visits over a month or the last 2 months, if one can imagine. So the letter that the husband leaves to the wife: Farming has brought me a lot of memories, some happy but most of all grief. The grief has finally won out, the low prices, bills piling up, just everything. The kids deserve better and so do you. All I ever wanted was to farm since I was a little kid and especially this place. I know now that it's never going to happen. I don't blame anybody but myself for sticking around farming as long as I have. That's why you have to get away with the kids from this and me. I'm just a failure at everything it seems like. They finally won. By way of apology to my colleagues for, in a way, bringing the Senate to a standstill for a little while, one of the reasons I do so, in addition to the reasons I have mentioned, is that when I was a college teacher in Northfield, MN, I became involved with a lot of the farmers, I guess in the early 1970s, but in the mid-1980s, I did a lot of work with farmers, a lot of organizing with farmers. (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. There are several friends of mine who took their lives. There were a number of suicides. We had all of these foreclosures, and I used to sit in with farmers and block those foreclosures. It was always done with nonviolence and dignity. I am emotional about what is now going on. I probably need to go back and forth between serious and not so serious, since I am taking some time to talk. I remember that in the mid-1980s, in the State of Minnesota, many people were losing their farms. This is where they not only lived but where they worked. These farmers didn't have much hope and didn't have any empowering explanation as to what was happening to them or how they could fight this. It became fertile ground for the politics of hatred. The Chair and I don't agree on issues, but I respect the Chair. I don't think we engage in this type of politics. But that was really vicious politics of hatred, of scapegoating. When I say ``scapegoating,'' it was anti-Semitic, and all the rest. I am Jewish. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution in Russia. My good friends told me one story about Minnesota and that I should stop organizing because these groups were kind of precursors to an armed militia. When you are five-five-and-a-half, you don't listen to that. I went out and spoke at a gathering in a town we call Alexandria, MN. The Chair knows our State. I finished speaking at this farm gathering, and this big guy came up to me and he said, ``What nationality are you?'' I said, ``American.'' I thought, what is going on here? I hadn't mentioned being Jewish in this talk. He said, ``Where are your parents from?'' No, he said, ``Where were you born?'' I said, ``Washington, DC.'' He said, ``Where are your parents from?'' I said, ``My father was born in the Ukraine and fled persecution. My mother's family was from the Ukraine, but she was born and raised on the Lower East Side of New York City.'' He said, ``Then you are a Jew.'' I tensed up. I mean, I was ready for whatever was going to come next. I said, ``Yes, I am.'' He stuck out this big hand and he said, ``Buddy, I am a Finn, and we minorities have to struggle together.'' That is one of the many reasons I have come to love Minnesota. I think what is happening right now in our farm communities and in our rural communities is far more serious than in the mid-1980s. This is an economic convulsion. We are acting in the Senate and House as if it is business as usual. Greenbush, MN, Jane Doe 6. Here is another problem case where there is not enough collateral to cover all creditors. In a usual situation, FSA has a first mortgage and the bank is in a second position. A good portion of the land is going into CRP, but FSA, or the bank, will not lend the family money to get it established. Even with the CRP payments, there will not be enough money to pay off all the debt by the end of contract. The family is looking to liquidate the farm now and take their licking up front. If they do this, the bank will lose more money than if the family decided to keep the land and CRP. The bank is threatening to try to get the family's truck, their only source of income and equity. These folks are in their sixties and would like to get the matter behind them. They still hope to build up some retirement where they still have their health and they can work. They are not building up any retirement. The toughest question for me to answer is when farmers say: I am burning up all my equity. I am literally burning up my equity to try to keep going. I have a question for you, Senator Wellstone, or it could be for any of us. A farmer states, ``I am willing to do this. I have nothing in my savings, no retirement. I have nothing. Do I have any future? Am I going to get a decent price? Because if I don't have any future, I should get out now. But I want to have a future; I want to farm. The farm has been in my family for generations. I want my children to have a chance to farm.'' Well, you know, I want to be able to answer yes. But I think the Senate and the House of Representatives, are going to have to take some action. As it currently looks, we will have a financial assistance package that doesn't do the job. It has to be better. We certainly have to have disaster relief in it, and I will insist on the floor of the Senate again. As I look to some of these AMTA payments, too much of it is going to go to people who don't need it that much. Not enough will go to people who do need the assistance. But we have to get this out to people. That only enables people to live in order to farm another day. But it doesn't tell people where they are the following year, and years to follow. The farmers in Minnesota, in the heartland, the farmers in the South, the farmers in our country are not interested in, year after year after year, hanging on the question of whether there is going to be some emergency assistance for them. They are interested in getting some more power as producers so they can have some leverage in the marketplace; so they can have a decent price; so they can earn a decent living; so they can give their children the care they need and deserve. That is not too much to ask for. When I talk about raising the loan rate for a decent price, we must also tie a safety net piece with antitrust legislation. We need both policies. One of the amendments I will bring to the floor is that we should have a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers. We must call for a moratorium right now on these big companies until we take a serious look at real antitrust action. Now, it is true that the Cargills, the ConAgras, the IBPs, the ADMs and all the rest are the big players, the heavy hitters. They are the investors. They make big contributions. A lot of these family farmers who I am talking about in Minnesota, and in the other States I visited, are certainly in no position to make big contributions. So to whom does the Senate belong? Does it belong to these big packers? Are we the Senate for ADM, or for ConAgra, or for Cargill? Or are we a Senate that still belongs to family farmers and rural people? In this particular case and I am sorry to have to formulate it this way, but do you know what? It is an accurate formulation. Some people who benefit might like low prices for family farmers. But those are not family farmers. We have to take some action. This is Jane Doe 7, from Thief River Falls, MN. Northwest Minnesota has been hit by too much rain. Farmers were not even able to put in much of their crop. We have had crop disease and record low prices. We can't do anything about the weather, but we can do something about record low prices, can we not, colleagues? Does anybody think we should stay the course any longer? How many farmers have to go under? How many small businesses in our rural communities have to go under? How much more pain does there have to be? What are we waiting for? My State of northwest Minnesota is really hard hit. I have been to so many gatherings. I started out the August break in northwest Minnesota with Congressman Collin Peterson. Congressman Peterson is from the Seventh Congressional District. During that time touring farms in northwest Minnesota, in spite of all that farmers are going through, gave me hope, and gave me fight. This is the way in which the farmers keep me going because I thought to myself: I am going to go out there and Paul, even if you are full of indignation, and you think what is happening to the producers is just unconscionable, if we have these gatherings at Thief River Falls, Crookston, or wherever, and only 10 farmers show up, then what that means is a lot of people just want to throw in the towel. We had these gatherings. Congressman Peterson and I had these gatherings together. I am telling you that anywhere from 125 to maybe 400 farmers showed up at a time. They were showing up not because I was there. It had nothing to do with me. It had to do with the reality of their lives. It is the desperation of their lives. They came to make a plea and to say: Please change the farm policy. We can't cash-flow with these prices. Please do something. But the really good part is they came because they still had some fight in them. Then we built up and organized in Minnesota to the Rural Crisis Unity Day; didn't we, Jodi? Jodi Niehoff was there with me from Melrose, MN. She is the daughter of a dairy farmer. We traveled around the State. We had a Rural Crisis Unity Day. I do not know how many people were there, but it was just a huge gathering at the Carver County Fairground. It was great. What was great about it was we had half the Minnesota delegation there. That is a start. What these farmers were saying, what these bankers were saying, and what these business people were saying is: We don't want you to stay the course. We want you to change the course because on present course we are going to lose our farms and lose our businesses. That is going to affect our schools and our hospitals. We want you to be sensitive to what is going on. Why are we in the Senate so generous with the pain of other people? Why do we think we have so many other things to do that are more important than changing farm policy for these family farmers so these family farmers can survive? What these farmers are now saying is: Can we have a rally? What next? The reason I am taking some time on the floor of the Senate right now is to say what next? We demand the opportunity to be able to bring legislation to the floor to change this policy. That is what I am fighting for. That is what is next. Emergency financial assistance has to be passed. But then there is getting the loan rate up for the price. Then there will be the moratorium proposal on these acquisitions and mergers, Smithfield and Murphy being the latest. It is unbelievable. It is an insult. When I took economics classes, I was taught when you had four firms that dominated over 50 percent of the market, it was an oligarchy at best, and a monopoly at worst. But I will tell you something. I will keep talking about these farmers and what is happening to them. But I will tell you this: It is a matter of needing to take some action now. I am going to do everything I know how as a United States Senator, and everything I know how to do, to make sure before we leave that we have an honest and a thorough debate about agricultural policy. I intend a debate with Senators coming to the floor and bringing forth proposals as to how we can improve this policy so that the family farmers in my State of Minnesota have a chance. But also let's not sound like a speech on the floor of the Senate. I don't have any illusions that it is a tough fight. I said it earlier. In all due respect, a few of these grain companies and a few of these packers are the giants. These are the heavy hitters. These are the people who seem to count today in politics. The sooner we change this rotten system of financing campaigns, the better off we will all be. But what I am picking up on is I think we will be back. First, we will have this vote. We all are accountable. If we change things for the better, great. Senators, do you want to raise the loan rate to get prices up? Do you want to pass antitrust action to give our producers and consumers some protections? Great. But we will have a debate, and we will have a vote. If you vote against it, and you do not have proposals that make any difference, then I will just say this: I think you will see farmers and rural people back in your State. They will put the pressure on. If nothing changes in the next month or so, I hope, frankly, in my State of Minnesota that I will see after harvest and after Thanksgiving debate. Thanksgiving would be a good time to do it, before Hanukkah and Christmas. That would be a good time to talk about the moral dimensions of this crisis. I see the religious community across the board in our metropolitan areas bringing family farmers to our urban communities to meet with people who do not live in rural America to have a dialog, with plenty of media coverage, to again bring to the attention of the Nation what is happening. Because I think one of our challenges is people sort of find it hard to believe. They say: Well, Senator Wellstone, you are out here on the floor, and you all are talking about this crisis, but the economy is booming while we have this depression in agriculture. We need to talk about the depth of the crisis, and also all the ways in which this affects America. We don't want a few people to own all the land. We don't want these conglomerates to muscle their way to the dinner table and control our whole food industry, all the way from the seed to the grocery shelf. We don't want to have these big factory farm operations. You can see it in some of these huge hog feed lot operations right now, which are so polluting and so disrespectful of the land and the air and the water. As a Catholic bishop said 15 years ago, ``We are all but strangers and guests in this land.'' We are here to make a better, maybe not Heaven on Earth, but a better Earth on Earth. Do you think that these conglomerates, when they become farmers and make all the decisions, that they will have any respect for the communities? Do you think they are going to buy in the communities? Do you think they are going to have any respect for the land, the water, and for the environment? Do we really want, with such a precious item as food, to see this kind of concentration of power? It is absolutely frightening. I am a Midwesterner though born in Washington, DC, and attended school at the University of North Carolina, but we have lived in Minnesota and our children have grown up there, as have our grandchildren. I have had a chance to do some travel in the South. It is the same. I remember going to Lubbock, TX. At farms down there, we heard the producers speak. It is different crops, but everything else is the same. They are talking about cotton, rice, peanuts. It is the same thing; they can't make a living. Everywhere I go, I get a chance to speak and meet with farmers and their families. People come up to speak; I hear a voice that says: Thanks for coming, Senator; thank you for sharing. I turn around to shake hands and see whoever made those remarks crying. I see people with tears in their eyes. How would you feel if you were going to lose everything? How would you feel if this were where you lived, this were where you worked, this were a farm that had been in your family for generations? It is so painful. It is so painful. Maybe this is the definition of being a bleeding-heart liberal. Maybe that is what I epitomize here. But I don't think so. I am a liberal, but that has nothing to do with bleeding-heart liberal. It does have to do with me being a Senator from the State of Minnesota. I am a Senator from an agricultural State. I am a Senator who comes from a State with a thriving metropolitan area, Minneapolis-St. Paul and suburbs--a great place to live. I am a Senator from Minnesota, and the other part of our State is in economic pain. I am not going to be in the Senate while so many of these farmers go under, are spat out of the economy, chopped into pieces, without fighting like heck. I have some leverage as a Senator that I can exert, I can focus on. I can call for a debate and insist on a debate. I have so many colleagues who care so much about this. I wish I knew agriculture as well as some of them. I know it pretty well. Some of the Senators are immersed in it. Senator Daschle, our leader--I hear him speak all the time because he is a leader of the Democrats. When he talks about agriculture, it is completely different. We can see it is from the heart and soul. Senator Harkin, ranking minority member of the Senate Agriculture Committee-- nobody cares more; no one is tougher; no one is more of a fighter. Both Senators from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad--Senator Conrad always has graphs, charts, and figures; he is just great with numbers. He knows this quantitatively and knows it every other way. Senator Dorgan is on the floor all the time. Senator Johnson from South Dakota is unpretentious. He cares for people. It is great to have a Member like that in the Senate. I get sick of the bashing of public service. There are so many good people. Senator Grassley from Iowa--we don't agree on everything, but we had a hearing, that Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin were kind enough to invite me to in Iowa, dealing with the whole question of concentration of power. Senator Grassley asked a lot of tough questions about what is going on with all the mergers and acquisitions. There is Senator Blanche Lincoln. When she speaks abut agriculture, it is unbelievable. It is her life, her farm, her family. There is nothing abstract about this to her. Or Senator Landrieu who was at our gathering today. It is Midwest; it is South. Senator Roberts from Kansas--I don't agree with him, but he cares. He is a capable Senator. Senator Lugar, who I think is one of the Senators who knows the most about foreign affairs, I do not agree with him on this policy question, but you can't find a better Senator. I am not here to bash Senators; I am out here to say that I think this institution, the Senate, is on trial in rural America. This institution cannot afford to turn its gaze away from what is happening in rural America, to put family farmers and rural people in parentheses and act as if that isn't happening. We can't afford to do this. I come to the floor of the Senate today to make a plea for action. I come to the floor of the Senate today to say I am going to be coming to the floor of the Senate in these mini filibusters. I call it a ``mini'' filibuster because I don't have that good of a back. If I had a good back, I could go for many more hours. I cannot stand for that long. As soon as I sit down, I lose the privilege to speak. However, I can come to the floor of the Senate several long hours at a time and keep insisting that, A, we have the opportunity to be out here with legislation to address this crisis in agriculture--that is not an unreasonable request, I say to the majority leader--and, B, to make it crystal clear that I will do everything I can to prevent the Senate from adjourning. I say this to my legislative director. We should not adjourn until we take this action. Jane Doe, Thief River Falls, MN: Multiple years of bad weather and poor prices have destroyed the cash flow in this farming operation. The family put much of the land into CRP--the Conservation Reserve Program--to make payment to creditors. A couple of years ago, the hay market was good and the family decided to put the balance into alfalfa. Since then, prices for hay have fallen substantially and again bad grain greatly reduced the quality of the hay produced, thereby making it more difficult to sell. The family is hoping for some relief through their crop insurance. If their crop insurance fails, they will have to sell some of the land to pay down debt before the entire farm is lost. This is a case of an older couple trying to help their son continue the farming operation and it slipped away from them. The father borrowed on his real estate to help his son get established and used his pension as collateral. He needed additional funds, so he borrowed again on the real estate and used his Social Security check as collateral. Bad weather and poor prices again took their toll. This time he borrowed on his cattle and machinery, using it to refinance the farming operation. In the meantime, with no income left on which to live, the parents were forced to use credit cards to finance their family living. The amount accumulated to about $25,000 on a number of credit cards. The family is no longer able to keep up with the payments to the card companies. They have gotten together and decided that liquidation is the only solution. Some of the land has been sold and they are working with the two banks to reduce payments to free up some money on which to live day to day until the remaining land can be sold. The cattle and machinery will be sold next year. In the meantime, the parents, who are well in their 70s, are having some health problems. Steps are being taken to get the county nursing services involved to address their medical needs. I will make a couple of different points, as long as we are talking about nursing homes. This is a slight deviation, but I think it is all interrelated when we are talking about rural America. Because of this Budget Act that we passed 2 years ago, with these caps, we are now in a situation where the Medicare reimbursement is so low that it is literally going to shut down many of our rural hospitals, including those in my State of Minnesota. I did not vote for it. I am glad I did not. But the point is, it does not matter. As long as we are talking about a family with this kind of pain, here is another thing that hasn't been mentioned. The home health care services and the hospitals in our rural communities, especially in those States that kept costs down, such as Minnesota, are now being penalized for having kept costs down. Because we don't have any fat in our system, the Medicare reimbursement is way below the cost of providing care, and guess what, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that many of the citizens in our rural communities are elderly, especially since fewer and fewer of our young people can farm and live in the communities. I was at a meeting yesterday with Senator Moynihan in his office. He brought together a number of Senators to talk about this. From teaching hospitals to nursing homes to our rural hospitals to home health care, we have seen the equivalent of Draconian cuts in reimbursement, and they cannot go on. What a bitter irony. We have young people in our rural communities who cannot look to a future as family farmers because, one, they cannot afford to farm because of this failed policy, what many farmers call not Freedom to Farm but ``farming for free.'' Two, as they think about whether they want to live in our rural communities, the second question besides ``Can I afford to?'' is ``Do I want to?'' When there isn't good health care and hospitals shut down and there isn't a good school system and there aren't small businesses, you don't want to live in the community. That is what is going on. Why am I out here? Why am I engaged in a filibuster right now? Because a lot of the small towns in my State of Minnesota are going to become ghost towns if something isn't done. That is a fact. They are going to become ghost towns. So it seems to me it is important for the Senate to address this question. Jane Doe 8, from Greenbush, MN: I say to my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, I say Jane Doe and John Doe because people don't want their names being used. I don't blame them. We are talking about people's lives. But these people did want others to know what is happening to them because these farm families in my State of Minnesota believe if Senators know what is happening to them, understand the dimensions of this crisis, that the Senate will take action to change things for the better. You know what? Some people will have a cynical smile on their face and say: How naive. I say: Good for the people. They should continue to believe if we only understand what is happening to them we will make things better. That is what citizens should believe. That is what citizens should believe. My only prayer is that we do make things better. Jane Doe 8, Greenbush, MN: This family tried to split its farming operation from the locker plant business because both were going under. However, the family did not qualify for a rural development loan and the bank was not willing to wait to see if the Small Business Administration could be brought into the picture. The bank is currently working on the liquidation, and the family is trying to salvage what they can of their home and building site. I have, in addition to Minnesota, some Farm Aid stories as well. Jane Doe 9, from Felton, MN: This is a farmer who is voluntarily liquidating his grain and sugar beet operation. He sold off much of his beet stock to reduce debt but was hoping to get lenders to hold off on a machinery auction until next year because of the taxes he will have to pay on the sugar beet stock. The lenders are refusing, citing concerns of decreasing machinery values due to all the auction sales in that area. Unless he can find another lender to pay off the current nervous lender, this farmer will incur a major tax problem and may be forced to sell some of his land in order to pay the taxes he owes from other forced sales he has had to make. This is a father and son operation in which they are trying to transfer the farm to the son at market value and leave the remaining debt with the father. This is a situation where there is more debt than the farm is worth. In addition, the father's spouse has Alzheimer's disease and is currently in a nursing home. If the farm can be transferred to the son at market value, there is hope to make the operation viable and he could thereby support his parents as best he could. The father would be destitute and would have to try to work some kind of debt settlement out with FSA and other lenders. This is a simple case of voluntary liquidation. This is a story of a fairly new farm couple who was farming in partnership with the husband's uncle. The husband suffered a farm accident which has rendered his right arm useless. The couple recently went through a liquidation plan. Fortunately, the couple had not acquired much debt and they will get out. In this situation, the couple was determining options toward liquidation on their farm because they could see no way to continue farming their operation. The primary concern of the couple was to be able to keep their home and building site. The couple has a number of outstanding bills from creditors yet to be paid one of the companies has filed a lien as well as debt with FSA and a local bank. Only about a third of the cropland was planted this spring due to wet conditions. The current plan is to wait until October to take any further servicing action. What little crop the couple harvests will go toward paying off the debt. Both the wife and husband are working other jobs off the farm, as well as doing the existing farm operations after their work. They also farm the husband's parents' land. Should they decide to quit, this creates questions as to how his parents are going to make their debt payments and have any income to live on. This couple will have to wait until October and then assess the situation after the harvest. Jane Doe 10 from Thief River Falls, MN. The farm is already liquidated and, in doing so, created a serious tax consequence with which she is now trying to deal. She used the farm wrap program to help cover CPA work as she negotiates with IRS and the State of Minnesota. At this moment, there is not much to do except wait and let the chips fall where they may. (Mr. VOINOVICH assumed the chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have some letters. We had Farm Aid this weekend in Manassas. There were a number of people there. Willie Nelson, of course, has been doing this for years. He was joined by Neil Young and John Mellencamp and many other artists and many other farmers. The most important thing about this, and I give them all the credit in the world, is not only the money they raised to help farmers, but this time they really put a focus on this crisis. They are not Johnny-come-lately. They have been at this for any number of years. They were talking about the need to change farm policy: Dear Willie Nelson and Farm Aid: My father has been a rancher and farmer all his life. Before I do this, let me say, again, these are going to be letters from all around the country that go to the heart of what is going on, but, because of a bad back, I probably will be finishing up relatively soon. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of pushing as hard as I can. My wife Sheila and I were at the Farm Aid. It was very moving because one can only really appreciate it when musicians and artists care about people and are willing to donate their talents. Also, there were a lot of farmers there. Again, I will tell you this is the most emotional thing for me since I have been in the Senate. This is the most emotional experience I have had, seeing what people have been going through. I say to the Chair now, the Senator from Ohio, for the last several hours I have been going through stories of families, many who want to be anonymous, but it is their economic situation. They cannot cash-flow on these prices. They cannot. What I have been saying each time there is a new Presiding Officer--I get to make a plea to the new Presiding Officer--what I have been saying is that I am not arrogant, and there can be different proposals, but we cannot leave here without having the debate and some amendments and legislation that hopefully will pass which will change the course, which will make the difference. The status quo is unacceptable because, under status quo, we are going to have a whole generation of producers that are going to be gone. That is all there is to it. This will be the death knell for our rural communities, and I think it will be, as I have said more than once in the last several hours, this will be a transition that our Nation will deeply regret because the last thing in the world a good conservative Republican wants is for a few people to own all the land. We want competition. We want to see our producers have some leverage in the marketplace so they can get a decent price. That is what this is all about. We need antitrust action. It is interesting. I am really surprised, frankly, more hasn't been made of Viacom wanting to buy CBS. That is overflow of information in a democracy. It is scary to have a few companies control so much. Food is very precious, and we do not want a few conglomerates basically controlling all of this. I am moving from Minnesota to a letter to Farm Aid requesting help. Names are withheld: Dear Mr. Willie Nelson and Farm Aid: My father has been a rancher and a farmer all of his life. He started as a teenager on his father's sheep and cattle ranch in Eastern Nevada and over the years has had his share of hard work and battles with drought, poor stock and crop prices, bad neighbors who have tried to run him out of business, the IRS, the Forest Service, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) the FHA (now FSA), etc. Those who have contributed the most to his demise have been the IRS, the BLM and the FSA. Drought and poor crop prices have also contributed a significant blow, in the last several years, to his hay farming operation which is located 50 miles from Ely, Nevada, the closest town. He is single, he lives alone with no family close by, he is 85 years old, his health is failing, his knees are so bad he can hardly make it to the mailbox which is 100 feet from the house. His wife left him a few years ago, after 25 years of marriage just for reasons associated with his prostate operation. He was involved several years ago in a hay bailer accident which rendered his left arm useless. He struggles to eke out a meager living from a 600-acre alfalfa hay farm with the help of two Mexicans, which now he no longer can pay and had to let go. Without their help he cannot harvest his hay. He used to own 750 acres of alfalfa, but the

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the remaining time I have left--and I am not going to take much more time. I characterize this, as I said, as sort of a mini-filibuster or, in any case, it is all I can do in several hours. I can talk about this all day and all night. It is not that I am at a loss of words. But physically I will not be able to go on much longer. The best way to do this is to print in the Record this very poignant testimony from Farm Aid. I will jump from the last part of my presentation to a few facts and figures. Maybe I will finish up on this. I will talk about market concentration. Four firms control 83 percent of all beef slaughter, four firms control 73 percent of sheep slaughter, four firms control 62 percent of flour milling, four firms control 57 percent of pork slaughter. This is from the work of Bill Hefrin, from the University of Missouri, who does superb work. This concentration will result in four or five food and fiber clusters that control production from the gene to the store shelf. Is that what the American people want? When we get these alliances of Monsanto, Cargill, and all the rest, they will reduce market concentration to farmers. These clusters will eliminate independent farmers and businessowners. These clusters will make it difficult for new firms to start. And these clusters will prevent consumers from realizing lower prices. Listen to this, consumer America: Since 1984, real consumer food prices have increased by 2.8 percent, while producer prices for that food have fallen 35.7 percent. Do any of the consumers in America, do any families in America, feel a 35-percent drop in food prices? Of course not. The farm retail spread grows wider and wider. This concentration threatens global security. A few dominant multinational firms are going to control information, markets, decisionmaking, and seed packets. There is a new technology. It is incredible when you hear about this terminator technology which is inserting a gene to prevent the next generation of seed from germinating which, again, threatens economic viability, sustainability. We are talking about livestock confinement, huge feeding operations, with all of the environmental challenges. We are talking about multinational firms that remove profits from local communities. As I said, we have talked about this huge concentration of power. For example, four of every five beef cattle are slaughtered by the four largest firms: IBP; ConAgra; Excel, owned by Cargill; and Farmland National Beef. Three of every five hogs are slaughtered by the four largest firms. The top four include Murphy, Carroll's Foods, Continental Grain, and Smithfield. And now Smithfield wants to buy up Murphy. Half of all the broilers are slaughtered by the largest four firms. The six largest are: Tyson, Gold Kist, Perdue Farms, Pilgrim's Pride, ConAgra, and Wayne. Listen, when you look at the grain industry, you have the same situation where, when farmers look to whom they sell the grain, it is a few large companies that dominate. Let me conclude. I say to my colleagues, I have come to the floor of the Senate and have spoken for several hours to make a plea and to make a demand. I have tried to put this farm crisis in personal terms. I thank the farmers in Minnesota for letting me speak about their lives. I have said that the status quo is unconscionable, it is unacceptable. I have said we have to change the policy. We have to give people a decent price. That we can do. I have said that the reason I have come to the floor of the Senate is to make the demand that: Yesterday, if not tomorrow, if not next week, we have the opportunity to bring legislation to the floor to deal with this crisis. I have come to the floor of the Senate to say that we cannot adjourn--it would not be responsible, it would not be right--without taking action to help improve the situation for farmers. Why else are we here but to try to do better for people? What could be more important than for us, the Senate, as an institution--Democrats and Republicans--to pass legislation that would correct these problems and help alleviate this suffering and pain and make such a positive difference in the lives of so many people in Minnesota that I love--so many farmers in so many rural communities? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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