Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in honor of Mr. Bruce E. Scott, R.Ph., MS, FASHP., a constituent of mine from Minnesota. Mr. Scott has recently been elected to serve as the president of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists ASHP. His leadership will be valuable as ASHP pursues its primary mission-- the safe and effective use of medications. Mr. Scott, as president of ASHP, will represent pharmacists practicing in hospitals, health maintenance organizations, long-term care facilities, home care, hospice and other health-care settings. Mr. Scott is currently Vice President of Pharmacy Operations for Allina Health Systems headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. Allina is a non-profit health care system serving residents of Minnesota, Wisconsin and North and South Dakota. As Vice President of Pharmacy Operations, Mr. Scott is responsible for providing pharmacy services in four metropolitan hospitals with 1700 beds and for developing pharmacy services for Allina Medical Group, with 500 health care providers and 65 clinics. Exercising his commitment to the future of pharmacy leadership, Mr. Scott continues to serve as Clinical Assistant Professor and Associate Member of the Graduate Program in Hospital Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy in Minneapolis, a non-salaried position he has held for more than 10 years. As a member of the graduate facility, Mr. Scott assists and advises graduate students in conducting their research and serves as a guest lecturer at the University. After receiving his Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy from the University of Wisconsin School of Pharmacy, Mr. Scott went on to complete his Master of Science in Pharmacy Practice from the University of Kansas School of Pharmacy. Prior to election as President of the ASHP, Mr. Scott served as a member of ASHP Boards of Directors. He also held the distinguished position of President of the Minnesota Society of Hospital Pharmacists from 1992-1993, and in 1994 he was named a Fellow of the ASHP in recognition of his sustained contributions to pharmacy practice excellence. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists is fortunate to have an individual with the credentials of Mr. Scott at its helm, as the organization devotes its attention to issues of patient safety and the effective use of prescription medications.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, issues surrounding natural resource management present some of the most contentious and difficult problems we as policymakers face. Trying to ensure that our federal forestry policy is responsible and environmentally sustainable has been especially difficult, and we have sometimes fallen woefully short in this area. We can and must do much better. I have seen the awful results of clear-cutting, uncontrolled erosion, and other abuses by the logging industry, and I believe we must bring those abuses to an end now. Even so, our national forests are tremendous resources for a variety of uses, including everything from timber harvesting to recreation. My state of Minnesota depends on these resources for jobs and family incomes; wood, industrial materials, paper and pulp; and family vacations and recreation. Above all, we must protect our national forests to ensure that these resources will be available for future generations. For these reasons, I have long supported carefully controlled, environmentally sustainable multiple use of our national forests. I share many of my colleague Senator Bryan's legitimate concerns about the future health of our nation's forests, and about the abuses that have been allowed in certain regions under the Forest Service's timber sales program--especially in essential areas of biodiversity such as the Pacific Northwest. I recognize that these environmentally harmful forest management practices have serious long-term consequences for the health of our forests, and that they must be stopped. The Timber Sale Management Program is in need of significant reform in many regions of our nation. I believe that my record shows clearly my support for reforming the program to ensure a more responsible and environmentally sustainable forestry effort. But this amendment would reduce by approximately $32 million current funding levels for the program, and it could create some special problems in my state, where the Forest Service has generally been quite responsible in its timber sale efforts. In my state of Minnesota, on July 4, 1999, we experienced a huge, once-in-a-thousand-year wind and rain storm that damaged and destroyed homes, businesses, public facilities, and wilderness areas in our national forests. Approximately 300,000 acres in seven counties were hit by the storm, which damaged as much as 70 percent of the trees in certain areas and washed out numerous roads. The damage caused by this storm has severely hindered the U.S. Forest Service's ability to responsibly manage the Chippewa and Superior National Forests. While I have worked successfully with my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation to ensure that approximately $12 million in emergency funding is reprogrammed from elsewhere in the Forest Service budget to support timber salvage efforts in Minnesota, it is clear that much is yet to be done, and that it is going to take many years to dig out from under the storm and to restore the forest to its former state. As I've observed, the Forest Service in Minnesota has a long tradition of generally responsible and publicly accountable forest management practices. I believe, especially as the post-storm clean-up there proceeds over the coming months and years, that the Forest Service must have adequate resources to deal with the storm's devastation. This amendment would cut approximately $32 million from proposed funding for the Timber Sale Management Program, decreasing last year's funding for this program by approximately $30 million. While I know that this funding is not yet precisely allocated to the various regions, I am concerned that a cut of this size might constrain the Service's overall capacity to adequately support efforts to recover, repair and rehabilitate public lands in Minnesota hard hit by the storm, and for that reason I think it would be unwise. As I said, I recognize the problems with the Timber Sales Management Program, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, and I remain committed to supporting efforts to bring a halt to these environmentally unsustainable abuses. Even though I cannot support this amendment today, I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Bryan and others to find ways to reform and improve the forest management practices of the Forest Service, and of those private industry firms with whom it cooperates, to eliminate the abuses of our forests which have been brought to light during this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will not speak for a long time about the economic convulsion in agriculture. I think my colleague sees some of this in Wyoming as well. I said last week I was going to come to the floor and talk about what is happening to family farmers in Minnesota and around the country. I want to speak about this briefly today and announce a bill that I will be introducing. I also want to say to my colleagues, as I see us moving forward over the next couple of days this week, that I do intend to be back on the floor with amendments that relate to how we can get a decent price for family farmers and how we can get some competition and how we can put some free enterprise back into the food industry. I am also prepared--and I am sure other Senators would feel the same way if they came from an agricultural State--I am also prepared, starting this week and every week, to spend a considerable amount of time before the Senate talking, not so much in statistical terms but more in personal terms, about what is happening. I give, by the way, a lot of credit to Willie Nelson and Neil Young and John Mellencamp for putting together Farm Aid. I had a chance to be there yesterday morning with my wife Sheila. It was an important gathering. I thank them for bringing some attention to the crisis in agriculture and what is happening to family farmers. They are not Johnny-come-latelys. They have been at this for some time. There was a rally this morning, a ``Save the Family Farm'' coalition rally, and then the Farmers Union was meeting with Secretary Glickman. I know there are hundreds of Farmers Union members who are going to be meeting with Republican and Democratic Senators. What everybody is saying right now is, we have this convulsion in agriculture. When I was a college teacher in the mid-1980s in Northfield, MN, in Rice County, I did a lot of organizing with farmers. I had some friends who took their lives. I am not being melodramatic, unfortunately. I was at more foreclosures than I ever wanted to be. I saw a tremendous amount of economic pain. What we are experiencing now in agriculture in this country is far worse. On present course, we are going to lose, as I said last week, a generation of family farmers. I simply say, in an emphatic way, the political question for us is whether we stay the course or whether we change course. I do not believe that any Senator, Democrat or Republican, who comes from a State like the State of Minnesota and who has been traveling in communities and seeing the pain in people's eyes and seeing people who literally are almost at the very end, could not take the position that we have to do something different when it comes to agricultural policy. I am not going to be shrill today--or hopefully any other day--but I am telling my colleagues, the status quo is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. The piece of legislation we passed several years ago called Freedom to Farm--I believe it's really ``Freedom to Fail,'' though others can take a different position--at minimum has to be modified. If we do not take the cap off the loan rate and we do not have some kind of target price and we do not do something to make sure that farmers have a decent price for what they produce so they can get the cash flow to earn a decent living, they are going to go under. Many of them are going under right now as I speak. The second thing I want to talk about is a piece of legislation I will offer this week as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. I will have plenty of data. For example, five firms account for over 80 percent of beef packing market. That is a higher concentration than the FTC found in 1918 leading up to enactment of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Six firms account for 75 percent of pork packing. Now we have a situation where Smithfield wants to buy out Murphy. And the largest four grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of the elevator facilities. The legislation I am going to introduce--I am now waiting for the final draft from legislative counsel--will impose a moratorium on mergers, acquisitions, and marketing agreements among dealers, processors, commission merchants, brokers, or operators of a warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total assets of more than $50 million. The moratorium would last for 1 year, or until Congress enacts legislation that addresses the problems of concentration of agriculture, whichever comes first. I think Senator Dorgan is working on a similar piece of legislation. I am sure there are other Senators who are going to be talking about this. Going back to the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act, or Senator Estes Kefauver's work in the 1950s, Congress has said there was a role for Government to protect consumers and also to protect producers. In fact, a lot of the history of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act goes back to agriculture and the concerns of family farmers. What I am saying in this legislation is, obviously, the status quo is not working. These conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table. They are pushing family farmers out. There is no real competition in the food industry any longer. In order for our producers to get a decent price, and in order to make sure our producers and family farmers have a future, in order to make sure the rural communities of my State of Minnesota have a future, we are going to have to take some action. Our action and our legislation ought to be on the side of family farmers. So I intend to introduce this bill later today. I will also draft this as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. I also will be on the floor with other amendments. Unfortunately, the bankruptcy bill applies all too well to family farmers in my State of Minnesota and to family farmers all around the country. There are other colleagues who want to speak, so I am going to try to conclude in the next 3 or 4 minutes, I say to my colleague from Oregon. I will not take a lot of time because we only have an hour and others want to speak as well. But I have had a chance to travel a lot in Minnesota. I have had a chance to spend time in other States--in Iowa, in Texas, in Missouri. I have met with a lot of organizers around the country--in the Midwest and in the South--and I am telling you that I think rural America has to take a stand. I do not care whether we use the language of modifying legislation or amending legislation. I personally thought the Freedom to Farm was really ``Freedom to Fail'' from the word ``go.'' Others can have different opinions. But for sure, time is not on the side of family farmers. A lot of people in Minnesota, a lot of farmers are 45, 50 years old. They are burning their equity up. They look at me hard, and they say: Look, Paul, do we basically take everything we have and try to keep this farm going? We will. We want to. It has been in our family for four generations. We love farming. But if there is no future for us, tell us now. I do not want to tell family farmers in Minnesota there is no future for them. I do not want to tell our rural communities there is no future for them. I do not want to tell our country that a few conglomerates are going to own all the land. Then what will the price be, and what will be the quality of the food? Will there be an agriculture that respects the air and the land and the water and the environment? I think not. I do not think our country is yet engaged. I hope the national media will cover this crisis. And it is a crisis. I will be coming to the floor of the Senate with longer and longer and longer and longer speeches, backed up by lots of data and statistics of what is happening in Minnesota, backed up with a lot of personal stories of hard-working people who have now lost their farms, where they not only live but where they have also worked. I will have amendments on legislation, in an effort to change things for the better. If my colleagues have other ideas about how to change things for the better, great. Then get out on the floor of the Senate--this week, next week, the following week. Personally, at this point in time, I am focused on family farmers in the State of Minnesota. I am focused on our rural communities. I am focused on family farmers and rural communities all across our country. I intend, as a Senator, to do everything I can on the floor of the Senate to fight for people, everything I know how to do to fight for people. I also am going to spend as much time as I can organizing the farmers because I am convinced, I say to Senator Reid and Senator Wyden, we are going to need farmers and rural people to come and rock this capital before we get the change we need. But we are going to keep pushing very hard. An awful lot of good people's lives are at stake. I think in many ways this is a question that speaks to what America is about as well. I cannot be silent on it. I know of many Senators from other agricultural States who feel the same way. We have to push this on to the agenda of the Congress, and we have to do it now.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, I did not hear all of his remarks, but I always appreciate what he has to say, agree or disagree.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the final 1 minute--and I did not bring any talking points; I do not have it written now--I would like to thank the President. I was critical of the President last week about East Timor, but I think we ought to give credit where credit is due. I am glad he spoke out. I am glad he put pressure on the Indonesian Government. I know there are a number of important questions to resolve about the nature of whatever kind of peacekeeping force goes in, but the sooner the better because this has been genocide. An awful lot of people have had the courage to stand up against the repressive government, or in this particular case, stand up for the independence of East Timor, that have been murdered. The sooner we get an international presence, an international force in there, the better. I think the President was forceful this past weekend and should continue to be forceful. We should not let the Indonesian Government delay. The sooner we get a force in there to protect people, and to follow through on the mandate of the people--which was something the United Nations sponsored and supported, where the people voted for their own independence--I think the better off the world will be because whenever our Government can be on the side of human rights, then we are living up to who we are as a Nation. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think the Hutchison amendment is one of the most outrageous provisions to be offered to the Interior appropriations bill and shouldn't be included in this legislation. This amendment would restrict the Interior Department from doing its job, which is to make sure that these oil companies pay full royalties for the oil they are drilling on Federal and Indian lands. I thank the Senator from California, who is willing to stand up to oil companies. There are many Senators who will not do so. The Senator from California has the courage to do it. I don't know why it is that all of a sudden we appear to have such sympathy for people who appear to be cheating the public. I know that when it comes to finding out what is happening to poor women and children, we do not seem to have a lot of interest in figuring out what is going on in their lives. I know that when we try to raise the minimum wage, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to block that. But in through the door walks the CEO of one of these large, integrated oil companies that has been underpaying its royalties--oil companies that have been heavy campaign contributors-- and all of sudden we have sympathy to spare. We have sympathy coming out the wazoo. We feel their pain. All of a sudden, it is: ``At your service; we can do it for you, Senator. How can we serve you better?'' This is a vote about whether or not we have an open, accountable political process. These companies should pay their fair share, and when they try to get away with basically not being honest and paying what they owe the public, they call on their friends in the Congress. The Republican-led Congress answers their call without a moment's hesitation with an amendment to this bill. Congress comes to the rescue and rewards them for chronically underpaying the royalties which they owe to people in this country. That is what this is all about. I think this amendment is a sweetheart deal. It lets the oil companies off the hook. Frankly, I don't believe we should let them do that--not if we represent the people in this country. I thank the Senator for her amendment. I will vote against tabling the amendment because I want to have a lot of debate and discussion. Because the more the people in this country know what is at stake on the floor of the Senate and understand what is going on, the better the chance we have of a significant victory.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't have time. But I agree.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't think the rider belongs on this bill. I don't think the rider belongs on any bill. I think these oil companies should pay the royalty. I think the public is cheated when they don't. I don't think, because they are big contributors and heavy hitters, that they should be taken off the hook. I don't believe it should be included in any bill, especially this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, followed on our side by Senator Boxer and Senator Dorgan, 10 minutes each.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before going to the main topic of my remarks, I wish to briefly speak about a story today in the papers that I just think Senators, Democrats and Republicans, must take note of. This is the report. Top executives of CBS and VIACOM will be huddling today with top officials of the Federal Communications Commission. CBS- VIACOM executives will be lobbying the FCC to approve their proposed merger and to relax FCC restrictions on media concentration. Mr. President, I think that FCC Chairman Kennard has done an excellent job, but I do believe this private meeting would be improper and inappropriate. I think the meeting should be held in public. I think the public needs to know what is going on. I say this because I cannot think of anything more frightening in a representative democracy than to continue to see this consolidation of media, these media mergers, and this concentration of power over the flow of information. I think this is a terribly important question. I think it goes to the heart of the functioning of our democracy. Our democracy depends upon citizen access to a wide and divergent range of views and information. We depend upon a free and independent media that will hold both private and public power accountable to people. This dramatic surge in media concentration makes this more difficult. It makes it more difficult for our media to perform these essential functions. I believe we are seeing a breathtaking, frightening concentration of power in the media over the flow of information, and I think it constitutes a direct threat to our democracy. I hope this meeting and this debate will take place publicly and that there will be meaningful coverage by the major media in our country of this proposed merger of CBS and Viacom. The public needs to be engaged in this debate. This is a serious and important question. Media concentration is a real threat to our representative democracy. (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take a brief period of time today, I say to my colleagues and to the Chair who cares deeply about this issue as well, I intend to take the time I need to give a report to the Senate and to the country about what is happening in agriculture. I say this to the Chair who I know cares deeply about this. I have spent most all of August organizing with farmers. I have spent almost all my time in our agricultural and rural communities. I can tell my colleagues that we are now experiencing an economic convulsion, and on our present course we are going to lose a whole generation of farmers and producers. This is not just a battle or a struggle for a fair price for family farmers, it is a struggle for the survival of our rural communities. I spent time in northwest Minnesota, in southeast Minnesota, in west central Minnesota, and then in southwest Minnesota, at one farm gathering after another. The good news is that many farmers turned out for our meetings, and that made me proud as a Senator. The bad news is that people are in such economic pain. The bad news is that people are in such desperate shape. The bad news is that people who have worked so hard and are asking for nothing more than a decent price so they can have a decent standard of living to give their children the care they know they need and deserve are not getting a decent price. This Congress has to take action, and it has to take action this fall. We can get the emergency financial assistance out to people. Because of the way we are doing it, too much assistance will be going to some people who do not need it as much, and not enough will be going to many people who need it more. But it is a price crisis and we have to get the price up. We need to take the cap off the loan rate. We need to give the producer some leverage in the marketplace--with a farmer- owned reserve--and the ability to extend the payback period of the loan rate. We need to give our producers a fair shot. We need to get the prices up. Our farmers do not have cash-flow and they are going to be driven off the land. I believe our country will deeply regret what is now happening in agriculture. It is a food scarcity issue. Who is going to farm the land? Are we going to have affordable food? Is it going to be food that is healthy and safe for our families? What about the environment? What about the whole idea of pattern of land ownership? So much is at stake for America, but I do not think this crisis, of which the Presiding Officer is aware, is breaking through. No amount of self-reliance is going to help the farmers, given the prices they are getting for wheat, corn, and soybeans. Our livestock producers are faced with the most outrageous situation: they find themselves confronted with a few packers who control almost all of the market in terms of whom they can sell to. Yesterday in Iowa we had an important hearing with Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin, and we had several hundred farmers there. I said that we should have a moratorium on all mergers and acquisitions and marketing agreements between agribusinesses with revenues over $50 million until the Congress reviews the antitrust laws. I am going to bring this moratorium to the floor, speaking about concentration of power. Whatever happened to the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and the work of Senator Kefauver? What does it mean when we have a few packers and they control almost all of the market? What does it mean, with our livestock producers facing extinction and IBP and ConAgra and a lot of these large outfits making record profits? Mr. President, this is an injustice. I am telling Democrats and Republicans, we have to make it a priority and we have to push through legislation over the next 2 months that will make a difference. A lot of these farmers are going to be gone if we don't. I speak today to give a brief report, although I am going to start coming to the floor and talking at great length about the number of farmers we are losing. Tracy Beckman, who directs the Farm Services Administration, has figures on all our counties, on what an emergency situation this is, on what a crisis situation this is, and on what we can do. We can take the cap off the loan rate. We can rewrite the farm bill. Freedom to Farm has become the ``Freedom to Farm for No Money,'' the ``Freedom to Fail.'' We have to change the farm bill. We have to take some antitrust action. We have to be on the side of family farmers and producers. We have to make sure they get a fair price. We have to have a fair trade policy and we need to do it now. Speeches are not enough. Rural American farmers, when you come here next week, turn up the heat. When you meet with Senators and Representatives, turn up the heat. Ultimately, it is going to take rural America raising heck in order to turn this situation around. This August, for me, was the most difficult during my time in the Senate. It was the most emotional 3 weeks I ever spent with people in my State. I say to the Senator from California, who is a good friend, what happens at these farm gatherings is that people will say to you: Thanks for caring, it makes me feel good. And you reach out to shake their hand, and they are crying, just crying because they are going to lose everything. Their farm has been in the family for generations. It is where they work, it is where they live, and they are going to lose it all. The implement dealers, the bankers, the educators, the hospital people, and the health care people all say: Our rural communities are going to be ghost towns. This is needless suffering. This does not have to be. This is not Adam Smith's invisible hand. It is not some law of gravity. The only inevitability about what is happening to family farmers is the inevitability of a stacked deck. If we change policies and give them leverage so they can get a decent price in the marketplace, if we take on some of these conglomerates and put free enterprise in the food industry, and if we move forward on trade policy, we can make a huge difference. This is an issue that goes to the heart and soul of what America is about. America, if you are listening to what we are saying in the Senate, this is all about the country, this is about food scarcity, this is about getting food at a price you can afford. It is about who is going to own the land. This is about whether or not we are going to have a rural America. This is about whether we are going to have a few conglomerates muscle their way to the dinner table and exercise their power over all phases of the industry--over the producers, over the consumers, over the taxpayers--or whether we are committed to a family farm structure in agriculture. I come from a State, Minnesota, where family farmers are really important. They are so important to my State, but they are important to our country. I hope and pray over the next 2 months we will take action in Congress that will make a positive difference and will change this policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while Senator Feingold is in the Chamber, I wish to indicate my support for his effort--our effort--to make it crystal clear to the Government of Indonesia that the brutal murder of the men and women of East Timor has to stop, that we will hold the Government of Indonesia accountable, that we will do everything we can to exert our leverage, including the question of whether there will be any financial assistance, and that the world community is watching. We want to communicate from the floor of the Senate our support to the people of East Timor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not yield my place in the floor but----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I will be relatively brief. I will try to keep my remarks under an hour. Did the Senator hear what I said? I was kidding. I said I would keep my remarks under an hour. Was that the Senator's approval? In 10 minutes I will be able to say what I need to say.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida says I cannot do it in 10 minutes, but I am going to prove him wrong. I do not know whether I can add that much to the remarks of Senator Durbin. I have heard the Senator speak quite often. I actually think that was one of the strongest statements. Really. I wish I were not following him. I say to all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, this will be a healthy vote because we ought to vote on how we view the National Endowment for the Arts. As a Senator from Minnesota, I think the most important thing we can do as Senators is to do our work every day in such a way that we can assure equal opportunity for every child. That is the way I approach this topic, I say to my friend from New Hampshire. Senator Durbin's point was well taken. What you want to do with children, starting at a very early age, is you want to take that spark of learning that all children have--they are so eager--and we need to ignite it. Different children are good at different things. Some are really good at academics, at least the way we define formal academics; some are athletes; some are musicians; some are artists. The National Endowment for the Arts has done an absolutely fabulous job of funding some of the most wonderful community arts partnerships you ever want to see in the State of Minnesota, by the way, rural as well as urban. There is some great work with at-risk kids, some great work with all the children in Minnesota--white us, black us, brown us-- all of us. It is united. It is wholesome. There have been mistakes made. I agree with Senator Durbin, Jane Alexander understood that and did a great deal to correct some of the mistakes that had been made. I do not think that has been properly acknowledged in this amendment that my colleagues bring to the floor. Overall, it is so enriching and it is so exciting to see what is done with these community arts partnerships. I did not get a chance to hear the remarks of my colleague from Missouri, so it would not be fair to him--he is not here--for me to even try to respond to what I think he may have said based upon what Senator Durbin said. I have had a chance to visit with the arts community. I have had a chance to see some of these projects take hold in Minnesota, in our neighborhoods, in our communities, urban, rural, and suburban, and I am especially focused on children and kids. This does not have a thing to do with blue collar, white collar, high income, low income, middle income. This has really been some wonderful, nurturing, enriching work with children in Minnesota, some of whom have really come into their own as a result of the way in which the NEA grants and good art work and artists have reached them. Some of the things that these kids do, some of the ways in which they are creative and express themselves, some of the ways in which they, in turn, contribute to community, based upon the nurturing and the support from the NEA grants--it is just a marvelous thing to see. Yes, mistakes have been made, but I call on Senators to be our own best selves. I do view this as a vote that has a whole lot to do with children, a whole lot to do with kids, a whole lot to do with the importance of community arts partnerships. I hope this amendment will be defeated with a resounding vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Let me start out by saying I also appreciate the work of Senator Roth as the chair of the Finance Committee. However, I am in profound disagreement with this reconciliation bill, this tax cut bill, that comes before the Senate-- $792 billion in tax cuts, aggregate amount. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would receive 42 percent of the benefits, while the bottom 60 percent would receive only 7.5 percent of the benefits. Regarding distributional effect, my colleague from Nebraska talked about a standard of fairness: 60 percent of all taxpayers would get an average tax cut of $65; the wealthiest 10 percent would get an average tax cut of $1,322; the wealthiest 1 percent would get an average tax cut of $5,281. This tax cut bill that the Republicans bring to the floor of the Senate is ``Robin Hood in reverse'' economics. Even worse, I think it represents a politics of illusion. Not that long ago others, I think former President Bush, talked about voodoo economics. He was referring to a set of proposals in the early 1980s that said we could have massive tax cuts, increase Pentagon spending, make the investments we needed to make as a nation, and continue to reduce the deficit. That is not what happened. It is pretty simple, I say to the people in Minnesota, and to the the people in the Nation. We are in agreement, I hope, that of the $3 trillion of surplus, $2 trillion is Social Security. It is not touched. It is to make sure that system will be solvent. Of the other $1 trillion, three-quarters of it is in assumed cuts--assuming we have the economic growth in discretionary domestic spending. With this proposal before the Senate that the Republicans bring to the floor of the Senate, not only do we have tax cuts and benefits to people in inverse relationship to need, a ``Robin Hood in reverse'' economics, but we have a politics and an economics of illusion. We are going to explode the debt. We are going to build the debt up again. In addition, we are not going to be making the investments that we in our speeches on the floor of the Senate say that we are for. I heard my colleague from Delaware talk about health care, talk about education, talk about children, talk about tax cuts. One more time, to use the old Yiddish proverb: ``You can't dance at two weddings at the same time.'' We are not going to be able to have this amount of tax cuts, $792 billion in tax cuts, and at the same time continue to pay down the debt and make the kind of investments we need to make. We are going to see, America, is cuts in Head Start, cuts in low-income energy assistance, cuts in community policing, cuts in environmental protection, cuts in veterans' health care, and cuts in Pell grant programs. We are not going to make any of the investments to which we say we are committed. I think this tax cut legislation before the Senate is in many ways more serious than bad economics. And it is bad economics. It is bad economics because it will build up the debt rather than pay down the debt. It is bad economics because it could very well lead to higher interest rates. It is bad economics because it is the last thing we ought to do in an expanding economy. In addition, it is bad economics because we are not going to be able to make the investments that my colleague from Delaware says we are committed to at the same time we are doing all these tax cuts. It is also an illusion. It will put this country in a straitjacket where we are not going to be able to do one positive thing to make sure we have equal opportunities for every child in this country. We are not going to increase Head Start benefits; we are going to cut them. We are not going to increase health care benefits for our citizens; we are going to cut them. We are not going to do anything about the acute shortage of affordable housing; we are going to cut housing programs. We are not going to get it right for veterans in health care; we are going to cut. We are not going to do anything about the shameful statistic of right now providing benefits for only 1 percent of the kids who would benefit from Early Head Start in our country; we are going to cut. There is not one Senator who can come to the floor of the Senate and debate me on the argument I have just made. That is exactly what we are going to do. This is also an ideological debate. If Members believe--and maybe this is what my colleagues now believe, let me now give credit--when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's lives in the United States of America, or Minnesota, that there is nothing that the government can or should do, if you don't think we should be making any of these kinds of investments in Pell grants, or affordable child care, or Head Start, or community policing, or veterans' health care, or health care, or affordable housing, then you would be for this conference report. What this will do is put this country in a straitjacket where any kind of an investment that any Senator will talk about to expand opportunities for our citizens will be, by definition, fiscally irresponsible because we won't have any of the revenue. I conclude this way. The political argument behind these tax cuts is a pretty effective argument if you listen to it only up to a point. The argument is that we built up the surpluses--maybe, assuming the economy continues to perform. Let's give it back to the citizens; it is your money. People in Minnesota, it belongs to you. I maintain, as a Senator from Minnesota, it doesn't belong to me; it doesn't belong to adults. It belongs to our children, and it belongs to our grandchildren. Whatever surplus there is ought to be used to pay down the debt. We put it on their shoulders. Whatever surplus there is ought to be used to make sure their Social Security and Medicare is there, just as it will be there for us. It ought to be used to make sure there are opportunities for children so that our children and our grandchildren have the same opportunities that we have had. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio, is committed to early childhood development. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio, came to the Senate with a commitment to children. I know that. That is his passion, and he will make an enormous difference. I don't care whether he is Republican or not. I know what he cares about, and I know he is an effective Senator. With this measure of tax cuts, if this legislation passes, we will not only not be making any additional investments in the way we should in early childhood development, such as Early Head Start or Head Start, much less what we really should be doing for child care, much less nutrition programs, much less affordable housing programs, we will be cutting those programs. That is shameful. That is unconscionable. That is exactly what we will be doing. I say to the President of the United States of America, Mr. President, you should veto this legislation. Let's not get into Washington, DC, bargaining where we say $500 billion or $600 billion is a reasonable compromise. If that is what we do, we still will not be in a position to make any of these investments. We still will see cuts in discretionary spending to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's pay down the debt. Let's make sure we make a commitment to Medicare and Social Security. More than anything else, I would rather see more of the emphasis on an investment in children. I believe when we pay down our debts, the most important debt we can pay off is the debt we would leave our children. What we owe our children is to make sure that every child in the United States of America--regardless of color of skin, regardless urban or rural, regardless high income or low income or middle income--has the same chance to reach his and her full potential. These tax cuts will make that impossible. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which will extend Medicare funding for Community Nursing Organization (CNO) demonstration projects within the Health Care Financing Administration. These CNO programs are intended to reduce the breakup in the delivery of health care services, to reduce the use of costly emergency care services, and to improve the continuity of home health and ambulatory care for Medicare beneficiaries. CNOs are responsible for providing home health care, case management, outpatient physical and speech therapy, ambulance services, prosthetic devices, durable medical equipment, and any optional HCFA-approved services appropriate to prevent the need to institutionalize Medicare enrollees. In Minnesota, the Healthy Seniors Project provides seniors with information and services that have provided an extra level of health care and peace of mind. Through various seminars, programs, and other informational services, these seniors have received information on legal and financial matters specifically as they pertain to senior citizens, as well as information on the services available to help them function and remain in their homes. These CNO projects are consistent with congressional efforts to introduce a wider range of managed care options to Medicare beneficiaries. Their authorization needs to be extended in order to ensure a fair testing of the CNO managed care concept. We need an extension of this demonstration project to continue to provide an important example of how coordinated care can provide additional benefits without increasing Medicare costs. In addition, we need to further evaluate the impact of the CNO contribution to Medicare patients and to assess their capacity for operating under a fixed budget. Finally, this extension will not increase Medicare expenditures. In fact, CNOs actually save Medicare dollars by providing better and more accessible health care in homes and community settings, rather than unnecessary hospitalizations and nursing home admissions. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support these important cost- saving demonstration projects for another three years.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which will extend Medicare funding for Community Nursing Organization (CNO) demonstration projects within the Health Care Financing Administration. These CNO programs are intended to reduce the breakup in the delivery of health care services, to reduce the use of costly emergency care services, and to improve the continuity of home health and ambulatory care for Medicare beneficiaries. CNOs are responsible for providing home health care, case management, outpatient physical and speech therapy, ambulance services, prosthetic devices, durable medical equipment, and any optional HCFA-approved services appropriate to prevent the need to institutionalize Medicare enrollees. In Minnesota, the Healthy Seniors Project provides seniors with information and services that have provided an extra level of health care and peace of mind. Through various seminars, programs, and other informational services, these seniors have received information on legal and financial matters specifically as they pertain to senior citizens, as well as information on the services available to help them function and remain in their homes. These CNO projects are consistent with congressional efforts to introduce a wider range of managed care options to Medicare beneficiaries. Their authorization needs to be extended in order to ensure a fair testing of the CNO managed care concept. We need an extension of this demonstration project to continue to provide an important example of how coordinated care can provide additional benefits without increasing Medicare costs. In addition, we need to further evaluate the impact of the CNO contribution to Medicare patients and to assess their capacity for operating under a fixed budget. Finally, this extension will not increase Medicare expenditures. In fact, CNOs actually save Medicare dollars by providing better and more accessible health care in homes and community settings, rather than unnecessary hospitalizations and nursing home admissions. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support these important cost- saving demonstration projects for another three years.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that I will soon send to the desk to proclaim September, 1999, as ``National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month'', and to recognize the Administration, government agencies, and the many groups supporting this effort highlighting the critical role of business and workplace programs in facilitating the recovery efforts of those with this disease. Alcoholism and drug addition are painful, private struggles with staggering public costs. A recent study prepared by The Lewin Group for the national Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimated the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be approximately $246 billion for 1992. Of this cost, an estimate $98 billion was due to drug addition to illicit drugs and other drugs taken for non-medical purposes. This estimate includes additional treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. People who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. According to he 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by SAMHSA, nearly 73 percent of all individuals addicted to drugs in the United States are employed. This number represents 6.7 million full-time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers. In addition to the health problems associated with this disease, there are other serious consequences affecting the workplace, such as lost productivity; high employee turnover; low employee morale; mistakes; accidents; and increased worker's compensation insurance and health insurance premiums--all results of untreated addiction problems. Whether you are a corporate CEO or a small business owner, there are simple, effective steps that can be taken--including providing insurance coverage for this disease, ready access to treatment, and workplace policies that support treatment--to reduce these human and economic costs. Addiction to alcohol an drug is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes, and we know that the costs to do so are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of one percent, or less than $1 per member per month--without even considering any of the obvious savings that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses. These savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care--including private insurance plans--must share this responsibility. In observance of Recovery Month, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has recognized that the effort business invests in substance abuse treatment will be rewarded by raising productivity, quality, and employee morale, and lowering health care costs associated with substance abuse. Moreover, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy has recognized that providing effective drug treatment to those in need is critical to breaking the cycle of drug addiction and to helping those who are addicted become productive members of society. The role of the workplace in overcoming the problem of substance abuse among Americans is also recognized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Small Business Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of American, the National Coalition on Alcohol and Other Drug Issues, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, and the National Substance Abuse Coalition. It has been shown that some forms of addiction have a genetic basis, and yet we still try to deny the serious medical nature of this disease. We think of those with this disease as somehow different from us. We forget that someone who has a problem with drugs or alcohol can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us on the subway or at work. We know from the outstanding research conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. Through this treatment, there are countless numbers of individuals who are living proof that people of all races, genders, and ages recover every day from the disease of alcohol and drug addiction, and now make positive contributions to their families, workplaces, communities, state, and nation. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the month of September, 1999, as Recovery Month, and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing this effort.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to add to what my colleague said from the same letter: We have deep concerns about pitting region versus region in agricultural policy, especially dairy policy. We strongly encourage a policy that will benefit all dairy producers nationally. I don't have time to engage in a long discussion by way of policy. There is just no time for doing that. Let me make an appeal to my colleagues. In Minnesota, we have 8,700 dairy farmers. We rank fifth in the Nation's milk production. It is $1.2 billion for our farmers. We are losing three family farmers a day. What the Secretary of Agriculture is now trying to do is change the milk marketing order system, in the words of the Farmers Union, that will benefit dairy producers nationally, to try to bring about some fairness. Now what we have is an effort on the part of some of my colleagues to basically block the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing this reform. I say to every single colleague, Democrat and Republican alike, I don't have time to argue all of the policy implications, but I make an appeal as a Senator from Minnesota to not vote for cloture. I make an appeal as a Senator from Minnesota to support the kinds of changes that the Secretary of Agriculture is trying to make that will bring about some fairness and won't pit region against region and will give dairy farmers in our country, family farmers, a chance to make it. This is an incredibly important question for my State of Minnesota. Other Senators would argue the same way if it were their State. I hope they will vote against cloture, and I appeal to them to do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is not all that I hoped for for farmers in Minnesota, but I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Grassley for this compromise effort. I think we are doing more for dairy. I think we are doing more for livestock producers. I think we are doing much more for disaster relief, which is terribly important to farmers in my State and farmers all across the Nation. I hope that we get a very strong vote. I think at this point in time in the week this is the very best we can do. I am pleased to support this effort. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will listen to my colleague and then ask unanimous consent I be able to follow.

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