Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before my colleague starts, I do have an amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the chairman. I yield to my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was going to introduce an amendment tonight with respect to low-cost lifeline bank accounts with Senator Harkin from Iowa and my colleague, Senator Schumer from New York. This amendment would require banks that establish a bank holding company under the S. 900 guidelines to offer low-cost banking services to their customers. I am not going to talk about this amendment at all tonight, except to say I think this is a most important consumer amendment; it is very important to senior citizens and very important to low- and moderate- income citizens. My understanding, with my colleague from Texas, the chairman, is that we will have an opportunity to bring this amendment up when another banking-related bill comes to the floor, and we will be able to debate this and have an up-or-down vote; am I correct, I ask my colleague from Texas?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr President, I am here today to introduce the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation. It is in some ways the ``gold standard'' of true campaign finance reform, against which any more modest legislation ought to be assessed. The conceptual approach it embodies--replacing special interest money in our current system with clean money--is being adopted by state legislatures and in referenda across the country. Some of my colleagues might respond to this announcement by saying that there are other issues that have arisen in this session that are more important than a debate over whether we will comprehensively reform our campaign finance laws. Some might argue that the American people appear to care more about other issues. I would argue, though, that public concern about one issue does not necessarily have to come at the expense of another. And while it is clear that Americans care very deeply about a variety of issues--Kosovo, taxes, education, and Social Security reform first among them--it is also clear that they care very much about the nature of our political system. When asked, 60 percent of Americans say they think that reforming the way campaigns are financed should be a high priority on our National agenda. There is no question in my mind that these people are right--reforming the way campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high priority on our agenda. Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the reality of systemic corruption. And we must act. In the House, a bipartisan effort is currently underway to force consideration of the Shays-Meehan bill, and the number of signers is slowly building. Yesterday, moderate House Republicans met with Speaker Hastert to ask for an early vote on the bill. Today, Representative Tierney is introducing the ``Clean Money'' companion bill with 38 original co-sponsors. The House is acting on campaign finance reform, as should we on the Senate side. Here in the Senate, we must push forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform. I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that the way we are moving toward a balanced federal budget is unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? The cuts we are imposing most deeply affect those who are least well off. That is well-documented. The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most affluent as a group, but numerous very narrow wealthy special interests. Does anyone wonder why Congress retains massive subsidies and tax expenditures for oil and pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? Are they curious why Congress permits a health care system dominated by insurance companies? Or a version of ``free trade'' which disregards the need for fair labor and environmental standards, for democracy and human rights, and for lifting the standard of living of American workers, as well as workers in the countries we trade with? How is it that Congress ever considers major legislation that directly promotes the concentration of ownership and power in the telecommunications industry, in the agriculture and food business, and in banking and securities? For the American people, how this happens, I think, is no mystery. I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties and to candidates. We must act to change this. We must act to change this because the American people have lost faith in the system. People are turning away from the political process. They are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, their right to be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because they don't believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that cash. The degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility expressed by the American people when asked about the political process overwhelms me. According to recent polls, cynicism abounds: 92 percent of all Americans believe special-interest contributions buy votes of members of Congress. 88 percent believe that those who make large campaign contributions get special favors from politicians. 67 percent think that their own representative in Congress would listen to the views of outsiders who made large political contributions before they would listen to their own constituents' views. And nearly half of all registered voters believe lobbyists and special interests control the government in Washington. We must act on campaign finance reform. We must act to restore Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew their hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the reform debate forward. As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they despair of making any real changes because they figure special interests have the system permanently rigged. I do not need to rehash the many serious problems with our campaign financing system. The bottom line is indisputable: the system does not have--and has not had for many years--the confidence of the American people. People have lost faith in Congress as an institution, in the laws we pass, and in the democratic process itself, because of the money chase and its accompanying systemic corruption. Too often in our system, money determines political viability, it determines the issue agenda, and it determines to whom legislators are accountable: cash constituencies, not real constituencies. Most troubling, money often determines election outcomes, and the public knows it. Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful elite controls the levers of government through a political process which rewards big donors--a system in which you have to pay to play. Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so- invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here. Too many Americans see our failures . . . to alleviate the harsh, grinding poverty that characterizes the lives of too many of our inner-city residents, to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor, to combat homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, rising health care costs, and an unequal system of education. And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and more progressive, fashion an energy policy that relies more on conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big- money politics. In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and fair elections. It is hard to say with a straight face that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, millionaires spend their personal fortunes to buy access to the airwaves, and special interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic process. Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite. Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to participate in the process of government. This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles. Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come with their own price tag attached--greater access and special consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform. Over the years, I have introduced and re-introduced campaign finance reform legislation, pushed amendments, organized my colleagues, given speeches, observed a self-imposed fundraising code stricter than current law, fought filibusters, and otherwise tried in every way I could to get tough, sweeping reform enacted into law. All to no avail. To my great regret, campaign finance reform so far has been successfully blocked in Congress by those who oppose it, staunch defenders all of the status quo. Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last Congress. We have tightened and strengthed some of the nuts and bolts of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance reform. If the 1994 elections are remembered as the year the Republicans swept into power in Congress, then the 1998 elections should go down as the year that special-interest money smothered Washington. Money has always played a role in American politics and campaign spending is not a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the national political parties raised $18.8 million in soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 election cycle that figure was up to $193.2 million in soft money. That's nearly a five-fold increase in just under five years. There can be no doubt that big money has become the primary currency of democracy in Washington. In the 1995-96 election cycle, corporations, groups, and individuals representing business interests outspent labor by 12-1. Individuals and PACs representing the natural resource industries (such as gas and oil companies) outspent environmental interests by an estimated 27-1 in contributions to congressional candidates. Political contributions representing finance, insurance, and real estate interests were in excess of $130 million for the last election cycle. In the 1996 election cycle, less than one-quarter of one percent of the American people made contributions of more than $200 in a Federal election. Yet an astounding eighty percent of all political money came from this tiny group. Of all the economically-interested money given to Congressional candidates, almost none represented the millions of Americans who are poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small bank depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries, and hospitals. It is clear who is represented under the current system and who is shut out. The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does all of these things by offering: The strictest curbs on special-interest money and influence. The ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation bans completely the use of ``soft money'' to influence elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non-electoral ``issue ads,'' provides additional funding to clean money candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and most importantly, allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the clean money system of financing. The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides a substantial amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal candidates, this legislation allows candidates to spend far less than ever before on their campaigns. The most competitive and fair election financing. By providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by non- participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field, regardless of their economic status or access to larger contributors. Right now, the system is wired for incumbents because they are connected to the connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to be attracted to incumbents, because that is where the power lies. This bill would allow all citizens to compete equally in the Federal election process. And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by limiting the period of time during which candidates receive their funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and disclosure requirements in Federal election campaigns. What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew the system through large campaign contributions. Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed principle of one person, one vote. I am not naive about the prospects for campaign finance reform during this Congress, and realize that the sweeping reform bill that I am introducing today is a ``vision bill.'' But that's okay, for as Yogi Berra is reported to have said, ``If you don't know where you're going, you may end up someplace else.'' This is where I want to go, and where I believe the vast majority of Americans would also like to go. In one recent survey, 48% percent of respondents thought they would be more likely to see Elvis than real campaign finance reform. And while this is obviously a somewhat toungue-in-cheek response for many people, I think it also reflects a deeply cynical electorate. For once let's not live down to their worst expectations, and let's pass tough, comprehensive campaign finance reform during this Congress. I ask consent that a summary of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be included in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr President, I am here today to introduce the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation. It is in some ways the ``gold standard'' of true campaign finance reform, against which any more modest legislation ought to be assessed. The conceptual approach it embodies--replacing special interest money in our current system with clean money--is being adopted by state legislatures and in referenda across the country. Some of my colleagues might respond to this announcement by saying that there are other issues that have arisen in this session that are more important than a debate over whether we will comprehensively reform our campaign finance laws. Some might argue that the American people appear to care more about other issues. I would argue, though, that public concern about one issue does not necessarily have to come at the expense of another. And while it is clear that Americans care very deeply about a variety of issues--Kosovo, taxes, education, and Social Security reform first among them--it is also clear that they care very much about the nature of our political system. When asked, 60 percent of Americans say they think that reforming the way campaigns are financed should be a high priority on our National agenda. There is no question in my mind that these people are right--reforming the way campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high priority on our agenda. Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the reality of systemic corruption. And we must act. In the House, a bipartisan effort is currently underway to force consideration of the Shays-Meehan bill, and the number of signers is slowly building. Yesterday, moderate House Republicans met with Speaker Hastert to ask for an early vote on the bill. Today, Representative Tierney is introducing the ``Clean Money'' companion bill with 38 original co-sponsors. The House is acting on campaign finance reform, as should we on the Senate side. Here in the Senate, we must push forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform. I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that the way we are moving toward a balanced federal budget is unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? The cuts we are imposing most deeply affect those who are least well off. That is well-documented. The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most affluent as a group, but numerous very narrow wealthy special interests. Does anyone wonder why Congress retains massive subsidies and tax expenditures for oil and pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? Are they curious why Congress permits a health care system dominated by insurance companies? Or a version of ``free trade'' which disregards the need for fair labor and environmental standards, for democracy and human rights, and for lifting the standard of living of American workers, as well as workers in the countries we trade with? How is it that Congress ever considers major legislation that directly promotes the concentration of ownership and power in the telecommunications industry, in the agriculture and food business, and in banking and securities? For the American people, how this happens, I think, is no mystery. I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties and to candidates. We must act to change this. We must act to change this because the American people have lost faith in the system. People are turning away from the political process. They are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, their right to be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because they don't believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that cash. The degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility expressed by the American people when asked about the political process overwhelms me. According to recent polls, cynicism abounds: 92 percent of all Americans believe special-interest contributions buy votes of members of Congress. 88 percent believe that those who make large campaign contributions get special favors from politicians. 67 percent think that their own representative in Congress would listen to the views of outsiders who made large political contributions before they would listen to their own constituents' views. And nearly half of all registered voters believe lobbyists and special interests control the government in Washington. We must act on campaign finance reform. We must act to restore Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew their hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the reform debate forward. As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they despair of making any real changes because they figure special interests have the system permanently rigged. I do not need to rehash the many serious problems with our campaign financing system. The bottom line is indisputable: the system does not have--and has not had for many years--the confidence of the American people. People have lost faith in Congress as an institution, in the laws we pass, and in the democratic process itself, because of the money chase and its accompanying systemic corruption. Too often in our system, money determines political viability, it determines the issue agenda, and it determines to whom legislators are accountable: cash constituencies, not real constituencies. Most troubling, money often determines election outcomes, and the public knows it. Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful elite controls the levers of government through a political process which rewards big donors--a system in which you have to pay to play. Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so- invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here. Too many Americans see our failures . . . to alleviate the harsh, grinding poverty that characterizes the lives of too many of our inner-city residents, to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor, to combat homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, rising health care costs, and an unequal system of education. And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and more progressive, fashion an energy policy that relies more on conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big- money politics. In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and fair elections. It is hard to say with a straight face that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, millionaires spend their personal fortunes to buy access to the airwaves, and special interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic process. Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite. Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to participate in the process of government. This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles. Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come with their own price tag attached--greater access and special consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform. Over the years, I have introduced and re-introduced campaign finance reform legislation, pushed amendments, organized my colleagues, given speeches, observed a self-imposed fundraising code stricter than current law, fought filibusters, and otherwise tried in every way I could to get tough, sweeping reform enacted into law. All to no avail. To my great regret, campaign finance reform so far has been successfully blocked in Congress by those who oppose it, staunch defenders all of the status quo. Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last Congress. We have tightened and strengthed some of the nuts and bolts of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance reform. If the 1994 elections are remembered as the year the Republicans swept into power in Congress, then the 1998 elections should go down as the year that special-interest money smothered Washington. Money has always played a role in American politics and campaign spending is not a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the national political parties raised $18.8 million in soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 election cycle that figure was up to $193.2 million in soft money. That's nearly a five-fold increase in just under five years. There can be no doubt that big money has become the primary currency of democracy in Washington. In the 1995-96 election cycle, corporations, groups, and individuals representing business interests outspent labor by 12-1. Individuals and PACs representing the natural resource industries (such as gas and oil companies) outspent environmental interests by an estimated 27-1 in contributions to congressional candidates. Political contributions representing finance, insurance, and real estate interests were in excess of $130 million for the last election cycle. In the 1996 election cycle, less than one-quarter of one percent of the American people made contributions of more than $200 in a Federal election. Yet an astounding eighty percent of all political money came from this tiny group. Of all the economically-interested money given to Congressional candidates, almost none represented the millions of Americans who are poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small bank depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries, and hospitals. It is clear who is represented under the current system and who is shut out. The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does all of these things by offering: The strictest curbs on special-interest money and influence. The ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation bans completely the use of ``soft money'' to influence elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non-electoral ``issue ads,'' provides additional funding to clean money candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and most importantly, allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the clean money system of financing. The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides a substantial amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal candidates, this legislation allows candidates to spend far less than ever before on their campaigns. The most competitive and fair election financing. By providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by non- participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field, regardless of their economic status or access to larger contributors. Right now, the system is wired for incumbents because they are connected to the connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to be attracted to incumbents, because that is where the power lies. This bill would allow all citizens to compete equally in the Federal election process. And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by limiting the period of time during which candidates receive their funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and disclosure requirements in Federal election campaigns. What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew the system through large campaign contributions. Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed principle of one person, one vote. I am not naive about the prospects for campaign finance reform during this Congress, and realize that the sweeping reform bill that I am introducing today is a ``vision bill.'' But that's okay, for as Yogi Berra is reported to have said, ``If you don't know where you're going, you may end up someplace else.'' This is where I want to go, and where I believe the vast majority of Americans would also like to go. In one recent survey, 48% percent of respondents thought they would be more likely to see Elvis than real campaign finance reform. And while this is obviously a somewhat toungue-in-cheek response for many people, I think it also reflects a deeply cynical electorate. For once let's not live down to their worst expectations, and let's pass tough, comprehensive campaign finance reform during this Congress. I ask consent that a summary of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be included in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to, although I want to make sure that I focus on some of these other issues. Let me yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is a fair enough question. In answering the question, let me say that I actually just did have an opportunity to be in a session with Secretary Rubin in which several of us expressed the very concerns that I have taken an hour to express. He said they are very valid concerns. ``On balance, I think it is better that we do this'' was what he said. And then when we had a discussion about CRA--and I have devoted a good deal of my time talking about that--the Secretary was very clear about the President's veto letter and very clear that it was important that we maintain these CRA provisions. Of course, the Secretary is interested in this legislation, though it wasn't quite the same report I heard that my colleague heard. I say one more time--I am coming to the end of my remarks--that in deference to all my colleagues out here, I know this Financial Services Modernization Act has the support of the industry groups and has the support of the financial institutions. Of course, because it is going to lead to more concentration of power and give them more say. I am sure Alan Greenspan would like it. The Federal Reserve Board is going to have even more power--an unelected body with yet even more decisionmaking power over decisions that vitally affect people's lives. But I have to tell you, in all due respect to one of my favorite colleagues, the Senator from Utah, one more time, besides believing this piece of legislation is a huge mistake, I won't support this legislation in its present form. I won't support the alternative, the substitute, either. Besides thinking it is a huge mistake, for reasons I have argued over the last hour--and my colleague from Texas was gracious enough to give me that opportunity--I also want to say one more time to family farmers in the State of Minnesota right now that this Financial Modernization Services Act doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean a thing. They want to know why we are not getting some loan money out to them right now because they are in such desperate shape. They are trying to live to be able to farm another day. To the people who are going to be laid off in Minnesota FSA, who are doing the good work of trying to process loans and help people, but have no money to work with, I think it is absolutely outrageous. To all the farmers in economic pain because we are not doing a darn thing about getting farm income up, or about getting price up, or a darn thing to take on some of these big grain companies and packers so family farmers can get a fair shake in the marketplace, I am for putting more free enterprise back into the food industry. It is the big monopolies I don't care for. These farmers have every reason to wonder what we are doing here. I will tell you one more time that the people in the cafes I have been in are not talking about this particular legislation; they don't see this as a crisis. Alan Greenspan may see the world in a very different way than people in the cafes in Minnesota, and so might the Secretary. Certainly these financial institutions do. Certainly Wall Street does. But people in Minnesota are not particularly interested in mergers, acquisitions, and all this consolidation of power. They are interested in a good job at a good wage. Why aren't we out here talking about raising the minimum wage? They are interested in not falling between the cracks when it comes to health care coverage. Why aren't Senators talking about decent health care coverage for people? They are interested in how they can afford prescription drugs. Why aren't Senators talking about affordable prescription drug coverage for seniors, and, for that matter, for all of us? They are interested in how there can be a decent education for their children. Why aren't Senators having a major debate about education or getting resources to communities so we can do a better job of educating our children? They are interested in how we can reduce violence in homes, in schools, and end the violence in our communities. Why aren't Senators out here with legislation that deals with that? They are interested in how to earn a decent living and how to give their children what they need and deserve. They are interested in making sure that every child, by kindergarten, comes to school ready to learn. Why aren't we investing in good, developmental affordable child care? That is what they are interested in. We are not dealing with any of those issues. I want to know when Senators are going to come out on the floor and deal with pieces of legislation that dramatically affect ordinary people, working families in my State and working families around the country. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague that initially--and I appreciate what he is saying and because of that, I will try to bring it to a close--I said I thought it would take 40 minutes. My colleague was gracious enough to say, take the time you need, take an hour and a half, whatever you need. I think that is actually part of the Record. And when he said that--I usually take direction from my colleague from Texas--I thought to myself, well, if I have an hour and a half to talk about the issues that I think we really ought to be talking about, I will take that. So I am about ready to finish up on that hour and a half.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will be spending some time on S. 900, but I also, in my remarks today, will be focusing on the question of when the Senate is going to start dealing with issues that affect ordinary citizens. I think that is what people in Minnesota would like to know. This is called the Financial Services Modernization Act. I have no doubt that the large banks and lending institutions are all for this. The question I have is, When are we going to come out here with legislation that benefits ordinary citizens?--which I mean in a positive way. I will come back to this later on. The Minnesota Farm Services Administration has now had to lay off close to 60 employees. That is where we are heading. This is an agency, the Farm Services Administration, that is a grassroots organization. They are out there trying to serve farmers. They are out in the field. They pick up on what is happening in rural Minnesota. Right now the message we are sending here from the Congress is, we can't even pass a supplemental appropriations bill that we started working on several months ago to provide spring planting operating money for family farmers. Prices are way down. Income is way down. People are being foreclosed on. It is not just where they work, it is where they live. They are losing their farms, and we can't even get to them some disaster relief money, some loan money, so they can continue to go on until we go back and change this ``Freedom to Fail'' bill that we passed several years ago. I am not telling you that some of the large conglomerates and some of the large grain companies and some of the large packers aren't making record profits. They are. They have muscled their way to the dinner table. They exercise raw political control over family farmers. Meanwhile, this bill, the Financial Services Modernization Act, is all about consolidation and letting large financial institutions have unchecked power. But what we should be talking about is these family farmers going under. I talked with Tracy Beckman today, director of the Minnesota FSA office. He told me that right now we have 340 loan requests, totaling $44.9 million, that are approved but are unfunded due to a lack of funding. Right now there is the possibility, unless we get this funding, that we are going to have 800 farm families in Minnesota that aren't going to get any financing. They need that financing if they are going to be able to go on. Yesterday Tracy Beckman told me the story of a family farmer who found out he couldn't get any loan money and he doesn't have any cash flow. You can work 24 hours a day and be the best manager in the world, and you will not make it as a family farmer right now. He said to one of our FSA officers out in the field, out in the countryside, when he found out that FSA can't help him because we are not able to pass a supplemental emergency assistance program, this farmer said, ``I'm just going to go home and shoot myself and my family.'' This is someone who is desperate. There is a lot of desperation in the countryside. We can't even pass a supplemental appropriations bill that will get some loan money out to family farmers, which we should have done a month ago or 6 weeks ago. Instead, we are out here on the floor talking about the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the big bank act, the large conglomerate act, the large financial institution act. When are we going to be out here talking about affordable child care, or about raising the minimum wage? When are we going to make sure people get decent health coverage? When are we going to talk about providing more funding for the Head Start Program? When are we going to be out here talking about how to reduce violence in homes, and in schools, and in our communities? When are we going to be out here talking about something that makes a difference to ordinary people? Now, Mr. President, I understand that all of the trade groups support this legislation--that is to say, all of the financial services groups. But I rise in strong opposition to this legislation called the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. This bill, S. 900, would aggravate a trend toward economic concentration that endangers not only our economy, but, I think, more importantly, it endangers our democracy. S. 900 would make it easier for banks, securities firms, insurance companies, and, in some cases, commercial firms, to merge into gigantic new conglomerates that would dominate the financial industry. Mr. President, this is the wrong kind of modernization at the wrong time. Modernization of the existing, confusing patchwork of laws, regulations, and regulatory authorities would be a good thing; but that is not what this legislation is really about. S. 900 is really about accelerating the trend toward massive consolidation in the financial sector. This is the wrong kind of modernization because it fails to put in place adequate regulatory safeguards for these new financial giants whose failure could jeopardize the entire economy. It is the wrong kind of modernization because taxpayers could be stuck with the bill if these conglomerates become ``too big to fail.'' We have heard that before--``too big to fail.'' This is the wrong kind of modernization because it fails to protect consumers. In too many instances, S. 900 would lead to less competition in the financial industry, not more. It would result in higher fees for many customers, and it would squeeze credit for small businesses and rural America. Most importantly, Mr. President, this is the wrong kind of modernization because it encourages the concentration of more and more economic power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The regulatory structure of S. 900, as well as the concentration it promotes, would wall off enormous areas of economic decisionmaking from democratic accountability. Mr. President, this is the wrong time to be promoting concentration in the financial sector. S. 900 purports to update obsolete financial regulations, but the bill itself is already obsolete. This idea has been around for over a decade. But economic circumstances have changed drastically in the intervening years. Today, much of the global economy is in crisis, and this is no time to be promoting a potentially destabilizing concentration of economic power. The banking industry has become more and more concentrated over the last 18 years, and especially during the 1990s. There have been 7,000 bank mergers since 1980. In the last year or so, we have seen megamergers that are the largest in the history of American banking. The merger of NationsBank and BankAmerica would have assets of $525 billion, and the BancOne and First Chicago/NBD merger would have assets of $233 billion. In 1980, by comparison, there were no mergers or acquisitions of commercial banks with a total of more than $1 billion in assets. What is new and different about the situation today is that banks are beginning to merge with insurance and securities firms. The merger between one of America's largest banks, Citibank, and the largest of insurance groups and brokerage groups, Travelers, is probably the best example. This new conglomerate will control over $700 billion in assets. Supporters of S. 900 argue that whether we like it or not, the lines between banking and securities--and the lines between banking and insurance--have already been breached. Regulators and courts have already let banks dabble more and more into securities and insurance, and they have let brokerages invade banking. The battle over Glass- Steagall has already been lost, they say. Well, Mr. President, I am not so convinced. If S. 900 didn't encourage more and bigger mergers, I don't think so many big banks, big insurance companies, and securities firms would be so enthusiastic about it. In fact, passage of S. 900 would set in motion a tidal wave of big money mergers. It would prompt other banks to start courting insurance and securities firms. And it would put increasing pressure on the banks of every size to find new partners. It may be true that we have already come a long way down this road. It may be true that the protections of Glass-Steagall and the Bank Holding Company Act have already been eroded. It is certainly true that we cannot turn back the clock. But it does not necessarily follow that we are doomed to continue down this perilous path wherever it may take us. Yes, regulators have already given banks an inch, but it doesn't mean we have to give them a mile. If the old laws and regulations are inadequate to deal with the changing world of finance, then we need better regulations, not weaker ones. We should not be supplying the wrecking ball that tears down all remaining walls between banking and other risky activities, without first putting into place adequate safeguards. Passing this bill would be an act of monumental hubris. It would reflect a smugness and complacency about our economic policy that I believe is unhealthy and unwarranted. We have heard the argument that America has entered the new age, a ``new paradigm,'' a so-called ``new economy.'' Depression and deflation are relics of a distant past. The old laws of ``boom and bust'' no longer apply. Our superior technology, so the argument goes, will allow us to sustain this economic recovery for another 20 or 30 years, and maybe more. This is the beginning of a long boom. Some have dared to imagine that we have arrived at the end of history. There is a dangerous moral to this story: that we no longer have to prepare for emergencies or guard against disaster; that the safeguards put in place years ago to stabilize the economy can now be safely withdrawn; that a safety net that will never again be tested by adversity can now be safely shredded; that we no longer need to worry about inadequate oversight of markets because the markets can and will police themselves; that bigger is better, antitrust is obsolete, and regulation is passe. I think we are flirting with disaster. We are strolling casually along the upper decks of the Titanic, oblivious to the dangers ahead of us. Remember, the Titanic in its day symbolized the ultimate triumph of technology and progress. Just like these new financial conglomerates, it was considered ``too big to fail.'' Because everybody assumed this flagship of Western technology was unsinkable, they saw no need to take ordinary precautions. They disregarded the usual rules of speed and safety, as Congress is now doing with S. 900. And they failed to store enough lifeboats for all the passengers, which reminds me of nothing so much as the repeal of the welfare entitlement. Mr. President, that is another thing that maybe we should be talking about on the floor of the Senate--what is happening with welfare reform. Later in my remarks, when I am talking about the real issues that affect real people, and in particular poor people, I will return to that. Some of the passengers in first class may be oblivious, but the world economy is still in a precarious state. Most of Asia is still in a depression. The Japanese economy is slugging through the 9th year of an unshakable slump. Russia has been mired in a depression for 8 years, its economy shrunk to half its former size. Brazil is entering into recession, with serious implications for all of its Latin American neighbors. European economies are showing signs of weakness. In the face of these sobering developments, the solution offered by this legislation is simply more of the same--more deregulation, more mergers, more concentration. At precisely the moment when, for the first time in 50 years, we face some of the hazards that Glass-Steagall was designed to contain, Congress wants to tear down the remaining firewalls once and for all. We seem determined to unlearn the lessons of history. Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was designed to prevent a handful of powerful financial conglomerates from holding the rest of the economy hostage. Glass-Steagall was one of several stabilizers designed to keep that from ever happening again, and until very recently it was very successful. But now S. 900 openly breaches the wall between banking and commerce. And what about the lessons of the savings and loan crisis? The Garn- St Germain Act of 1982 allowed thrifts to expand their services--people in the country will remember this--beyond basic home loans, and only seven years later taxpayers were tapped for a multibillion-dollar bailout. I'm afraid we're running the same kind of risks with this legislation. S. 900 would lead to the formation of a wide array of ``too big to fail'' conglomerates that might have to be bailed out with taxpayer money. These financial holding companies may well be tempted to run greater risks, knowing that taxpayers will come to their rescue if things go bad. S. 900 does set up firewalls to protect banks for failures of their insurance and securities affiliates. But even Alan Greenspan has admitted that these firewalls would be weak. And as the Chairwoman of the FDIC has testified, ``In times of stress, firewalls tend to weaken.'' The economists Robert Auerbach and James Galbraith warn that ``the firewalls may be little more than placing potted plants between the desks of huge holding companies.'' Regulators will have little desire to stop violations of these firewalls if they think a holding company is ``too big to fail.'' After the stock market crash of 1987, for example, Continental Illinois breached its internal firewalls to prop up a securities subsidiary. Regulators reprimanded Continental with a slap on the wrist. And even if there is no taxpayer bailout, the Treasury Department has expressed its concerns about unmet expectations. Investors and depositors may assume protection is indeed much greater for these holding companies than it actually is. And they may panic when they realize they were mistaken. And what about the lessons of the Asian crisis? Just recently, the financial press was crowing about the inadequacies of Asian banking systems. Now we are considering a bill that would make out banking system more like theirs. The much maligned cozy relationships between Asian banks, brokers, insurance companies and commercial firms are precisely the kind of crony capitalism S. 900 would promote. The economists James Galbraith and Robert Auerbach warn against repeating the mistakes of the Asian economies: ``There is already evidence of monopolistic practices in the banking industry that would be heightened by [S. 900]. There is now devastating experience from the recent problems experienced by huge banking-finance conglomerates in Asia. There is little justification to follow these examples, as would be allowed by [S. 900]. It could happen here if we build the same unwieldy structures to dominate our banking system.'' To be accurate, if we want to locate the real causes of the Asian crisis, we have to look at the reckless liberalization of capital markets that led to unbalanced development and made these economies so vulnerable to investor panic in the first place. The IMF and other multilateral institutions failed to understand how dangerous and destabilizing financial deregulation can be without first putting appropriate safeguards in place. World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote last year about the Asian crisis: The rapid growth and large influx of foreign investment created economic strain. In addition, heavy foreign investment combined with weak financial regulation to allow lenders in many Southeast Asian countries to rapidly expand credit, often to risky borrowers, making the financial system more vulnerable. Inadequate oversight, not over-regulation, caused these problems. Consequently, our emphasis should not be on deregulation, but on finding the right regulatory regime to reestablish stability and confidence. That is World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz. We claim to have learned our lessons from the crisis in Asia. But I am not sure we have. Tell me why on Earth are we doing this, besides the fact that these large financial institutions have so much political power? Why now? The backers of S. 900 claim that the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding Act of 1956 are obsolete and financial regulation must be modernized. Well, I'm all for modernization. But the question is: what kind of modernization? I think most of us agree that the existing patchwork of confusing and inconsistent regulations needs to be simplified and rationalized. GAO has testified that the piecemeal approach to deregulation taken by the Fed and Treasury has resulted in ``overlaps, anomalies, and even some gaps'' in oversight. The problem is that S. 900 doesn't really fix that problem. It maintains a patchwork of regulators. Who knows how they would coordinate their efforts when holding companies run into trouble? But most importantly, the reach of S. 900's regulatory safeguards does not match the size of these new conglomerates. A central feature of S. 900 is the transfer of regulatory authority for the newly created holding companies to the Federal Reserve. This seems a lot more like deregulation than modernization. Let me repeat that. A central feature of S. 900 is the transfer of regulatory authority for the newly created holding companies to the Federal Reserve. This sounds a lot more like deregulation than modernization. How much confidence can we have in the Fed's oversight? The case of Long Term Capital Management last year does not exactly inspire confidence. Only one week before that $3.5 billion bailout, Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that the risk of hedge funds was well under control and that bankers policing them knew exactly what they were doing. Well, in this case at least, they didn't know what they were doing. And apparently neither did the Fed. What concerns me more is that this massive transfer of power is anti- democratic. The Federal Reserve Board is not an elective body, and it's not democratically accountable. To the extent Congress pries into the Fed's business--which is not very much--we focus on monetary policy, not bank oversight. Why should we hand over so much power to an institution that is essentially accountable to the financial industry and nobody else? I repeat that. Why should we hand over so much power to an institution that is essentially accountable to the financial industry and nobody else? James Galbraith and Robert Auerbach write: The Federal Reserve's decision-making is contingent to a great extent on the banking industry which it regulates. Bankers elect two-thirds of its 108 directors on the boards directors of its 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. This 25,000 employee bureaucracy with its own budget that is not authorized or approved by the Congress is not independent of the bankers and finance companies that it would regulate. Several commentators have expressed open delight that this transfer of power to the Fed will insulate financial regulation from ``partisan politics.'' The Christian Science Monitor endorsed H.R. 10 last year because ``it would make financial regulation more remote from politics.'' But is this really something we should welcome? Another term for ``partisan politics'' in this case is ``democracy.'' Democracy may be messy sometimes. It would be vastly improved by real and meaningful campaign finance reform. But it also happens to be the basis of our form of government. Why should such an important area of public life be ``insulated'' from democratic accountability? Why should the people making the most important economic decisions in our country be accountable only to Wall Street and not to voters? Why are we transferring this kind of authority? We've already walled off most economic decisionmaking from any kind of democratic input. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has argued that we no longer have any fiscal policy to speak of, and Congress has delegated monetary policy to the Federal Reserve. ``The Fed, the IMF, and the Treasury are staffed by skilled economists,'' he wrote, ``but can we be sure that the choices they make are the right ones in the eyes of most of the people whose lives are being altered by them?'' He has noted that ``One reason governments exist is to insure that economies function for the benefit of the people, and not the other way around.'' Already, decisions about interest rates and desirable rates of unemployment--decisions that will decisively impact the lives of millions of Americans--are beyond the reach of democracy. They are reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of unelected bankers. What does it mean, as a practical matter, for supervision of the financial sector to be protected from democratic accountability? The contents of S. 900 itself should give us a pretty good idea. For whose benefit is this legislation being passed? In the long debate over this legislation, there has been a lot of talk about the conflicting interests of bankers, insurance companies, and brokers, but very little discussion of the public interest. Financial services firms argue that consolidation is necessary for their survival. They claim they need to be as large and as diversified as foreign firms in order to compete in the global marketplace. But the U.S. financial industry is already dominant across the globe and in recent years has been quite profitable. I see no crisis of competitiveness. Financial firms also argue that consolidation will produce efficiencies that can be passed on to consumers. But there is little evidence that big mergers translate into more efficiency or better service. In fact, studies by the Federal Reserve indicate just the opposite. There is no convincing evidence that mergers produce greater economic efficiencies. On the contrary, they often lead to higher banking fees and charges for small businesses, farmers, and other customers. Bigger bankers offer fewer loans for small businesses. And other Fed studies have shown that the concentration of banking squeezes out the smaller community banks. S. 900 reflects the same priority of interest promoted by financial consolidation itself. A provision designed to ensure that people with lower incomes can have access to basic banking services has been stripped out. Let me repeat that. A provision designed to ensure that people with lower incomes can have access to basic banking services has been stripped out. This provision was to address the growing problem that banking services are beyond the reach of millions of Americans. According to U.S. PIRG, the average cost of a checking account is $264 per year, a major obstacle to opening a checking account for low-income families. These families have to rely instead on usurious check-cashing operations and money order services. I don't see much protection for consumers in S. 900 either. Banks that have always offered safe, federally insured deposits will have every incentive to lure their customers into riskier investments. Last year, for example, NationsBank paid $7 million to settle charges that it misled bank customers into investing in risky bonds through a securities affiliate it set up with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. S. 900 makes nominal attempts to address these and other problems. But in the end, I am afraid this bill is an invitation to fraud and it is an invitation to abuse. Finally, the impact of S. 900 on the Community Reinvestment Act is a cause of real concern. I thank my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, for his tremendous leadership in making sure that we protect community reinvestment as a part of his substitute legislation. CRA has been an effective financial tool for the empowerment and growth of our communities for over 20 years. Despite this success, CRA is now in great danger. Why? Because S. 900 is a legislative package of deals and favors aimed to please Wall Street, certainly not Main Street. It is not good for small business, not good for low-income families, not good for rural America, not good for our neighbors or our communities. Within this bill are three substantial provisions intended to ``modernize'' financial services by rolling back the Community Reinvestment Act. But that will only encourage discrimination and promote economic despair. We need to ask ourselves a very important question: Are we willing to turn the clock back and abandon the Community Reinvestment Act? Are we willing to return to the days before 1977 when banks could freely discriminate against neighbors, farms, small towns, and other underserved populations, just because they were viewed as less profitable customers? We need to keep the doors open for families, seniors, farmers, small businesses, for consumers to access credit so they can realize their dream to own a home or start a business. We need to keep the doors open for community groups, for cities and towns to access credit to revitalize impoverished neighborhoods or to restore once abandoned buildings. We need to keep CRA strong because we all benefit from community reinvestment. CRA establishes a simple rule--that depository institutions must serve the needs of the communities in which they are chartered. In a safe and sound manner, they form partnerships with groups and consumers to provide lending to those denied credit. In a safe and sound manner, banks work with families looking to achieve their dream of owning a home. In a safe and sound manner, banks lend to small businesses to help them grow. In a safe and sound manner, banks lend to farmers who fall on hard times and need some extra help to survive falling commodity prices. For many consumers, CRA has been a lifesaver. To deny the positive impact CRA has made in improving the economic health of our country is simply to deny the facts. The CRA has delivered an estimated $1 trillion or more for affordable homeownership and community development. The role of CRA is not just to benefit the most impoverished neighborhoods in our States; rather, CRA cuts across class lines, race lines, gender lines, practically every hurdle to discrimination, to promote economic stability for families, small farmers, and communities. This legislation in its present form begins to take all that away. What is my proof? According to the statistics collected by the Local Initiative Support Corporation, or LISC, in 1997 the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that lending to minority and low-income borrowers is on the rise. For example, since 1993 the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58 percent; to Hispanics, by 62 percent; and to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 38 percent--well above the overall market. In 1997, large commercial banks made $18.6 billion in community development investments. In 1997, banks and thrifts subject to CRA's reporting requirements made two-thirds of all the small business loans made that year. More than one-fifth of those loans were made to small businesses and low- and moderate-income communities. Each time I return to Minnesota, I am convinced that CRA is working. Early this year, I had a chance to present an award to a family who had achieved their dream of becoming homeowners. Rene and Gloreen Cabrarra were the 750th family to purchase their home through an innovative partnership between the community group ACORN and a local bank. Rene and Gloreen had to move out of their apartment when it was condemned for repair problems. As a result, they moved in with other family members. The Cabrarras began working with the community group ACORN in the Twin Cities and were soon able to obtain a special low-income loan to buy their home, thanks to a CRA agreement between that community group and that bank in that metro area. There is no doubt that CRA has benefited Rene and Gloreen. As a result, they are now proud homeowners living in the Phillips neighborhood. From the nearly 170 mayors who have signed their name in support of the progress CRA has made in their communities, there is tremendous support. From family farm and rural organizations who see access to credit as being essential tools for their small communities, there is tremendous support. A story of empowerment can be shared by every group working for the advancement of their rights. Despite this undeniable success, the CRA is under attack. S. 900 would begin to dismantle its effectiveness in the communities where it has been most beneficial. Specifically, I will speak to two anti-CRA provisions in S. 900. First, S. 900 creates a safe harbor for banks that have maintained a satisfactory CRA rating for 3 consecutive years. This provision would practically eliminate the opportunity for public comment on the CRA performance of a bank at the time of a merger application. Banks that have received a satisfactory or better CRA rating for 3 years consecutively would be deemed in compliance and therefore freed from the requirement of public comment on their application. Public comment on a proposed merger is an especially useful tool in the case of large banks serving a variety of markets. In such cases, regulators examine only a portion of these markets to evaluate a bank's CRA rating. Since performance in small communities is weighted less than in larger areas, public comment sometimes provides the only means to truly examine the commitments of a bank to all of its community members. Simply put, public comment is a chance for community groups and consumers to bring to light important information and facts that may have been overlooked during the review process. However, this avenue for public involvement in the merger process is seriously undercut by S. 900's safe harbor provision. The only way a citizen could exercise his or her democratic rights would be to find ``substantial verifiable information'' of noncompliance since the merging bank's last CRA examination. This is a very high burden. An estimated 95 percent of all banks are deemed CRA compliant. As a result, the vast majority of mergers would be exempted from public comment. Some have justified this undemocratic safe harbor as a way to prevent extortion by community groups during the merger review process. Mr. President, in August 1998, I wrote a letter to the Federal Reserve requesting a public hearing on the proposed merger between Norwest Corporation, based in Minnesota, and Wells Fargo Company. I specifically requested that special attention be paid to the possible effects that this merger would have on the people and the communities who rely on Norwest's services and community participation across the State. I ask my colleagues, Was this extortion? I was not the only elected official to request such a hearing. A Congressman, a State representative, and various community groups did as well. Were they guilty of extortion? The 2-day hearing opened the doors for 70 different groups and individuals to publicly comment on the strengths and weaknesses of both Norwest and Wells Fargo with regard to community involvement. Representatives from the Navajo Nation, statewide nonprofit housing organizations, and microcredit lending organizations that provide a lifeline to small businesses, all had their chance to be heard. They had their chance to publicly challenge these merging entities to remain involved in their communities. Did this constitute extortion? No one was practicing extortion by requesting a public hearing on the merger between these two financial giants. No elected officials or nonprofits were doing anything improper when they publicly commented on the lending practices of these two banks. What these 70-plus groups and individuals were practicing was democracy. Using S. 900, citizens would be deprived of these democratic rights unless they could ``substantially verify'' a merging bank's noncompliance. That is not just undemocratic, it is unjust. At least the Daschle-Sarbanes amendment would retain the consumers' democratic right to participate in the process. The second anti-CRA provision in S. 900 is the small bank exemption. This provision would exempt banks in rural communities with assets of less than $100 million from CRA requirements. In fact, it would exempt 63 percent of all banks from the requirements of CRA. It would send a clear message to farmers, to small businesses, and to consumers in small towns that they do not have the same rights to access credit as consumers who live in urban areas. Some of my colleagues would argue that small banks in rural communities do not need CRA. Why? They claim that small banks by their nature serve the credit needs of local communities. But CRA compliance records will tell you a different story. More importantly, rural America is facing an economic crisis. Family farms are disappearing one by one from this country's rural landscape. Many rural communities are in great need of access to credit before their economies collapse. This anti-CRA provision completely ignores the realities and needs of rural America. According to a recent SBA (Small Business Administration) report, June 1998 data show a 4.6-percent decline in the number of small farm loans. That June 1998 data also reveals that the value of very large farm loans, over 1 million, has increased by 25 percent, while small farm loans under $250,000 increased by only 3.9 percent. As family farm and rural community organizations have concluded, larger loans are going to fewer farmers. According to a similar study conducted by the State of Wisconsin, farming operations were more likely to obtain a loan if they were under contract with an agribusiness. Small and independent farmers faced greater difficulty accessing the necessary credit to remain in operation. To quote an April 29 letter signed by 19 organizations representing the interests of farmers in rural communities: Rural areas continue to suffer from a serious shortage of affordable housing. Farmers are facing the worst financial conditions in more than a decade due to declining commodity prices. Rural Americans continue to need the tools of the CRA to ensure accountability of their local lending institutions. CRA helps to meet the credit demand of millions of family farmers, rural residents, and local businesses. In a March 24 letter to Senators, the National Farmers Union also sent the message that rural America needs the CRA just as much as our urban centers. To quote the letter from President Leland Swenson: The Community Reinvestment Act prohibits redlining, and encourages banks to make affordable mortgage, small farm, and small business loans. Under the impetus of CRA, banks and thrifts made $11 billion in farm loans in 1997. CRA loans assisted small farmers in obtaining credit for operating expenses, livestock and real estate purchases. Low- and moderate-income residents in rural communities also benefited from $2.8 billion in small business loans in 1997. In 1999, access to credit is tighter than usual, making it critical to maintain the CRA. For many consumers living in rural communities, having access to credit is having access to a future. Our rural communities need CRA because they can depend on little else in today's agricultural markets. I am strongly opposed to the small bank exemption in S. 900 because I have witnessed firsthand the important role CRA plays in rural communities in Minnesota. At least the Sarbanes-Daschle amendment would remove this harmful provision from the bill. We need to ask ourselves, do we really intend to return to the old banking practices of red lining? Do we want to leave our cities, small towns, and families without a means to become economically stable and strong? Do we intend to draw a clear line between the haves and have- nots? It has been nearly 3 years since the passage of welfare reform. Since then, urban and rural America has seen a dramatic rise in the numbers and needs of the desperately poor. Mr. President, that is right. Since then, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number and needs of the desperately poor. Why are we not talking about other issues on the floor of the Senate? I will get back to this in a little while. What does that have to do with CRA? Everything. Because of CRA, nonprofit organizations that assist the homeless are able to establish partnerships with banks to access credit and build affordable and emergency long-term housing. CRA loans that develop dilapidated neighborhoods and bring more jobs to our urban centers benefit former welfare recipients. Over $1 trillion has been invested with innovative ways of providing housing, jobs, and community revitalization to stabilize these economically troubled areas. CRA has been a mainstream banking practice for over 20 years. It has evolved over the years to better serve banks and their communities, and it has been streamlined to reduce the regulatory burden on small banks. This is a law that has been improved and has grown to better serve banks and consumers. A lot of big banks don't like the CRA. They feel it is an imposition. They denounce it as big government and overregulation. But for most people I ask, Which is the greatest danger here, concentration of political power in government or concentration of economic power? I don't think it is a close call. I think our goal should be to help ordinary people make sure they have some say over the economic decisions that affect their lives. Repealing CRA is not going to do that. No amount of antigovernment rhetoric is going to do that. But enforcing some meaningful consumer protections would do that. So would prohibiting mergers that threaten to crowd out community banking, squeeze credit for small businesses, and open the door to higher fees and ever more fraud and abuse. This is the fundamental problem with deregulation and economic concentration generally. It allows the Nation's economic power to be held in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The same thing is happening in many of our other major industries, including airlines, electric utilities, and communications. Ben Bagdikian has noted that 20 corporations and multinationals own most of the major media in the entire country--newspapers, magazines, radio, television and publishing companies. In the 2 years since the Congress eased restrictions on ownership of radio, 4,000 stations have been sold--in the last 2 years--and more than half of all big-city stations are in the hands of just five companies. The electric utility industry is already consolidating in expectation that the States and Congress will soon mandate retail competition. And 4,500 corporate mergers were announced in the first 6 months of last year, with the combined value of $1.7 trillion. These include SBC and Ameritech, Chrysler and Daimler Benz, Enron and PGE, Monsanto and American Home Products, Worldcom and MCI, and Columbia and HCA Healthcare. Now we hear about mergers between BP and Amoco, Mobil and Exxon, and on and on. Pretty soon we are going to have three financial service firms in the country, four airlines, two media conglomerates, and five energy giants. Mr. President, this is absolutely amazing to me, which is why I have spent some time making the case. We see more consolidations here. We see a dangerous concentration of power in telecommunications--that is the flow of information in democracy--and the same thing in energy, the same thing with health insurance companies. In agriculture it is absolutely unbelievable--absolutely unbelievable. Everywhere family farmers look you have these conglomerates that have muscled their way to the dinner table, exercising their raw economic and political power over family farmers, over consumers, and I might add, over taxpayers as well. Joel Klein came out to Minnesota, along with Mike Dunn, who heads the Packers and Stockyard Administration in the USDA, for a very dramatic public hearing in our State just a couple of Sundays ago. Let me tell you, you have these hog producers that are facing extinction, and then you have these packers that are in hog heaven. You have your grain farmers going under; and you have Cargill making a 52-percent profit in this past year. The farmers are saying, ``What is going on here? Consumers aren't getting a break. And we're not getting the prices that enable us to even keep going on with our farming. Who is making the money?'' Everywhere you see this concentration of power. I will have an amendment on this bill later on that will talk about antitrust action. Antitrust action has been taken off the table. Antitrust action has been taken off the table. This is a classic example of why we need reform. Because when it comes to antitrust action, and having the Senate say we are on the side of consumers, we are on the side of family farmers, we are on the side of community people, and we are willing to take on these huge companies, we dare not do that. These monopolies are the campaign givers. These are the heavy hitters. These are the investors. We have been through this before, Mr. President. At the end of the last century, industrial concentration accelerated at an alarming pace. Lots of people, including the columnist and author E.J. Dionne, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the philosopher, Michael Sandel, have noted the similarities between that era and our own. American democracy suffered as a result of that concentration of economic power. The two parties became dominated by similar corporate interests. Their platforms started to sound an awful lot alike, and voter participation declined dramatically. Why? Because people realized that they had little to say in the economic decisions that most affected their lives. I think that aptly describes the situation today. I tell you, when I travel in Minnesota or travel in the country, one of the things that people say to me is that they think both parties are controlled by the same investors. They do not think there is any real opportunity for them to have any say anymore in this political process. And once again, we are about to pass a piece of legislation --I hope we do not, but if we do--a piece of legislation that will lead to the rapid consolidation in the financial services industry, to the detriment of rural America, to the detriment of small towns, to the detriment of low- and moderate-income people, and to the detriment of working families. But there is an awful lot of economic and political clout behind this bill. And what is in store for us if we allow this trend to continue? Huge financial conglomerates the size of Citigroup will truly be ``too big to fail.'' Government officials and Members of Congress will be prone to confuse Citigroup's interests with the public interest, if they do not already. I think they do already. What happens when one of these colossal conglomerates decides, for example, it might like to turn a profit by privatizing Social Security? Who is going to stand in their way? That is a trick question, of course, because we already face that dilemma today. But I contend that the economic concentration resulting from passage of S. 900 would only make that problem worse. In a sense, then, campaign finance is only a symptom of a larger problem. By all means, we should drive money out of politics. Absolutely, we should. But even if we succeed, the trend towards economic concentration will diminish the value of democratic decisionmaking. If few or none of the most important economic decisions are made democratically, or are even subject to democratic accountability, what is the point of voting? Indeed, these developments raise important and fundamental questions about the role of democracy itself. It used to be that these questions were a source of concern for many people. And they were a hot topic for political debate. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson warned not only against the concentration of political power, but also against the concentration of economic power. The great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis railed against the ``Curse of Bigness.'' Brandeis argued that industrial concentration coarsened the value of democracy by diminishing the role of individuals in economic decisions. We should not let that debate die. It is a vital part of our democratic heritage. There may be some colleagues who share these concerns but will nonetheless vote for S. 900. They say this is the best we can do. They say the damage has already been done, and concentration will continue with or without this legislation. I disagree. I think we need to take a good look at this. Before we consider sweeping changes in our financial services laws, we had better understand the effects of the latest wave of mergers. The true test of these new combinations will be the impact of the next recession. We need to see how these megamergers hold up before proceeding any further. There is simply no justification or excuse for this kind of invitation to bigness before a solid, updated regulatory system can be put in place. I believe this legislation is an enormous mistake. It is not necessary. And it could do real harm to the economy. It should be soundly defeated. It should be soundly rejected. Mr. President, with due respect to my colleagues, while I have the floor I want to argue one other case. And I say to both the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Utah, I will not dominate the whole afternoon, but I do want to make one other argument. And it is this: I do not understand why we are on the floor dealing with this legislation. I do not really understand why we are dealing with--what is it called--the Financial Services Modernization Act. When I talk to people in cafes in Minnesota, they do not talk to me about the Financial Services Modernization Act at all. As a matter of fact, I will tell you something. If you spend a little bit of time with people, most people will say--and both of my colleagues, the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Utah will be happy to hear the first part of what they say, and maybe not as happy to hear the second part. If you do a poll and ask them, ``Are you a liberal or a conservative,'' at the Town Talk Cafe in Willmar, which is my focus group--and that is the name of the cafe--I would say 75 percent of the people say they are conservative. They do. But you know what? If you stick around and talk to people for a while, they do not like the way in which these big banks have taken over financial services and have driven out the community banks. And they do not like these big insurance companies that are dominating health insurance. And they do not like how these conglomerates are driving family farmers out. And they do not like the concentration in telecommunications. And they do not like to see the merger of the energy companies. And they are not all that happy with Northwest Airlines that basically dominates about 75 percent of the flights in the State of Minnesota. Those people in the cafes of Minnesota have a healthy skepticism about bigness. They have a healthy skepticism about a piece of legislation that leads to dangerous consolidation, and basically leaves the economic decisionmaking, that can make or break the lives of families and communities and neighbors, in a few hands. They are right. More importantly, one more time, I just want to sound this alarm, which is why I am going to talk a little bit more here. We have a situation in my State of Minnesota right now which I can only define as desperate. I have spoken at enough farm gatherings. I spoke first, it was a farm gathering in northwest Minnesota, Crookston. Then there was a farm gathering that I spoke at in Worthington. Then there was a farm gathering in Sioux Falls, SD. Then there was a farm gathering in Sioux City, IA. Every time I spoke at those gatherings--and there were 500, 600, 700, several thousand farmers--I looked out there and I saw the pain in the faces of family farmers. I see the pain in the faces of those family farmers as I am in this Chamber for two reasons: First of all, on the long-term front, these family farmers can't make it without a decent price. They want to know what we are going to do about getting farm income up. Why aren't we talking about farm income today? Why aren't we doing something about agriculture? They want to talk about when there is going to be antitrust action. They want to talk about who is going to be on their side, not on Cargill's side or IBP's side or Monsanto's side. They want to talk about whether or not there is going to be some protection for them so they have a chance to make it. These family farmers also want to know why in the world we can't get emergency assistance to them as a part of the emergency supplemental bill. They thought 2 months ago we were going to do it, but we didn't. We left and went home for spring break. Now we are back. I say to the majority party, get that supplemental bill out here on the floor and pass it. How can we hold this bill up? There was supposed to be a separate ag supplemental bill. But I think it was tied to Central American assistance. I think they went together. It should be passed out of here, because, one more time, the Minnesota FSA is laying off its employees. You might say, so what, a bunch of bureaucrats. Not so. This is a grassroots organization, with people out in the farmland providing people with credit, as a lender of last resort, with more and more demand as farm prices are down, farmers are facing foreclosure, trying to get out there and plant, and they do not have the loan money. This is a demoralized agency, and they are letting people go. As I said earlier, we are going to have, on the present course, at least 800 farmers who aren't going to get any financing at all. They are going to go under. That is a real emergency supplemental bill. I am tempted, while I have the floor, to speak for a while about this, because it seems to me that we ought to be doing something about this and we ought to be doing something about it right now. The Financial Services Modernization Act--I have to write this down--the Financial Services Modernization Act does not mean a thing to them. The Financial Services Modernization Act does not mean a thing to these family farmers. They want this Congress to pass that supplemental bill because for them time is not neutral. Time marches on. If they do not get any assistance, they are going to go under. These are hard-working people. I think it is just simply unconscionable. I am not just talking about the Financial Services Modernization Act. I think it is unconscionable that any piece of legislation go forward on the floor of the Senate until we do something about this. It is absolutely unbelievable; it really is. I mentioned a story earlier. I see there are people in the Chamber who are watching the debate--or at least watching one person speak. I have a hard time giving people a feel for the gloom that is out there. Again, I talked to Tracy Beckman, not using any names, who is director of the Minnesota FSA. He said, I think it was this morning, that one of the farmers who was denied a loan because there was no money, because we haven't done anything--we are supposed to pass this emergency supplemental bill and get the funding out there--one farmer today said, ``Well, I'm just going to shoot myself and my family.'' That is horrifying. That is what he said. There is tremendous economic pain, tremendous desperation. People are going under. We have the Financial Services Modernization Act, this piece of legislation. Frankly, it doesn't mean anything to these farmers. They want to get some help. They would like to get spring planting loan money. That is what they would like to have done for them. That is not what we are doing. When are we going to get serious? It is clear what this piece of legislation does. We have the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been tremendously important to lots of people in small communities. It has ended redlining. I used to do community organizing against redlining. It has worked well. It has made a huge difference. It's a source of capital, and lots of communities have overcome discrimination. This piece of legislation takes all that away. Wipes it out, wipes it out through the two provisions that I talked about. My question is, what does it do for ordinary citizens? What does it do for ordinary people? That is the question. Why aren't Senators talking about issues that matter to working people, that matter to ordinary citizens in our country? Why aren't we talking about the Town Talk Cafe? I see my colleagues on the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. As long as I continue to have the floor, I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a fairly lengthy statement because I am probably one of the few Senators who objects to this bill and I want to lay out my case. I want to talk strongly in the positive about some of what Senator Sarbanes is presenting. So I think probably about 40 minutes, I would need.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could just do this, because I do not want my colleague from Maryland rushing along and there are other colleagues out here: I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak this afternoon before we get to amendments?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I just interrupt my colleague and ask a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am a little uneasy he is being rushed along. My understanding is at 12:15 we were going to go into morning business; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague I did not want him to rush. I will come after the caucuses and speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is or is not?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to Senator McCain, I believe silence equals betrayal, and I think we should be debating this question. Besides having a great deal of respect for him, I appreciate his efforts. We may be in disagreement, but I thank the Senator from Arizona for his important efforts. It was with this deep belief in my soul that I voted 6 weeks ago to authorize the participation of the United States in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I did so with a heavy heart and not without foreboding, because I knew once unleashed, a bombing campaign led by the world's greatest superpower to put a stop to violence would likely lead to more violence. Violence begets violence, and yet there are those extremely rare occasions when our moral judgment dictates that it is the only remaining course available to us. I did so because it was my judgment that we had exhausted every diplomatic possibility and that our best and most credible information was that without military action by the United States, a humanitarian disaster was about to occur. Just as the Senate was about to conduct a rollcall vote on the subject, I sought to make sure that the Record reflected the rightness of our course of action. I was assured that our purpose was to prevent the imminent slaughter of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent civilians living in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo by Serb security forces. I had no doubt about the wisdom and correctness of our decision, and today I harbor no second thoughts about the morality of the initial course. Others may question the reasoning of some who embarked upon the bombing campaign. History will judge whether there were other rationales involved: the significance of prior threats we had made and how our credibility was on the line; the geopolitical factors that required that we act; the continued viability of NATO as a force to be reckoned with throughout the world. Whatever the importance these factors may have played in the decisions of others to authorize the bombing, my own was a simple one: Inaction in the face of unspeakable, imminent, and preventable violence is absolutely unacceptable. In short, the slaughter must be stopped. I have no regrets about that decision. The violence perpetrated against the innocents of Kosovo has been, indeed, unspeakable. My only regret is that our actions have been less effective than I had hoped: over a million humans, mostly women and children, uprooted from their homes; hundreds of thousands expelled from their country, and their homes and villages burned; women raped, thousands of the residents killed, and children separated from their families. The catalog of these atrocities expands every single day. Just last week, the Serb paramilitaries in southern Kosovo reportedly forced between 100 and 200 young men from a convoy of refugees heading for the border, took them into a nearby field, made them drop to their knees, and summarily executed them, leaving their bodies there as a warning to their fellow refugees. The catalog of horror goes on and on and on. I met a woman from Kosovo in my office on Friday with a businessman. They told me of four little children they had met in a refugee camp. The children had bandages over their eyes. They thought perhaps they had been near an explosion. That was not the case. The Serbs had raped their mother. They had witnessed the rape, and the Serbs cut their eyes out--they cut their eyes out. I do not understand this level of hatred. I do not understand this frame of reference. I have no way of knowing how people can do this. We have witnessed the destabilization of neighboring countries who cannot possibly handle the new masses of humanity heaped on their doorstep. Hundreds of thousands are homeless, without shelter and food, wandering throughout the mountains of Kosovo, frightened and in hiding. Certainly war crime prosecutions await the perpetrators. And we cry out for justice to be done. We watch the humanitarian relief efforts underway by our own Government, by our European friends, by the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and by countless nongovernmental humanitarian relief organizations, and we weep at the abundant good that exists in the world in the face of the unspeakable horror. As I said, legitimate questions remain. There will undoubtedly be hearings relating to the wisdom and timing of our decision to enter this conflict. But that time is not now. So long as our military forces are engaged in this mission, they deserve our full support. I began my statement with the phrase ``silence is betrayal.'' I believe it is time to speak out once again, this time about where we are and where we are headed. First, I want to express my strongest possible support for diplomatic efforts to resolve this crisis, especially the shuttle diplomacy undertaken by Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott, and the response of the Yeltsin government in sending Mr. Chernomyrdin to speak with President Clinton here today about his latest concrete proposals for resolving this crisis. As the NATO bombing campaign enters its sixth week, I think it is imperative that we put as much energy into pushing and pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis as we are putting into the military campaign. We see exhaustive daily briefings on our success in hitting military targets. I would like to see an equal emphasis on evaluating our success in achieving our diplomatic goals. I have the greatest respect for Strobe Talbott, and I think he is representing us ably in our efforts to engage the Russians in helping to forge a negotiated settlement in Kosovo. I have told him recently how important I believe it is that we not simply try to get the Russians to agree to NATO's view on how a settlement should be reached. I support the basic military, political, and humanitarian goals which NATO has outlined: the safe return of refugees to their homes; the withdrawal of Serb security forces--or at least to halt the bombing, a start on their withdrawal, with a commitment to a concrete timetable; the presence of an armed international force to protect refugees and monitor Serb compliance; full access to Kosovo for nongovernmental organizations aiding the refugees; and Serb willingness to participate in meaningful negotiations on Kosovo's status. But there are different ways to meet these goals. We need to be open to new Russian ideas on how to proceed, including the key issue of the composition of an international military presence--and it must be a military presence--to establish and then keep the peace there. We should welcome imaginative Russian initiatives. I think the Russians have shown once again--by President Yeltsin's engagement on this issue and by his appointment as envoy of a former Prime Minister-- a sincere willingness to try to come up with a reasonable settlement. Let's encourage them to put together the best proposals they can and assure them that NATO will be responsible and flexible in its response. I am heartened by the former Prime Minister's visit today to the United States, and that United States-Russian diplomatic channels are open and are being used continuously. These channels should be used continuously to keep the Russian mediation efforts on track, if possible. I think it is imperative that we not sit back and hope that more bombing, or expanding the list of targets, will eventually work. We really need to put all the effort we can into our diplomacy. I think, as I have said, the Russians may have a key role to play. Second, we must keep uppermost in our mind that a humanitarian disaster of historic proportions is unfolding in refugee camps throughout the region. The American people have been horrified by the situation in Kosovo and are anxious to help. Now is not the time for the U.S. Government to be parsimonious about our humanitarian assistance. The lives and well- being of the Kosovars was at the crux of why we entered this crisis in the first place. I believe we may need to bolster the current funding request by several hundred million dollars to provide the aid that will be needed by international aid organizations, the religious community, and others deeply involved in the refugee effort. If it turns out that it is not necessary, we can return the funds to the Treasury. But we should authorize more now, anticipating that we and other NATO allies who will share this burden will be called upon to do much more in the coming months. Medical supplies, food, basic shelter, blankets, skilled physicians and trauma specialists to aid the refugees, longer-term economic development, and relocation aid all will be critical to relieving this crisis. Third, on the conduct of the military campaign, we must remember that NATO forces undertook this bombing campaign to stop the slaughter and protect those living in Kosovo. Let me repeat that. The most immediate and important goals of our bombing campaign, from my perspective, were to stop the slaughter and mass displacement of millions of innocent civilians throughout Kosovo and deter further Serb aggression against them. So far that goal has gone unmet, with terrible results and a very high human cost. Some NATO military officers have been quoted as saying the bombing campaign alone will not and cannot stop the ethnic cleansing. While it is clear that we made progress in weakening the Serb military machine, including its air defenses, supply lines to Kosovo, oil and munitions sites, other military sites, the hard truth is that while the bombing campaign has gone on, Kosovo is being looted, emptied, and burned. Now that the Apache attack helicopters and accompanying antimissile systems have arrived in the region, we should be pressing forward with these airstrikes against these paramilitary forces in Kosovo most responsible for the most brutal attacks on civilians. There can be no excuse for further delays. Mr. President, it is clear that we have not stopped the slaughter. Ethnic cleansing, which we sought to stop, goes on and on and on. Our response has been to intensify the bombing, especially in Serbia, and to expand the targets to include economic and industrial sites there. Some of these were originally chosen because they were said to be ``dual use.'' I understand that rationale. But now some seemingly nonmilitary targets appear to be selected--including the radio and TV network, Milosevic party headquarters, the civilian electricity grid, and other seeming civilian targets--to put pressure on the people of Serbia who, it is hoped, will in turn put political pressure on the Milosevic regime to back down. I think this reasoning is pure folly and cannot be used to justify the expansion of civilian targets to be bombed. True military targets are legitimate. Certain dual-use targets, especially those directly related to the Serb war effort, may be. But I know of no rules of war which allow for the targeting of civilian targets like some of those we have targeted. We should rethink this strategy, not the least because it undermines the legitimate moral and political claims we have made to justify our military efforts to protect innocent civilians in Kosovo. Expanding the target list in this way is wrong. Not only does the expansion of civilian, industrial and economic sites greatly increase the risk of civilian casualties, but it is morally questionable if the primary purpose is to do economic harm to the civilian population-- people who have nothing to do with the violent ethnic cleansing campaign being conducted by the Serbian military machine. What are the future military plans being discussed? These now apparently include an embargo against future shipments of oil to Yugoslavia. Russia is the Serbs' major oil supplier. What if oil shipments continue to come from Russia? Will Russian transports be the next targets of NATO forces? Mr. President, this resolution, as open-ended as it is, is not the right way to proceed on this complex and difficult question. It reminds me in some ways of the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin resolution which helped trigger the Vietnam war. It is too open-ended, too vague, and I will not vote for it. NATO military commanders have not asked for ground troops. The President of the United States has not asked Congress to authorize them. We should promptly table this resolution later today. Even one of its principal sponsors, Senator Biden, has observed that they did not intend for this resolution to be brought to the Senate floor now under the expedited procedures of the War Powers Act. But even though we will likely table it, we must continue to move forward in our efforts to achieve a prompt, just and peaceful end to this conflict. And we should have the debate. Once again, I cannot be silent. In short, I think it is time for all the parties to consider a brief and verifiable timeout. Yes, a timeout before we proceed further down the risky and slippery slope of further military action, before it is too late to turn back. There are negotiations underway. There are pivotal efforts being undertaken by the Russian leaders. There are discussions. There are proposals and counterproposals being discussed. Some are being interpreted in different ways by different parties. Ideas are being explored. Some of our friends in and out of NATO are discussing various ways to end this nightmare. The continued evolution of these plans must be given a chance. There is no ``light at the end of the tunnel'' unless renewed diplomacy is given a chance to work. With the former Prime Minister and the President talking today, what I am proposing on the floor of the Senate for consideration, if it can be worked out in a way which would protect NATO troops and would not risk Serb resupply of the war machine, is a brief and verifiable halt in the bombing, a cessation of what seems to be the slide toward the bombing of a broader array of nonmilitary targets, a potential oil embargo directed at other countries, and toward deeper involvement in a wider war that I believe we could come to regret. I am not naive about whether we can trust Milosevic; we have seen him break his word too many times for that. Nor am I proposing an open- ended halt in our effort; but a temporary pause of 48 hours or so, offered on condition that Milosevic not be allowed to use the period to resupply troops or to repair his air defenses and that he immediately orders his forces in Kosovo to halt their attacks and begin to actually withdraw. It would not require his formal prior assent to each of these conditions, but if our intelligence and other means of verification concludes that he is taking military advantage of such a pause by doing any of these things, then we should resume the bombing. .I believe that we may need to take the first step, a gesture, in the effort to bring these horrors to an end. Such a pause may well be worthwhile, if it works to prompt the cessation of the ethnic cleansing and a return of Serb forces to their garrisons. .It may create the conditions for the possibility of further talks on the conditions under which NATO's larger term goals, which I support, can be met. .A brief cessation might also enable nongovernmental organizations and other ``true neutrals'' in the conflict to airlift or truck in and then distribute relief supplies to the internally displaced Kosovars who are homeless and starving in the mountains of Kosovo, without the threat of this humanitarian mission being halted by the Serbian military. A Serb guarantee of their safe conduct would be an important reciprocal gesture on the part of Milosevic. .These people must be rescued, and my hope is that a temporary bombing pause might help to enable aid organizations to get to them. .I hope that President Clinton and Mr. Chernomyrdin will consider this idea and other similar proposals in their discussion today. .I intend to explore and refine these ideas further with administration officials in the coming days to see if it might hold any promise to bring this awful war to a peaceful close. I am not naive. .I understand that the safety of our NATO forces must be held paramount in any such exploration. .But it is, it seems to me, worth exploring further. .One thing that is clear is that the situation on the ground in Kosovo today and in those countries which border it is unacceptable and likely to worsen considerably in the coming weeks. I am not just talking about a geographical or geopolitical abstraction, the stability of the region. .I am talking about the human cost of a wider Balkan conflict. .For 50 years, we have spent the blood and treasure of Americans and Europeans to help provide for a stable, peaceful Europe. .I believe we must again work with the Europeans, and now with the Russians and others, who have historic ties to the Serbs to try to resolve this crisis before the flames of war in Kosovo and the refugee exodus which it has prompted consume the region. .Stepped up diplomacy, a possible pause in the airstrikes, and other similar efforts to bring a peaceful and just end to this crisis should be pursued right now. Silence equals betrayal. It was with that belief deep in my soul that I voted, six weeks ago, to authorize the United States participation in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I did so with a heavy heart, and not without foreboding, because I knew that, once unleashed, a bombing campaign led by the world's greatest superpower to put a stop to violence will likely lead to more violence. Violence begets violence. And yet, there are those extremely rare occasions when our moral judgment dictates that that is the only remaining course available to us. I did so because it was my judgment that we had exhausted every diplomatic possibility, and that our best and most credible information was that without military action by the United States, a humanitarian disaster was beginning to occur. Just as the Senate was about to conduct a roll call vote on this subject, I sought to make sure that the record reflected the rightness of our course of action. I was assured that our purpose was to prevent the imminent slaughter of thousands, if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo by Serb security forces. I had no doubt about the wisdom and correctness of our decision. And today, I harbor no second thoughts about the morality of that initial course. Others may question the reasoning of some who embarked upon the bombing campaign. History will judge whether there were other rationales involved: The significance of prior threats we had made and how our credibility was on the line; the geopolitical factors that required that we act; the continued viability of NATO as a force to be reckoned with throughout the world. Whatever importance these factors may have played in the decisions of others to authorize the bombing, my own was a simple one--inaction in the face of unspeakable, imminent, and preventable violence was absolutely unacceptable. In short, the slaughter must be stopped. I have no regrets about that decision. The violence perpetrated against the innocents of Kosovo has indeed been unspeakable. My only regret is that our actions have been less effective than I had hoped. Over a million humans, mostly women and children, uprooted from their homes. Hundreds of thousands expelled from their country, their homes and villages burned. Women raped, thousands of the residents killed, children separated from their families. The catalog of these atrocities expands every single day. From Acareva to Zim, villages in Kosovo have been burned by Serb forces. In Cirez, as many as 20,000 Albanian refugees were reportedly recently used as human shields against NATO bombings. In Djakovica, over 100 ethnic Albanians were reportedly summarily executed by Serb forces. In Goden, the Serbs reportedly executed over 20 men, including schoolteachers, before burning the village to the ground. In Kuraz, 21 schoolteachers were reported by refugees to have been executed in this village near Srbica, with hundreds more being held there by Serb paramilitary forces. In Pastasel, the bodies of over 70 ethnic Albanians, ranging in age from 14 to 50, were discovered by refugees on April 1. In Podujevo, Serb forces may have executed over 200 military- age Kosovar men, removing some from their cars and shooting them on the spot, at point-blank range. In Pristina, the Serbs appear to have completed their military operations in the city and have been ethnically cleansing the entire city. Approximately 25,000 Kosovars were forcibly expelled from the city last month, shipped to Macedonia by rail cars in scenes eerily reminiscent of the holocaust trains, and approximately 200,000 more may be detained there, awaiting their forced expulsion. In Prizren, Serb forces reportedly executed between 20 and 30 civilians. In Srbica, after emptying the town of its Kosovar inhabitants, Serb forces are believed to have executed 115 ethnic Albanian males over the age of 18. Over twenty thousand prisoners are reportedly still being housed in an ammunition factory near the town, under Serbian guard. Just last week, Serb paramilitaries in southern Kosovo reportedly forced between 100 and 200 young men from a convoy of refugees heading for the border, took them into a nearby field, made them drop to their knees, and summarily executed them, leaving their bodies there as a warning to their fellow refugees. The catalog of horrors goes on and on. We have witnessed the destabilization of neighboring countries who cannot possibly handle the new masses of humanity heaped on their doorstep. Hundreds of thousands homeless, without shelter and without food, wandering throughout the mountains of Kosovo, frightened and in hiding. Certainly war crime prosecutions await the perpetrators and we cry out for justice to be done. We watch the humanitarian relief efforts underway, by our own government, by our European friends, by the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and by countless non- governmental humanitarian relief organizations and we weep at the abundant good that exists in the world in the face of this unspeakable horror. As I said, legitimate questions remain, and there will undoubtedly be hearings relating to the wisdom and timing of our decision to enter this conflict. But that time is not now, and so long as our military forces are engaged in this mission they deserve our full support. I began my statement with the phrase ``silence is betrayal.'' And I believe it is time to speak out once again, this time about where we are, and where we are headed. First, I want to express my strongest possible support for diplomatic efforts to resolve this crisis, especially the shuttle diplomacy undertaken by Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott, and the response of the Yeltsin government in sending Mr. Chernomyrdin to speak with President Clinton here today about his latest concrete proposals for resolving this crisis. As the NATO bombing campaign enters its sixth week I think it is imperative that we put as much energy into pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis as we are putting into the military campaign. We see exhaustive daily briefings on our success in hitting military targets--I would like to see equal emphasis on evaluating our success in achieving our diplomatic goals. I have the greatest respect for Strobe Talbott and I think he is representing us ably in our efforts to engage the Russians in helping to forge a negotiated settlement in Kosovo. I have told him recently how important I believe it is that we not simply try to get the Russians to agree to NATO's views on how a settlement should be reached. I support the basic military, political and humanitarian goals which NATO has outlined: the safe return of refugees to their homes; the withdrawal of Serb Security forces--or at least, to halt the bombing, a start on their withdrawal, with a commitment to a concrete timetable; the presence of an armed international force to protect refugees and monitor Serb compliance; full access to Kosovo for non-governmental organizations aiding the refugees; and Serb willingness to participate in meaningful negotiations on Kosovo's status. But there are different ways to meet these goals. And we need to be open to new Russian ideas on how to proceed, including on the key issue of the composition of an international military presence to establish and then keep the peace there. We should welcome imaginative Russian initiatives. I think the Russians have shown once again--by President Yeltsin's engagement on this issue and by his appointment as envoy of a former Prime Minister-- a sincere willingness to try to come up with a reasonable settlement. Let's encourage them to put together the best proposals they can and assure them that NATO will be flexible in its response. I am heartened by the former Prime Minister's visit today to the U.S., and that US- Russian diplomatic channels are open and are being used continuously. These channels should be used continuously to keep the Russian mediation efforts on track, if possible. I think it is imperative that we not sit back and hope that more bombing, or expanding the list of targets, will eventually work. We need to really put all the effort we can into our diplomacy. And I think, as I've said, the Russians may have a key role to play. Second, we must keep uppermost in our mind that a humanitarian disaster of historic proportions is unfolding in refugee camps throughout the region. The situation is so tense that it is being reported there have been near-riots in some camps over the desperate conditions there, and the situation in camps near Blace in Macedonia and at Kukes in northern Albania are especially grim. Shortly, we will consider an emergency supplemental package to fund the military and humanitarian costs for the Kosovo crisis. I am deeply concerned that the amount requested for refugee assistance may not be enough to meet the overwhelming needs of this emergency--the largest refugee crisis since World War II. We are meeting the military challenge by spending millions a day to assist NATO in its war against Serb aggression. The humanitarian challenge we face is just as great. If we have learned anything in recent weeks, it is that we must prepare for the worst of the worst- case scenarios. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are still trapped inside Kosovo, waiting for an opportunity to escape. A further massive exodus seems likely. We must be prepared to meet their needs. Extensive medical supplies and possibly another field hospital will also be needed, since more and more new arrivals are requiring medical attention. Our experience in Bosnia has taught us that these refugees will not be going home anytime soon. Long-term assistance is required. Further, we must support Albania and Macedonia who are struggling to meet basic needs of their own people, let alone those of the Kosovar refugees. The American people have been horrified by the situation in Kosovo, and are anxious to help. Now is not the time for the US government to be parsimonious about our humanitarian assistance. The lives and well- being of the Kosovars was at the crux of why we entered this crisis in the first place. I believe we may need to bolster the current funding request by several hundred million to provide the aid that will be needed by international aid organizations, the religious community, and others deeply involved in the refugee effort. If it turns out that it is not necessary, we can return the funds to the Treasury. But we should authorize more now, anticipating that we and our other NATO allies who share this burden will be called upon do much more in the coming months. Medical supplies, food, basic shelter, blankets, skilled physicians and trauma specialists to aid the refugees, longer-term economic development and relocation aid--all will be critical to relieving this crisis. Third, on the conduct of the military campaign, we must remember that NATO forces undertook this bombing campaign to stop the slaughter and protect those living in Kosovo. Let me repeat that. The most immediate and important goals of our bombing campaign, from my perspective, were to stop the slaughter and mass displacement of innocent civilians throughout Kosovo, and to deter further Serb aggression against them. So far that goal has gone unmet, with terrible results and very high human costs. Some NATO military officers have been quoted as saying that the bombing campaign alone will not and cannot stop the ethnic cleansing. While it is clear we have made progress in weakening the Serb military machine, including its air defenses, supply lines to Kosovo, oil and munitions sites, and other military sites, the hard truth is that while the bombing campaign has gone on, Kosovo is being looted, emptied and burned. Now that the Apache attack helicopters and accompanying anti-missile systems have arrived in the region, we should be pressing forward our air strikes against those paramilitary forces in Kosovo most responsible for the most brutal attacks against civilians. There can be no excuse for further delays. There will be time to determine whether our bombing accelerated, or whether it increased, the slaughter. In any case, it now seems clear, from detailed and credible reports in the media and elsewhere, that the Serb ethnic cleansing campaign, labeled the other day by the Washington Post as ``one of the most ambitiously ruthless military campaigns in Europe in half a century,'' was carefully and meticulously planned for months before the bombing. The attacks have reportedly seriously damaged over 250 villages, with well over 50 being completely burned to the ground. Systematically integrating Interior Ministry (MUP) forces, regular Yugoslav army forces, police units and paramilitary gangs for the first time, this effort was clearly coldly calculated to terrorize the populace, and ultimately to rid the entire province of its ethnic Albanian majority. It is clear that we have not stopped the slaughter. Ethnic cleansing, which we sought to stop, goes on, and on, and on. Our response has been to intensify the bombing, especially in Serbia, and to expand the targets to include economic and industrial sites there. Some of these were originally chosen because they were said to be ``dual use.'' I understand that rationale. But now some seemingly non-military targets appear to be selected--including the radio and tv network, the Milosevic Party headquarters, the civilian electricity grid, and other seeming civilian targets--to put pressure on the people of Serbia who, it is hoped, will in turn put political pressure on the Milosevic regime to back down. I think this reasoning is pure folly and cannot be used to justify the expansion of civilian targets to be bombed. True military targets are legitimate. Certain dual use targets, especially those directly related to the Serb War effort, may be. But I know of no rules of war which allow for the targeting of civilian targets like some of those we have targeted. We should rethink this strategy, not least because it undermines the legitimate moral and political claims we have made to justify our military efforts to protect innocent civilians in Kosovo. Expanding the target lists in this way is wrong. Not only does the expansion to civilian industrial and economic sites greatly increase the risk of civilian casualties, but it is morally questionable if the primary purpose is to do economic harm to the civilian population-- people who have nothing to do with the violent ethnic cleansing campaign being conducted by the Serbian military machine. I am also very concerned about reports from the NATO summit that future targeting decisions will likely be placed in the hands of NATO military officials, without careful review of elected civilian representatives--a policy that I think is at odds with our constitutional insistence upon civilian control. And what other future military plans are being discussed? These now apparently include an embargo against future shipments of oil to Yugoslavia. Russia is the Serbs' major oil supplier. What if oil shipments continue to come from Russia? Will Russian transports be the next targets of NATO forces? While I recognize the legitimate concern of NATO military officials that we must not put pilots' lives at risk to hit oil production and distribution facilities servicing the Serb armies, while allowing oil to pour in to them through ports in Montenegro or through other means, we must be very careful as we proceed here. And then there is the question of the introduction of ground troops. After the NATO summit last weekend, plans are being ``taken off the shelf and updated.'' Propositioning of ground troops is being advocated by some within our own government. It doesn't take clairvoyance to see where some seem to be headed. This resolution, as open-ended as it is, is not the right way to proceed on this complex and difficult question. It reminds me, in some ways, of the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin resolution which helped trigger the Vietnam War. It is too open-ended, too vague, and I will not vote for it. NATO military commanders have not asked for ground troops, the President of the U.S. has not asked Congress to authorize them; we should promptly table this resolution later today. Even one of its principal sponsors, Senator Biden, has observed that they did not intend for this resolution to be brought to the Senate floor now, under the expedited procedures of the War Powers Act. But even though we will likely table it, we must continue to move forward in our efforts to achieve a prompt, just and peaceful end to this conflict. And so, once again, I cannot be silent. In short, I think it's time for all the parties to consider a brief and verifiable time-out. Yes, a time-out, before we proceed further down the risky and slippery slope of further military action, before it's too late to turn back. There are negotiations underway. There are pivotal efforts being undertaken by the Russian leaders. There are discussions. There are proposals and counter proposals being discussed. Some are being interpreted in different ways by different parties. Ideas are being explored. Some of our friends, in and out of NATO, are discussing various ways to end this nightmare. The continued evolution of these plans must be given a chance. There is no ``light at the end of the tunnel'' unless renewed diplomacy is given a chance to work. With the former Prime Minister and the President talking today, what I am proposing for consideration--if it can be worked out in a way which would protect NATO troops, and would not risk Serb resupply of their war machine--is a brief and verifiable halt in the bombing, a cessation of what seems to be a slide toward the bombing of a broader array of non-military targets, a potential oil embargo directed at other countries, and toward deeper involvement in a wider war that I believe we could come to regret. I am not naive about whether we can trust Milosevic; we have seen him break his word too many times for that. Nor am I proposing an open- ended halt in our effort. But a temporary pause of 48 hours or so, offered on condition that Milosevic not be allowed to use the period to resupply troops or to repair his air defenses, and that he immediately orders his forces in Kosovo to halt their attacks and begin to actually withdraw. It would not require his formal prior assent to each of these conditions, but if our intelligence and other means of verification concludes that he is taking military advantage of such a pause by doing any of these things, then we should resume the bombing. I believe that we may need to take the first step, a gesture, in the effort to bring these horrors to an end. I know there are risks and costs associated with such an even temporary halt in the airstrikes. I am not yet sure, for example, that we could develop a verifiable time-out plan which would prevent Serb forces from quickly repairing their air defense systems such that they would pose new risks to NATO pilots; that cannot be allowed. I know there would be real problems in verifying that Serb attacks on the ground in Kosovo had stopped, and military and paramilitary units were actually pulling back, during any bombing pause. I am no military expert, but I am posing those and other questions to US military officials and others, to see if there is not room for such an initiative. Such a pause may well be worthwhile; if it works to prompt a cessation of the ethnic cleansing and a return of Serb forces to their garrisons, it may create the conditions for the possibility of further talks on the conditions under which NATO's longer-term goals, which I support, can be met. A brief cessation might also enable non-governmental organizations and other ``true neutrals'' in the conflict to airlift or truck in, and then distribute, relief supplies to the internally-displaced Kosovars who are homeless and starving in the mountains of Kosovo, without the threat of this humanitarian mission being halted by the Serbian military. A Serb guarantee of their safe conduct would be an important reciprocal gesture on the part of Milosevic. These people must be rescued, and my hope is that a temporary bombing pause might help to enable aid organizations to get to them. I hope that President Clinton and Mr. Chernomyrdin will consider this idea, and other similar proposals, in their discussion today. I intend to explore and refine this idea further with Administration officials in the coming days, to see if it might hold any promise to bring this awful war to a peaceful close. I am not naive, and I understand that the safety of our NATO forces must be held paramount in any such exploration. But it is, it seems to me, worth exploring further. One thing that is clear is that the situation on the ground in Kosovo today and in those countries which border it is unacceptable and likely to worsen considerably in the coming weeks. It has been argued by the Administration and others that an intense and sustained conflict in Kosovo, which has sent hundreds of thousands of refugees across borders and could potentially draw Albania, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey into a wider war would be disastrous. That is true. We may not be able to contain a wider Balkan war without far greater risk and cost than has been contemplated. And we could well face an even greater humanitarian catastrophe than we face now in the weeks and months to come. I am not just talking about a geopolitical abstraction, the stability of the region. I am talking about the human cost of a wider Balkan conflict. For fifty years, we have spent the blood and treasure of Americans and Europeans to help provide for a stable, peaceful Europe. I believe we must again work with the Europeans--and now with the Russians and others who have historic ties to the Serbs--to try to resolve this crisis before the flames of war in Kosovo and of the refugee exodus which it has prompted consume the region. Stepped-up diplomacy, a possible pause in the airstrikes, and other similar efforts to bring a peaceful and just end to this crisis should be pursued right now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will try to keep this under 20 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I know Senator Byrd wants to speak. I wonder whether I could ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from West Virginia speak, I be allowed to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Earth Day is a celebration of the value and importance of our natural environment and a reminder of our duty to protect, rather than carelessly exploit and deplete, our natural heritage. Our commitment to future generations is something we in Minnesota take very seriously. It is a commitment to ensure that the environmental legacy we pass on to our children and grandchildren is not marred by failures such as the poisoning of our oceans, rivers, lakes and streams, the destruction of the natural habitat, and the irreversible extinction of species. Environmental concerns have always been very important to me and to Minnesotans, and I am proud of the progress that we are making in protecting the environment. However, while recognizing the progress we have made, we Minnesotans also realize how much more needs to be done. That is why I feel it is very appropriate that Senator Roth, myself, and several of our colleagues, are introducing legislation on this day to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska as wilderness. My good friend Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota, along with over 150 of his colleagues, have introduced similar legislation in the House, called the Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act. This legislation is a tremendous step forward, crucial to preserving the biodiversity of one of our nation's last remaining frontiers. This bill will designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness, protecting 1.5 million acres of some of the most unspoiled wilderness remaining in the United States. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a one-of-a-kind national treasure, home to many unique species of plant and animal life, several of which are considered endangered or threatened. This magnificent wilderness contains a complete spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems, which can be found nowhere else on the continent. Moreover, the fragile balance of life in this wilderness is critical to the survival of the native Gwich'in Athabascan Indians of northeast Alaska, who depend on the land to maintain their centuries-old nomadic way of life. The Gwich'in rely on the 150,000-strong Porcupine River caribou herd, whose calving grounds are on the coastal plain. Unfortunately, a few multinational oil companies have set their sights on this crown jewel of America's wilderness to extract their short-term profits. Oil drilling on the coastal plain would mean despoliation of this pristine land with hundreds of oil rigs, pipelines, air strips, and other industrial facilities. It would destroy one of the most magnificent wilderness areas in North America. And it would do so much harm for so little gain. Allowing these multinationals to boost their profits by drilling oil would do nothing to solve our energy problems. The amount of oil that could potentially be recovered from the Refuge is relatively small, and most of it would likely be exported to Asia. Instead of promoting oil drilling that destroys our natural environment, we should be promoting renewable sources of energy. In so doing, we could save more energy than would ever be extracted from the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. Polls show that Americans strongly support protection of the Arctic Refuge. Yet the oil lobby in Washington has never suffered from a lack of representation. The oil multinationals pressure Congress every year to open up this coastal plain to drilling. It's time Congress stood up for the public interest, rather than the economic interests of the largest oil companies. We have a responsibility to protect the environment for future generations. We must voice our protest and prevent those reckless policies which ignore the real costs of exhausting our natural resources and permanently distort our ecosystem's fragile balance. We must continue to be a world leader in deterring the destruction of our natural heritage. We must continue to facilitate and promote successful programs that help us conserve and use our lands and resources wisely. As we celebrate the last official Earth Day of the twentieth century, we must ensure that we will have cause to celebrate Earth Day in the twenty-first century. This legislation represents a significant step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation on this very special day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Earth Day is a celebration of the value and importance of our natural environment and a reminder of our duty to protect, rather than carelessly exploit and deplete, our natural heritage. Our commitment to future generations is something we in Minnesota take very seriously. It is a commitment to ensure that the environmental legacy we pass on to our children and grandchildren is not marred by failures such as the poisoning of our oceans, rivers, lakes and streams, the destruction of the natural habitat, and the irreversible extinction of species. Environmental concerns have always been very important to me and to Minnesotans, and I am proud of the progress that we are making in protecting the environment. However, while recognizing the progress we have made, we Minnesotans also realize how much more needs to be done. That is why I feel it is very appropriate that Senator Roth, myself, and several of our colleagues, are introducing legislation on this day to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska as wilderness. My good friend Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota, along with over 150 of his colleagues, have introduced similar legislation in the House, called the Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act. This legislation is a tremendous step forward, crucial to preserving the biodiversity of one of our nation's last remaining frontiers. This bill will designate the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness, protecting 1.5 million acres of some of the most unspoiled wilderness remaining in the United States. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a one-of-a-kind national treasure, home to many unique species of plant and animal life, several of which are considered endangered or threatened. This magnificent wilderness contains a complete spectrum of arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems, which can be found nowhere else on the continent. Moreover, the fragile balance of life in this wilderness is critical to the survival of the native Gwich'in Athabascan Indians of northeast Alaska, who depend on the land to maintain their centuries-old nomadic way of life. The Gwich'in rely on the 150,000-strong Porcupine River caribou herd, whose calving grounds are on the coastal plain. Unfortunately, a few multinational oil companies have set their sights on this crown jewel of America's wilderness to extract their short-term profits. Oil drilling on the coastal plain would mean despoliation of this pristine land with hundreds of oil rigs, pipelines, air strips, and other industrial facilities. It would destroy one of the most magnificent wilderness areas in North America. And it would do so much harm for so little gain. Allowing these multinationals to boost their profits by drilling oil would do nothing to solve our energy problems. The amount of oil that could potentially be recovered from the Refuge is relatively small, and most of it would likely be exported to Asia. Instead of promoting oil drilling that destroys our natural environment, we should be promoting renewable sources of energy. In so doing, we could save more energy than would ever be extracted from the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. Polls show that Americans strongly support protection of the Arctic Refuge. Yet the oil lobby in Washington has never suffered from a lack of representation. The oil multinationals pressure Congress every year to open up this coastal plain to drilling. It's time Congress stood up for the public interest, rather than the economic interests of the largest oil companies. We have a responsibility to protect the environment for future generations. We must voice our protest and prevent those reckless policies which ignore the real costs of exhausting our natural resources and permanently distort our ecosystem's fragile balance. We must continue to be a world leader in deterring the destruction of our natural heritage. We must continue to facilitate and promote successful programs that help us conserve and use our lands and resources wisely. As we celebrate the last official Earth Day of the twentieth century, we must ensure that we will have cause to celebrate Earth Day in the twenty-first century. This legislation represents a significant step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation on this very special day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Emilia Beskind be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the debate.