Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, and also Senator Harkin from Iowa. I think that it is not just a matter of--I think my colleague, Senator Dorgan, will agree with me--of coming to the floor and giving a speech. This is all so real to us. It is very concrete. This is the issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which was sent to me from Wally Sparby, who is the Minnesota State director of our Minnesota Farm Service Agency, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sean O'Brien, who is an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor today.

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Wisconsin whether I can speak for 10 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak yesterday for about half an hour, so let me summarize this way: First of all, I thank Senator Feingold who I think has just emerged, really, as a leading reformer before the U.S. Senate for his work, along with Senator McCain. This is a bipartisan effort, and I, frankly, think it speaks to the core issue. What I tried to say yesterday on the floor of the Senate is that as I think about a whole range of questions, over and over and over again, I come back to the fact that too few people have way too much wealth, power, and say, and too many people are just locked out. The polls show people want to have faith in our political process, people want to believe in what we are doing, but the conclusion that many people have reached is that if you pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you don't play, and that, basically, the same investors pretty much control both political parties; they control the political process. So many people in Minnesota and across the country have reached the conclusion that when it comes to their concerns about themselves and about their families and about their neighbors and about their communities, that their concerns are of little concern here in the corridors of power. I can't think of a better thing for us to do than to pass this piece of legislation. The Shays-Meehan bill passed in the House of Representatives. That was a very important victory. We now have an important vote on the floor of the Senate. There is an effort on the part of those who are opposed to reform to block this. That is what this is all about. We have a majority support on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I hope that other Senators will step forward and support this important piece of legislation, this important amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. As a Senator from Minnesota, a good government State, a progressive State, a State that cares about clean money and clean elections, a State that believes integrity in the political process is the most important thing that we can focus on, this piece of legislation, this amendment is the most important amendment that we will be voting on during this Senate. I hope my colleagues will vote to end this filibuster and support this legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say that as we go into this debate--and I am pleased to be joined with Senator Kennedy; I have spoken about the importance of raising the minimum wage--I look forward to having the opportunity to debate this with colleagues. I guess I have reached the conclusion--I think this is sort of the common ground with the Chair--that the best single thing we can do in the Congress, in the House and the Senate, is to do everything we can to enable parents to do the best by their kids, or a single parent to do her or his best by children. I really do believe that this means many different kinds of things. But one of them certainly is to try to make sure that people have a living wage. I think it is terribly important. I think it is a value question. I look forward to the debate. I will be out on the floor with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and others as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment, or for a little while here, about what is happening in the Midwest. I had thought that perhaps this afternoon I would have an opportunity as a Senator from Minnesota to join my colleagues from other Midwestern States with an amendment that would speak to the crisis in agriculture. That didn't happen this afternoon. For those who are watching this debate, now that there is an attempt to work out an agreement on this bankruptcy bill with a potential cloture vote tomorrow, it doesn't look like we will be able to introduce this amendment, at least today. But I do want to just say to colleagues--I know that a number of us will be on the floor tomorrow-- that my top priority as a Senator from Minnesota is to bring to the floor of the Senate, with other colleagues, an amendment that would really make a difference in the lives of family farmers in my State. Mr. President, we have an economic convulsion in agriculture. There is tremendous economic pain in our rural communities. Many farmers and their families are just leaving their farms now. They are doing it quietly. It is not so much like the mid-1980s where you really saw a lot of farm rallies and marches and whatnot. That may happen. That may not happen. I don't know. I know that when I go to farm gatherings--whether it be in Fulda, MN, or in Granite Falls, MN, or Crookston, MN, it is quite unbelievable with the number of people that come. The fact of the matter is that with farmers now receiving somewhere like $1.42 for a bushel of corn, there is just simply no way--or $2.15 for a bushel of wheat--they can't cash-flow. My friend, the Presiding Officer, is from the State of Indiana. And he knows something about this issue. You can be the best manager in the world. You can't make it. If you are not a huge conglomerate, then you have more of a family farm operation, which really ranges in terms of numbers of acres of land. But the important part of it is that it is entrepreneurship. The people that work the land live there. These are the people that are in the most trouble. For those of us who are from the Midwest--in a way, I approach this debate with a sense of history, because I think in many ways this is sort of one of the last regions of the country where you have a family farm structure in agriculture. Mr. President, what I want to say to colleagues, understanding full well that we will not be able to do this on the bankruptcy bill, though I must say to my colleague from Iowa, a very good friend, that there is unfortunately a very direct correlation between what is happening, as he well knows, to family farms in our State and bankruptcy. If we can't do this amendment that will speak to the farm crisis on the bankruptcy bill, then the very next vehicle that comes to the floor--the very next bill--we absolutely have to have an amendment out here. We may have some different views about what needs to happen. But I will tell you that the amendment that I see which must be brought to the floor first and foremost is we are going to have to remove the caps on the market assistance loans. We can do other things as well and allow a 6-month loan extension. Corn right now is capped at $1.89 a bushel. This would get it up to $2.00, $2.20, $2.25. Wheat is capped at $2.58. This would get it up to $3.20. This would be the single most important thing we can do, along with providing indemnity payments that we have all been talking about. We passed this before we went on recess. It is going to have to be more by way of financial assistance, given what is happening to a lot of farmers in the South as well, because of weather conditions. And in our State, in northwest Minnesota, it is also scab disease. But we have to do those two things. Mr. President, I want to say to colleagues that I don't feel like time is neutral. In many ways, I feel like as a Senator from Minnesota that I am confronted with the urgency of now. I am trying to say to myself, ``You are here as a Senator. What is the best thing you can do?'' We have a bankruptcy bill. We can't put this amendment on the bankruptcy bill. But the next bill that comes to the floor next week, or the end of this week, we are going to be out here with an amendment that speaks directly to this farm crisis. We have to. It would be like not being a Senator from your State not to do this. I think every Senator on this floor, Democrat and Republican, understands this. I hope that we will have this amendment in the Chamber no later than the beginning of next week, if not tomorrow, although I am not quite sure how we are going to proceed on this bankruptcy bill. And if not that, there will come a point in time where probably the best thing I can do, if we are completely shut out--and I hope this won't happen--will be to come to the floor and filibuster, just basically stop everything. I don't think that will happen, but there is no way, there is no possible way, that I can go back home to the State of Minnesota and look in the eyes of a lot of people I really love and believe in without having made an all-out fight. We have only, what, 3 weeks left. So my appeal to colleagues is, look, it is getting hard to find the time to do some of what we think are our priorities. I wanted to see us out on the floor with this amendment today. That is not going to be possible as we try to work out something on the bankruptcy bill. It is a bitter irony for me to see ``bankruptcy bill.'' My gosh, that is what is happening in my State. That is what is happening all across greater Minnesota right now. People cannot make it. We cannot do the amendment on the bankruptcy bill. But whatever the next bill is, I guess at the beginning of next week we will have this amendment out here. I know how strongly Senator Daschle from South Dakota feels about this. This is his State, agriculture. There are other Senators from the Midwest who believe just as strongly, Democrats and Republicans. But I just want to say to Minnesota and to my colleagues, there is no way in the world that I can see us adjourning without taking action. There is just no way. It would be just impossible to go back into greater Minnesota to meet with people in communities and say, ``Well, we had too busy a schedule. It was too difficult to find a `vehicle'.'' No one knows what you are talking about--vehicles. I said it 5 minutes ago: ``We are looking for a vehicle.'' No one knows what that means. But just to try to say to people in Minnesota, ``We only had a few weeks, and there was too busy a schedule; there were many important appropriation bills that we had to pass; there was no way to find the time,'' people would say, ``Aren't we a priority?'' They would say, ``Paul, aren't we a priority?--$1.40 for a bushel of corn, $2.50, $2.60 for a bushel of wheat. What about us? What about our children? What about our families? What about our communities?'' So, again, move the caps on the market assisted loans and allow a 6- month extension. You have to get the price up. It is price, price, price. There is no substitute for getting the price up. If we can debate this, I don't even want to have an acrimonious debate. Those who thought that the Freedom to Farm --which I always called the ``Freedom to Fail''--bill was an important piece of legislation, call it a modification, just a modification. We still have a loan rate. We just cap it at a very low level. Call it part of what we do by way of disaster relief, by way of emergency assistance, because this is an emergency. This is a disaster. The record low prices are a disaster. It is an emergency because people are not going to be able to continue to stay on their farms. What people are asking for in Minnesota, in my State, is not anything more than a fair shake. They are just saying give us an opportunity to have a decent price in the marketplace. Let me tell you, the grain companies will do just fine, but these family farmers will not. This ``Freedom to Fail'' bill has been a disaster in and of itself. We have to at least come back and have some kind of modification, some kind of safety net, some kind of way that farmers can get a better price. We also have to make sure that we get these indemnity payments out to people. People need the cash assistance so they can keep going. Mr. President, those are the two major provisions. There will be other provisions as well in an amendment we will bring to the floor, but I cannot see any way to postpone action on an agriculture farm crisis relief amendment any longer. We have been talking about this. Everybody is trying to figure out what are going to be the electoral connections, how is this going to fit into the elections, and so on and so forth. I will tell you, I think those of us from these States don't feel that way; we have to get something done. I do not think any proposal is credible unless you can get the price up. It all starts with getting the price up for family farmers. There is a whole lot going on in Washington right now, I guess. None of it should make anybody here, regardless of party, all that happy or all that pleased. But I can say without any exaggeration whatsoever, believe it or not, that in Fulda, MN, or Granite Falls, MN, or Crookston, MN, or in all sorts of communities in Minnesota where a lot of wonderful people who work so hard live, for them the focus is on being able to stay on their farm. The focus is whether or not the Senate and the House of Representatives are going to respond to their pain, whether or not we are going to provide them with some relief, whether or not we are going to do anything about this crisis. It cannot be done in Indiana or Minnesota at the State level. You cannot affect price at the State level. You could put together at the State level some different credit relief packages and all the rest, but you cannot affect the price. You have to remove the cap on the loan rate. You have to get the price up. You have to give these people a chance to get a decent price in the marketplace. You have to do that. First and foremost, you have to do that. We cannot wait any longer. So I don't know whether my words tonight are so much sort of talking about substantively what any number of us are going to bring out as an amendment--there are a lot of my colleagues in the Midwest I know who are going to be out here with this amendment led by Senator Daschle--or whether what I am trying to say is, look, I don't want to have people angry at me next week or the week afterwards, but I tell you, if we don't get an opportunity to put this amendment on a piece of legislation, then I am just going to come out here and talk for hours and hours and hours. I will just start talking about families, and I will start translating this into terms. I have done it before on the floor of the Senate. There is no issue I feel more strongly about. I don't really care how much is swirling around Washington, DC, and all the other stuff that people are going to be talking about, all of which I know has to be discussed and talked about, I guess, up to a point, although I think it ought to be proved. I think ultimately we are all going to have to make some decision about this, so we ought to wait and see what the facts are. But I tell you, right now, for me, this is the issue. This is the issue for a lot of people all across Minnesota. And I am not just saying it to give a speech. It is just true. They do not have any future for themselves and their families unless we take some action. We are going to have to do that. I feel stymied that we cannot do it on the bankruptcy bill. It seems that there is a very logical connection to record low farm prices and bankruptcy. But if not this bill, if not tonight, if not Friday, then next week we will bring this amendment to the floor and we will have a debate and we are going to pass a farm crisis relief amendment. And then we are going to get it through the House. And the House and the Senate are going to agree, and there is going to be credible, substantive farm crisis relief legislation that will make a difference. If we keep getting shut out and there is just no way to do it by way of bills, then I am just going to come out and filibuster. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope to have an opportunity to talk about the economy and agriculture and what is happening in my State. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Now, let me give some other examples. We went through a debate about whether or not we were going to do anything to provide our children with some protection from being addicted to tobacco. Guess what happened? Tobacco companies, huge contributors, individual contributions to Senators and Representatives, big soft money, hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions to the party, and guess what happened? As a special favor to those big tobacco interests, we didn't even provide our children with sensible protection. I fear as a special favor to the big insurance companies we are not going to eventually provide patients with the kind of protection that they need. I fear that as a special favor to those bottom dwellers of commerce who don't want to raise the minimum wage, we are not even going to raise the minimum wage for hard-pressed working people. What I see over and over and over again is a political process hijacked by and dominated by big money. I tell you, that is the opposite of the very idea of representative democracy, because the idea of representative democracy is that each person counts as one and no more than one. What we have instead is something quite different. Let's just think for a moment about what is on the table and what is not on the table, because I think this mix of money and politics, this is the ethical issue of our time. We are not talking about corruption as in the wrongdoing of individual office holders; we are talking about systematic corruption. What systematic corruption is all about is when too few people have the wealth, the power, and the vast majority of people are locked out. Some people march on Washington every day and other people have a voice that is never heard. Let's just think a little bit about what is on the table and what is not on the table. I think quite often money determines who runs for office. I will talk about who wins, what issues are put on the table, what passes, what doesn't. Let's talk about what is not on the table and maybe should be on the table. What is not on the table is the concentration of power in certain key sectors of our economy which poses such a threat to consumers in America. Think for a moment about the concentration of power in the telecommunications industry. If there is anything more important than the flow of information in a democracy, I don't know what it is. This is so important to us. Now, we had a telecommunications bill that passed a couple years ago, which, by the way, I think has led to more monopoly. What was interesting is that the anteroom right outside our Chamber was packed wall to wall. You couldn't get in here if you tried to get through that anteroom. Personally, I couldn't find truth, beauty and justice anywhere. There was a group of people representing a billion dollars here, another group of people representing a billion dollars over there. You name it. What is not on the table is a concentration of power in financial services or a concentration of power in agriculture or all the ways in which conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table and are taking over the food industry. What is not on the table is a concentration of power in the health care system, the way in which just a few insurance companies can own and control most of the managed care plans in the United States of America. Again, I would say that we are moving toward this new century. I hope the brave new world isn't two airline companies. I come from a State where we now have a strike. In Minnesota we don't have a lot of choice. We can't walk from Minnesota to Washington, DC. Northwest Airlines has 85 percent of the flights in and out. What are we going to have--two airlines, two banks, two oil companies, one supermarket, two financial institutions, two health care plans? It is interesting that this isn't even on the table here. Could it be that these powerful economic interests are able to preempt some of the debate and some of the discussion by virtue of the huge contributions they can make with the soft money loophole that can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars? What is not on the table is, I argue, a frightening maldistribution of wealth and income in America. The goal of both political parties, the goal of political leaders, ought to be to improve the standard of living of all the people. Since we started collecting social science data, we have the greatest maldistribution of wealth and income we have ever had in our country. You don't hear a word about it. It is important for people, if they work hard, to be able to participate in the life of our country. It is important for people to be able to receive the fruits of their labor. We have this huge maldistribution of wealth and income. We are not even going to discuss it. Could it be that some of the people who are the most hard-pressed citizens in this country have basically become invisible? They are out of sight; they are out of mind. They don't have lobbyists. They don't make the big contributions. They don't even register to vote because they don't think either political party has much to say to them. They think both parties have been taken over by the same investors. Unfortunately, there is some truth to that. Unfortunately, we have given people entirely too much justification for that point of view. What is not on the table? What is not on the table is a set of social arrangements that allow children to be the most poverty-stricken group in America. One out of every four children under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America. One out of every two children of color under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today. That is a national scandal. That is a betrayal of our heritage. Certainly we can do much better. Now, there are organizations like the Children's Defense Fund. They do great work. But it is a very unequal fight. It comes to whether or not you are going to have hundreds of billions of dollars of what we call tax expenditures--tax loopholes and deductions, corporation welfare, money that goes to all sorts of financial interests, some of the largest financial institutions, some of the largest corporations in America--or whether or not we are going to make a commitment to make sure that every child has the same opportunity to reach his or her full potential. This is the core issue. I am convinced that so many good things that could happen here get ``trumped'' by the way in which money dominates politics. Now, the House has passed a good campaign finance reform bill, the Shays-Meehan proposal. It is not everything that some of us would have liked. As a matter of fact, what is interesting is that the original McCain-Feingold bill applied to Senate races. I thought that was one of the most important things. We had voluntary spending caps--you can't mandate it--and at the same time an exchange for media time. That is gone. That was really important. So we are talking about a proposal that is a milder proposal, but it is an enormous step forward. It is an enormous step forward. There are other things that are going on in the country that I am excited about, that I wish for, that I think eventually we will get to. The clean money, clean election bill that some of us have introduced here on the Senate side is an exciting proposal. We have a lot of energy behind it at the State level. I think New York City will pass it. I think the State of Massachusetts will pass it. The State of Maine already did pass it. The State of Vermont passed it. There are initiatives in other States. Basically, with the clean money, clean election proposal, we get the big private money out. You say to the citizen, listen, for $5 a year, would you be willing to contribute to a clean money, clean election trust fund? And then those candidates who abide by spending limits and don't raise the private money, this money goes to their campaigns. You have a level playing field, and you own the elections, and you own your State capitol, and you don't have all of this mix of big money in politics. A lot of people in the country really like this proposal. I think the political problem here is we are not ready for it yet because the system is wired. It is wired to people who can raise the big money, and quite often, they are the incumbents. And a lot of people don't like to vote out a system that benefits them. But the McCain-Feingold bill represents a very important step forward--following on the heels of a really exciting victory in the House of Representatives. It is very important, very similar. It bans the soft money as my colleague, Senator Levin--and there is nobody with more intellectual capital in this area--discussed. Senator Levin knows all of the specifics. I am so impressed with him as a legislator, with his ability. He talked about it. I will just say that this is a huge loophole. It is all very amorphous. Corporations and unions can make these huge soft money contributions. We all end up calling for this money now because everybody is trapped by the same rotten system. It restricts issue advocacy, these phony issue ads that are disguised as not really election ads. I went through this. I don't mean this in the spirit of whining, but it started in 1996, in the spring in Minnesota, and it went on all summer. There were all of these ads that would come on TV and they bash you for this and bash you for that, but they don't say ``vote against'' whether you are Democrat or Republican; they just say ``call.'' It is unbelievable. They could be financed by soft money. A huge loophole, huge problem. This bill codifies the Beck Supreme Court decision requiring unions to notify their dues-paying members of their right to disallow political use of their dues. It improves disclosure and FEC enforcement. This bill would represent a substantial step forward. Mr. President, there is a wonderful speech that was given by Bill Moyers in December of 1997, the title of which is ``The Soul of Democracy.'' I want to quote from part of Bill Moyers' speech: If Carrie Bolton were here tonight, she could speak to this. The Reverend Carrie Bolton from North Carolina. You'd have a hard time seeing her because she is only so high and her head would barely reach the microphone. But you would hear her, of that I'm sure. The state legislature in North Carolina established a commission to look at campaign financing, and Carrie Bolton came to one of the hearings. She listened patiently as one speaker after another addressed the commissioners. And then it was her time. She spoke softly at first. Then the passion rose, and her words mesmerized her audience. When Carrie Bolton finished, they stood and cheered. This is what she said; listen to what Carrie Bolton said: ``I was born to a mother and father married to each other, who were sharecroppers, who proceeded to have ten children. I picked cotton, which made some people rich. . . . I pulled tobacco. . .I shook peanuts. . .I dug up potatoes and picked cucumbers, and I went to school * * * with enthusiasm. And with great enthusiasm I memorized the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, I learned the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and I was inspired to believe that somehow those things symbolized hope for me against any odds I might come upon. ``I am a divorcee, a single parent divorcee, and I earn enough money to take care of my two children and myself. And I have managed to get a high school diploma, a bachelor's degree, two master's degrees, and do post doctoral work. ``I am energetic. I'm smart. I'm intelligent. ``But a snowball would stand a better chance surviving in hell than I would running for political office in this country. Because I have no money. My family has no money. My friends do not have money. ``Yet, I have ideas. I'm strong, I am powerful (with her right hand she lifts her left wrist)--people can feel my pulse. People who are working, and working hard, can feel what I feel. ``But I can't tell them because I don't know how to get the spotlight to tell them. ``Because I have no money.'' Anyone who believes Carrie Bolton's cry isn't coming from the soul of democracy is living in a fool's paradise--a rich fool's paradise. That is from Bill Moyers' speech. He is my hero journalist. I think he has done some of the finest work. He concludes his speech by saying this: I have three grandchildren--Henry, 5; Thomas, 3; and 10- month-old Nancy Judith. I want them to grow up in a healthy, civil society, one where their political worth is not measured by their net worth. That is one of the reasons Bill Moyers goes on to argue that this is his passion, this is his work. He is right. This is the core issue. Now, Mr. President, I don't know that I would have the eloquence of Carrie Bolton, but I conclude this way because I see other colleagues who may want to speak. I can't forget my own experience. It is not quite Carrie Bolton's experience, but I ran for office in 1990, and it was amazing. I mean, you don't come to the floor to brag, but you don't run for office if you don't think you have the character and ideas. Basically, everywhere I went, the argument was made, ``you don't have a chance.'' I was a teacher, so I didn't have much money. My father was an unsuccessful writer. My mother was a cafeteria worker, a food service worker. My family didn't have any money. My wife Sheila worked in the library at the high school. Everywhere I would go--including on the Democrat side, not just the Republican side--people were trying to decide whether or not I was a viable candidate. It had nothing to do with content of character, nothing to do with ideas, nothing to do with leadership potential, and it had nothing to do with positions on issues. People just wanted to know how much money you raised. You were viable or you weren't viable. You were a good candidate or you were a bad one based upon how much money you yourself had--and I didn't have it--or how much money you would raise. It is unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. There are so many people who can't run for that reason alone. I was lucky. I come from Minnesota, and I am emotional about how much I owe to them. They were an exception to the rule. We were outspent six or seven to one, and we won. Sometimes it happens--if you have a great green schoolbus to campaign in and a great grassroots organization. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from Russia. We have had a 222-year, bold, important experiment in self-rule in democracy, representative democracy. That is what is at jeopardy here. I have talked to people about potentially running for office. They don't want to. A lot of people, good people, don't want to run for office any longer because they can't stand the thought of this money chase. They can't stand doing it. Moreover, if you combine what the money is used for, with communication technology becoming the weapon of electoral conflict, people using the money for poison politics, all the attack stuff on TV, a lot of very good, sane people don't run. I think what is happening is a lot of good people aren't going to be involved in public affairs. A lot of young people are not going to get involved in public affairs. You get to where people are either millionaires or they have to raise millions of dollars. I think you get into this awful self-select where a whole lot of good men and women aren't going to run at all. I am not going to cite the polls because we have the evidence for this. Everybody knows it. Every Democrat and Republican knows full well that people are disengaged and disillusioned with politics in this country, and this is one of the central reasons. So, Mr. President, I simply say to my colleagues that we have a piece of legislation on the floor that follows up on an exciting victory in the House of Representatives, and we need to pass this legislation. I also say to my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--frankly, I can't figure out the opposition. People want to see this changed. People just hate the way in which they feel like money dominates politics. Those of us in office, and even those of us who are challenged for office, hate it. We hate raising the money; we hate this system. I would think if we wanted the people we represent to have more confidence and faith in us, more confidence and faith in this political process, more confidence and faith in the U.S. Senate, we would vote for the McCain-Feingold piece of legislation. So the debate will go on. We will have this vote. I say to my colleagues on the other side--which doesn't mean just Republicans because there are some Republicans who support this legislation--that I think they are making a big mistake filibustering. From my point of view, this should go on and on for the next however many weeks it takes. I don't think we should drop this one. This is the core issue. This is the core question. It speaks to all the issues that are important to people's lives. It speaks as to whether or not we are going to have a functioning democracy or not. As a Senator from Minnesota, from a good government State, from a reform State, from a progressive State, there is no more important position that I can take than to be for this reform legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Levin for his remarks. I thank him for his unbelievable dedication in trying to push through reform legislation. He has been at this a long time. This is the time to do it; I agree with my colleague. We have an opportunity. We have a bill that was passed on the House side. It is a bipartisan measure. We have a public that is calling for the change. And I agree with you, I say to the Senator; now is the time to pass this legislation. I also thank my colleagues, Senator McCain, Republican from Arizona, and Senator Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin. I have a special kind of affection for both of my colleagues. I think Senator McCain is principled; he speaks out for what he believes in; he is a courageous legislator. I think Senator Feingold has emerged here in the U.S. Senate as a leading reformer. He is my neighbor. I am a Senator from Minnesota, and I tell you, people from Minnesota who follow Russ Feingold's work have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I do not know exactly where to get started. It is interesting. Senator Barry Goldwater told it like it is. I went to Senator Goldwater's service in Arizona, not because I was necessarily in agreement with him on all the issues. As a matter of fact, some of my good friends, Republican colleagues, who were on the plane with me kept giving me Barry Goldwater's book ``Conscience of a Conservative'' and kept telling me if I had read that book when I was 15 I would be going down the right path. I told them I did read the book when I was 15. I just reached different conclusions. Senator Goldwater about a decade ago said: The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our nation and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty, an independent legislature free from any influence other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times, we can make the following conclusions. To be successful, representative government assumes that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups who speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community. Let me just start out with some examples. I was involved in a debate here on the floor of the Senate last week which was emotional. It was kind of heart rending. You had a small group of people who were sitting where some of our citizens are sitting today. And they were from Sierra Blanca. They were disproportionately poor. They were Hispanic. And you know what? They were saying, ``How come when it comes to the question of where a nuclear waste dump site goes, it's put in our community? How come it always seems to be the case that when we figure out what to do with these incinerators or where to put these power lines or where to dump this waste, it almost always goes to the communities where people don't make the big contributions? They are not the heavy hitters. They are disproportionately poor, disproportionately communities of color; thus, the question of environmental justice. This was a debate where you had the interests of big money, big contributors, corporate utilities, versus low-income minority communities. I would argue different colleagues voted for different reasons, and some voted because it was not their State and they felt a certain kind of, if you will, deference to Senators from other States. I understand that. But my point is a little different. I tell you that all too often the conclusion is sort of predetermined. Those who have the clout and those who make the big contributions are the ones who have the influence, and those are the ones we listen to. All too often, a whole lot of citizens--in this particular case, the people from Sierra Blanca--are not listened to at all. Big money prevails, special interests prevail, for the same reason that the people in Sierra Blanca cannot get a fair shake in Texas. That is to say, they do not give the big contributions, they do not have the political clout. For the same reason, they could not get a fair shake here in the U.S. Senate. In about 20 minutes I am going to be at a meeting with some colleagues from the Midwest. We have an economic convulsion in agriculture. Let me wear my political scientist hat. I really believe that when people look back to 1998, 1999, going into the next century, and raise questions about our economy--because I fear that we are going to be faced with some very difficult times--they are going to be looking at this crisis in agriculture as a sort of precursor. What has happened in agriculture is record low prices. Not everybody who is watching the debate comes from a State where agriculture is as important as it is in the State of Minnesota, the State I come from. But let me say to people who are listening to the debate, if you are a corn grower and you are getting $1.40 for a bushel of corn, you can be the best manager in the world, you can work from 5 in the morning until midnight, but you and your family will never make it. You will never make it. Record low prices. People are having to give up. They are just leaving. The farm is not only where they work, it is where they live. It is interesting that we had a farm bill, the 1996 farm bill. It was called the Freedom to Farm bill. I called it then the ``freedom to fail'' bill. It was a great bill--I am not saying anything on the floor of the Senate that I have not said a million times over in the last 2 years. It was a great bill for the grain companies because what this piece of legislation essentially said to family farmers is, ``We're no longer going to give you a loan rate. We're going to cap the loan rate at such a low level that you won't have the bargaining power.'' This sounds a little technocratic, but to make a long story short, you have family farmers faced with a monopoly when it comes to whom they sell their grain to. If they do not have some kind of loan rate that the Government guarantees that brings the price to a certain level, they have no bargaining power in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, the prices have plummeted. There is no safety net whatsoever. And now we see in our part of the country, in the Midwest, a family farm structure of agriculture which is in real peril. We see an economic convulsion. We see many family farmers who are going to be driven off the land. We are going to be coming to the floor of the Senate--you better believe we are going to be coming to the floor of the Senate--and we are going to be saying to our colleagues, ``Look, you could have been for the `freedom to fail' bill or not, but there's going to have to be a modification. You are going to have to cap off the loan rate, and we're going to have to get the prices up for family farmers.'' I would argue that in 1996--and I hope this will not be the debate again--what was going on here was a farm bill that was written by and for big corporate agribusiness interests. That is what it was. It was a great bill for the grain companies, but it was a disaster for family farmers. So we are going to revisit this debate. And once again, is it going to be the grain companies and the big food processors and the big chemical companies and the transportation companies, or is it going to be the family farmers? I hope it will be the family farmers. I hope our appeal to fairness and justice will work on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But I tell you, all too often, as I look at these different issues in these different debates, it is no wonder, as Senator Levin said, that people are so disappointed and disillusioned with both political parties. It is no wonder that people do not register and do not vote. Because you know what? They have reached the conclusion that if you pay, you play, and if you do not pay, you do not play. They have reached the conclusion that this political process isn't their political process. I mean, my God, what happens in a representative democracy when people reach the conclusion that they are not stakeholders in the system, that when it comes to their concerns about themselves, about their families and their communities, their concerns are of little concern in the corridors of power in Washington? This is really dangerous. What is at stake is nothing less than our very noble, wonderful, 222-year experiment in self-rule and representative democracy. That is what it is really all about. (Mr. FRIST assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Deanna Caldwell and Jennifer Gaib be allowed to be on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Massachusetts once again to speak about one of the most important issues facing American working families. At a time when our economy is performing well, many Americans who work hard, who work full time, still live in poverty. I don't know what better signal we could send at the end of this Congress to people who are working hard, trying to provide for their families, than to pass the American Family Fair Minimum Wage Act. This increase in the minimum wage, which Senator Kennedy and I and others intend to offer as an amendment, perhaps to the Bankruptcy bill, is the single most important step we can take in this country immediately to promote economic justice. It would lift the federal minimum wage to $6.15 an hour over two years. That is a one-dollar-an- hour raise for American workers who labor near the bottom rung of our economic ladder as we enter the 21st century. Many of these men and women work just as hard if not harder than many of us here in the Congress. Yet they very often live economically insecure lives. They deserve a raise. This modest raise would still leave the federal minimum wage at a level that would be worth less in real terms less than it was in 1968. We all know that glaring economic injustice and inequality remain in America. We can say that there are two Americas--one with greater and greater access to all the things that make life richer in possibilities, the other struggling daily to make ends meet. Even as our economy is generally performing well, the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow. If we want to declare that we honor work, we must value it properly. When I have toured the cafes of Minnesota, the streets of East L.A., the inner city of Chicago, people want to know how they can earn a decent living, how they can give their children the care they need and deserve. This minimum wage increase will help hard-working Minnesotans and all Americans in their efforts to make ends meet. Seventy-four percent of those who receive the minimum wage are adults. Sixty percent are women. Fifty percent work more than 35 hours a week. Eighty-two percent work at least 20 hours. These numbers tell a story. Raising the minimum wage will help hard-working Americans, many supporting families, to earn a decent living. The minimum wage disproportionately affects women, many of whom are single heads of households with children. Sixty percent of those who earn minimum wage are women. They are teachers' aides, they are child care providers. They work hard, yet they make $10,700 a year. That's $2,900 below the poverty line for a family of three. That's not a living wage. To lift themselves from poverty, they must earn a fair living wage. Some opponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that it will cause job losses and actually hurt workers. Recent experience effectively rebuts that claim. An Economic Policy Institute report released this year demonstrates that the minimum wage increase which took effect during 1996 and 1997 raised the wages of almost 10 million people. Seventy-one percent were adults and 58 percent were women. Just under half worked full-time. The research also found that the increases had disproportionately benefited low-income working households. Although households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution receive only 5 percent of total family income, they received 35 percent of the benefits from the minimum wage increases. Four different economic tests of these minimum-wage increases failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 increases. The overall conclusion of the EPI report was that the 1996-97 increase in the minimum wage proved to be an effective tool for raising the earnings of low-wage workers without lowering their employment opportunities. In other words, it worked. So now it is our responsibility to continue this process and assure that more Americans are able to earn a liveable wage. If we do not raise the minimum wage now, by the year 2000 the real value of the minimum wage will only be $4.28 an hour--almost as low as it was when the 1996 bill was enacted. We must act now to allow 12 million workers to benefit from this increase. In my home state, this minimum wage increase will benefit at least 147,000 working Minnesotans and probably more because when we increase the minimum wage, it applies pressure to increase wages for people also making slightly more than the minimum wage. In 1996, 39% of Minnesota's workers paid at the minimum wage were between the ages of 16 and 21. Now, those numbers show us two important things: first, that the majority of Minnesotans just like the majority of Americans earning the minimum wage are adults. This issue is not just about helping youngsters looking for a paying job after school. But second, at the same time, many of these minimum wage workers between the ages of 16 and 21 are trying to make money to stay in school, to pay the bills as they study to receive their college degrees. In Minnesota, we have record low unemployment, but state statistics show that increasing the minimum wage will not significantly affect the number of minimum wage jobs available for people needing the work to make ends meet. We celebrate the affluence that so many Americans have enjoyed in recent years. We need to make sure that the opportunity to share in that prosperity is available to all Americans, whether they are in the top 20 percent of wage-earners or the bottom 20 percent. People rightly believe that if you play by the rules in America, if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, then you should not be poor. Increasing the minimum wage is about justice and a livable wage. The American public supports it, and we should pass it. Let me again thank Senator Kennedy. This will be my eighth year in the Senate. I don't think there is anybody in the U.S. Senate, I don't think there is anybody close, to Senator Ted Kennedy leading this fight. It is an economic justice fight. We raised the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour and people thought that couldn't be done. Senator Kennedy led that fight and we did it. I am confident we are going to do it again. We are going to have an amendment on the bankruptcy bill and are going to talk about raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over a 2-year period, and I think we will have a positive vote for it. It is the right thing to do. The majority of the people support it and this should be a priority for us. Let me make three points. I heard my colleague from Massachusetts, and I am proud to join him in this effort and can't wait to have the debate. And I am proud to join Senator Durbin from Illinois. I heard my colleague from Massachusetts talk about this being a family issue. I am pretty well convinced now, from the Minnesota State Fair to talking with people in cafes, to traveling the country, that this really is a family issue. If there is one thing we could do--and, you know what, my colleague, the Presiding Officer, I think, agrees with me, at least in part of what I am about to say--if there is one thing we can do more than anything else, it is to try to basically say our major goal is to make sure that parents, or parent, can do their very best by their kids. Because if parents can do their best by their kids, they are going to do their best for Arkansas or Minnesota or Illinois or Massachusetts or for the country. And part of being able to do well for your kids is to have a living wage job, to be able to make a decent living. As I travel around the country, whether it be in metropolitan Minnesota or whether it be in the farm and rural areas, or whether it be Delta, MS, or East L.A. or Watts or inner-city Chicago or inner-city Baltimore, or where my wife's family are from, Letcher and Harlan Counties, Appalachia, KY, I think more than anything else, what people say to me--and my most recent focus group is the Minnesota State Fair, where about half the population comes in about 2 weeks--right now we have the State Fair there. People are focused on how to earn a decent living and how to give their children the care they know they need and deserve. That is what it is all about. Mr. President, I think the policy goal for us ought to be as follows: When people work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, they should not be poor in America. I bet any poll will show that 80 percent of the people agree with that. When people work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, they shouldn't be poor in our country. It is that simple. There are a number of things we can do that will make a real difference for families. We can have affordable health care. We should do that. We haven't done it yet. We should have affordable child care. We should figure out ways of providing assistance to parents, whether their child is in a family child care setting or child care center or staying at home. The final thing we ought to do is raise the minimum wage; $5.15 to $6.15 is not unreasonable. My colleague from Massachusetts pointed out the work of the Economic Policy Institute. Everybody said the sky would fall. We have been going through this, I say to Senator Kennedy, for half a century: If you raise the minimum wage, people will lose jobs. It did not happen; it will not happen. People, in fact, will have more money to buy and consume, which helps our economy. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleagues that this is terribly important to women, because many of our minimum-wage workers are women. It is terribly important to adults, because the vast majority of minimum-wage workers are adults. It is also important to younger people whom maybe we do not view as adults--18, 19, 20, 21. Many of them are working to go to college. This is a matter of economic justice. It is a matter of elementary decency. I close with a more hard-hitting point. This is one I am not that comfortable with, but I think it really is true and needs to be said. My colleague said it once, and I will say it again. We don't have any hesitation in voting to raise our salaries. We make $130,000 a year. We ought to be willing to vote a decent minimum wage for people. We really ought to be able to do that. Colleagues have talked to me about how ``I need to make $130,000; I have two children, they are in college; I have an apartment here, live back home, it is very hard.'' My gosh, that is a pretty significant salary we make. I am not bashing public service. I believe in public service. But I think we also can vote for a higher minimum wage for working families in this country. We should do this, and we will bring this amendment to the floor. We are going to have a major debate, and all of us will be accountable as to how we vote. I hope we have an overwhelming vote for increasing the minimum wage. I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take just a few minutes then.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have left? I have split time with Senator Durbin. However he would like me to do it, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have 1 minute left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that the site has been selected. The only remaining question is final licensing. The site in Hudspeth County, Sierra Blanca, is disproportionately Hispanic and disproportionately poor. That is what this debate is all about. This is an injustice. If you vote for this compact, you will be ratifying this injustice. If you vote against this compact, then this will not happen. That is why LULAC, that is why the League of Conservation Voters, that is why the Sierra Club, that is why the religious community, that is why 100 different organizations from around the country, that is why people came here, as difficult as it was, all the way from Hudspeth County to say please don't do this. We had two amendments that would have made this fair. Please, colleagues, listen to this. One amendment that you voted for said that if the people in Hudspeth County can prove that this is discriminatory, they should have a right to do so in court. The other amendment says let's make it clear that the waste can only come from Maine, Vermont, and Texas. Twice the Senate went on record with unanimous votes supporting both those amendments, and in the conference committee those amendments were knocked out. The utility industry wanted them knocked out. They don't want the people to have any kind of remedy for discrimination. There is no assurance that the waste will come just from Maine, Vermont, and Texas. They want this to be a national repository site. That is why we should vote against this compact--the first compact ever with a clear site for building a compact nuclear waste dump. This is an environmental injustice. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the agreement?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Colleagues, you have never voted for a compact with a specific site for building a compact dump, not with a site in Sierra Blanca, not with a site disproportionately Hispanic and poor. This is an environmental vote. This is a geologically active area. The science says no, but it is the path of least political resistance. This community is targeted. We will now vote. If you vote for this compact, you vote for an injustice. Do the right thing and vote against this compact. Twice you have gone on record, colleagues, by unanimous vote: yes, for the compact as long as people have a right to challenge this and have a chance to prove discrimination. Yes, we vote for the compact if we make it clear that this won't become a national repository site and the waste can only come from Maine and Vermont and Texas. And both of those amendments, in the dark of night, were stripped by the conference committee. That is why so many religious and civil rights organizations have said vote against this. LULAC, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Catholic diocese, the Methodist Church, so on and so forth. This is a justice vote. We have to vote on this, and once and for all it is important for us to be on the side of justice and vote no on this compact. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I then will yield the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.