Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will read a brief relevant section: The Republican plan would cut the top tax rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 18 percent and phase in indexing of gains for inflation. I believe that is not going to be done on the Senate side, and that is an improvement. These and other tax changes would reduce Government's revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. Given bipartisan obsession with budget balance, the revenue cuts would translate directly into cuts in public outlay. That is another way we can do it with the erosion of revenue, either the deficit explodes or we make further cuts in health care and education. Supposedly, capital gains cuts will help the economy grow. With investment offering greater after-tax rewards, people will save more, invest more and be freer to shift assets to more efficient investments. All this in turn will make the economy more productive. But, Mr. President, it is not like people's stockholdings are not doing well. Stock values have doubled in two years, while inflation has gone up less than 6 percent. Taxpayers with serious money in the market are crying all the way to the bank. Who are we trying to help here? Wall Street investors and bondholders are doing just great. They are doing fine. I think the real issue is political power. The real issue is political power. Who has the say? Who are the well-heeled? Who are the folks who are well represented? But working families and their children get the short end of the stick. Mr. President, I have a June 16 piece in the New York Times by David Rosenbaum. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall go on reading, then, this amendment, that whatever we do by way of this tax legislation ``should meet a standard of fairness in its distributional impact on upper, middle and lower income taxpayers, and that any such legislation should not disproportionately benefit the highest income taxpayers.'' Mr. President, I want colleagues to listen to this because it is my sense that there is going to be strong support for this. I will do everything I can as a Senator to hold my colleagues accountable for their support. Understand, I say to Democrats and Republicans alike, that if you vote for this, then what we need to do is look at what we are now discussing in the Finance Committee and what came out of the Ways and Means Committee. Look at the Finance Committee tax bill--it is quite unbelievable--if you are at the top 1 percent of the population, making over $400,000 a year, you are going to get a break of a little bit over $7,000 a year. If you are in the top 20 percent of the population, and have an income of $200,000 a year and over, you will get a break of about $3,706. $200,000 and over, you get $3,706; $100,000 to $200,000 --we are not middle class yet, I remind my colleagues--you get $1,440; $75,000 to $100,000, you get $804. Now look what happens when we get to incomes of $75,000 and below, and more so when we get into the $40,000 to $50,000, $30,000 to $40,000, and $15,000 to $30,000 range. For these hard-pressed people-- what do you get? A pittance. Low income families get a dollar a week, if that. Mr. President, we are talking about a tax bill that provides benefits to people in inverse relationship to need. The less you need, the more you get; the more you need, the more hard pressed you are, the more you are trying to provide for your family, trying to make a decent living and raise your children successfully, the less you get. This is a Robin-Hood-in-reverse policy. If I could turn to the next chart: here we see that the House bill is even worse, really, skewed in the favor of higher income Americans. The top 1 percent get $10,000; and then you get down to $40,000 to $50,000, $30,000 to 40,000--they get $167, or $300, or some similar tiny amount. So, Mr. President, we are giving $10,000 and $12,000 per year tax breaks to upper-income and wealthy people, and then hard-pressed people in the States of Wyoming or Minnesota are getting practically nothing. I say to my colleagues, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and maybe people don't want to debate it and maybe people don't want to vote against it. But if you vote for it and then you go and vote for this tax bill, you are going to have to come out with some other data that shows that this tax bill, in fact, is based on some standard of fairness. I haven't seen one shred of evidence to that effect. The next chart, Mr. President, reflects on the issue of deficit reduction. The chart is from the Joint Tax Committee and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--the first two charts were from the Department of the Treasury--and shows how the tax cuts are backloaded. Look at this. We are talking about an erosion of revenue between 2000 and 2017, to the tune of $950 billion. Mr. President, I have said it before on the floor of the Senate, there is an old Yiddish proverb: you can't dance at two weddings at the same time. You can't be talking about deficit reduction and say you want to invest in education and opportunities for all our citizens and you are for the children and at the same time vote for tax cuts that are going to explode the deficit, and the worst thing of all is provide the lion's share of the benefits to those people who are the wealthiest citizens. Maybe this is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. If so, I am pleased to have that division reflected in this vote on this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. There has been a lot of discussion about higher education. This is near and dear to my heart, because I really do believe that what we do here today has so much to do with whether or not our children or our grandchildren will do well in life and have access to a higher education. Again, coming over from the House Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Archer's higher education tax cuts are unbelievable. If you are in the top 1 percent of income earners--just take a look--you are getting up to $600 by way of a break. If you earn around $59,000, you are getting about $100. If you earn around $36,000, you may get $50, and below that, below $30,000 a year, you don't get anything at all. What kind of tax breaks are we talking about? I am telling you something, this tax bill makes the best argument for campaign finance reform I have ever seen since I have been here in the Senate. If you are a heavy hitter and you are well heeled and you are a player and you are over there in that tax committee room and you are lobbying every day, you are sure going to get your piece. But I have news for you working Americans. I am bringing this amendment to the floor today because it is a wake-up call. You are getting the short end of the stick. We have been talking about affordable higher education. I must say, even the President's proposal is far better than what we are looking at right now. I was speaking at Inver Hills Community College last Friday at graduation and talking to the president. It is wonderful. I love going to those graduations, because when you go to the community college graduations, always, at least one time, someone will yell out, ``Way to go, grandma.'' These are different students. They are not 19 years old. Many are older, many are hard pressed, many come from families with incomes under $30,000. If the tax credit isn't refundable, they are not going to get anything. So let's stop making claims that just do not hold up, and let's not brag about a tax bill that provides a huge amount of assistance to those people least in need. When it comes to those at the very top, this bill provides great breaks. When it comes to middle income, this bill gives a little bit, and when it comes to working families, low- and moderate-income families, this bill gives nothing. And this is called fairness? So, I say to my colleagues, if you vote for this amendment, then I certainly hope that you will not then separate your votes on the reconciliation bill next week from the words to which you have ascribed today. Some people sort of just pooh-pooh sense-of-the-Senate amendments, and they say it is just a wish list, it doesn't mean anything. I say you are on record. We have an important piece of legislation out here. I made this a sense-of-the-Senate. I am not talking all afternoon on this, but, by golly, we are focused on tax policy, and we are seeing a bill moving through these committees which is absolutely outrageous. It is no wonder that people in cafes in Minnesota and around the country think there has been a hostile takeover of the Government process. When they find out what this bill does and who benefits and who doesn't, they are going to be furious, and they are going to say the same thing they are saying already, which is, ``Boy, I tell you something, we're locked out. Those folks in the Congress, they do a heck of a good job of responding to the well heeled, but they sure don't do a very good job of responding to our families.'' According to the Treasury Department, on June 17, just look at where we are heading right over here in the Senate Finance Committee. Sixty- five-point-five percent of the benefits of these tax proposals go to earners in the top 20 percent; 10 percent goes to those making $50,000 or under; 5 percent goes to families making between $40,000 and $50,000; 3 percent goes to those making between $30,000 and $40,000; and 1.8 percent goes to families between $15,000 and $30,000 a year. I am actually surprised that they even got 1.8 percent. And the bottom of wage-earners? Nothing. If you earn below $15,000 a year, you get nothing. Mr. President, again I say to my colleagues, if you vote for this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that is great, but I don't think you are going to then be able to vote for what is coming out of the Finance Committee or what is coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, unless you come out here with other data, unless you come out here with another analysis as to what the distributional effects are. If this sense-of-the-Senate is adopted--and I think it will be, or I hope it will be--then I will come out with a tougher amendment on the Department of Defense bill. We are going to have some discussion today on the floor of the Senate about tax policy. I cannot believe the silence on the floor of the Senate. We are going to have a debate about this. This isn't just going to move through next week quickly and silently, as we do with reconciliation bills. People in the country have a right to know how this is going to affect them, who exactly is making the decisions, who exactly is going to benefit, and who exactly gets the short end of the stick. Working families, you get the short end of the stick. Don't you for a moment let anybody tell you that you and your children are getting a heck of a lot of assistance. You are not. But, by golly, if you are wealthy and at the very top, you are going to get a lot by way of assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a very fine piece by Robert Kuttner in the Washington Post today be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I inquire if it would be part of this agreement to have no second-degree amendments? Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just read this amendment because I want colleagues to know exactly what it says. I want them to know what they are voting on, because if there is going to be strong support for this amendment, that's fine. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but people are on record. This will be a test that I want to use, as a Senator, to look at what we are doing vis-a-vis tax policy. This amendment says: It is the sense of the Senate that any tax legislation enacted by the Congress this year should meet a standard of fairness in its distributional impact on upper--

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Chair, 15 minutes is what we had talked about. I would be pleased to do that. I just remind my colleague, I do not think there will be any votes until 2, in any case.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we did not formally agree to a time agreement. I know that the policy committees are meeting. I think I will take 20 minutes rather than 15, because I do not think we will have a vote before 2 o'clock, in any case.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join my colleague today, Senator Kerry, as well as Senators Glenn, Biden, and Leahy, in introducing the Clean Money Clean Elections Act of 1997. One of the most important ethical issues of this Congress is the way in which money has come to dominate politics. That is why we are introducing this legislation to address what has become a systemic corruption, a corruption which results from the sharp disparity of power between those who are able to mobilize and invest large amounts of campaign cash on one hand, and ordinary citizens on the other. Our proposal would provide sweeping and simple reform. It would sever the direct connection between big-money special interests and Senate candidates. American democracy needs elections, not auctions. But our current campaign finance system locks most citizens out of participation. Most citizens don't believe they can be players when it comes to the really important policy decisions that affect their lives. They don't believe they have a real voice. They are not even sure that their vote counts for much. At the same time, our current system makes sure that big givers and heavy hitters always have a seat at the table. That is why so many believe, with reason, that we have a pseudo-democracy, not authentic democracy. They see the subversion of democracy, the loss of the principle of one-person, one-vote. They are losing faith in the idea that Government is supposed to be on their side. In this system, what's legal is a scandal. To address this mix of money and politics which is corrupting our politics, my colleagues and I are proposing an approach to reform called ``Clean Money, Clean Elections.'' I believe our proposal is ambitious and innovative. I am sure that it is needed. Citizens around the country are turning up the heat in a push for this vision of real reform. Voters in Maine chose this approach to the finance of election campaigns. And now legislators and the Governor in Vermont have decided to pursue it. A number of States will be considering the Clean Money Clean Elections approach during the coming months. I strongly endorse these actions at the State level. And I hope that citizens around the country will continue to keep comprehensive campaign finance reform at the front of the Nation's political agenda. This Congress needs pressure. It needs a jolt. What it needs is a counterbalancing pressure to ensure that the voices who believe in reform are heard above the voices of those who march on Washington every day--the monied interests who far too often determine what issues are on the table in American politics, and who far too often shape the outcomes within that agenda. The American people should turn up the heat. This is the only way reform will happen. Reform can happen. When we passed lobby reform and a gift ban during the last Congress, despite great resistance, it was because Members of Congress were forced to vote, with the people of America watching. Now, we plan to take this proposal to the American people--State by State, townhall by townhall, to build the support needed to enact true reform. The people are watching. When the time comes to vote, Members of Congress will need to vote the right way. We all know that campaigns currently cost far too much money. Our bill will set a voluntary spending limit on the campaigns of clean money candidates. The spending limit is based on a formula tied to each State's voting-age population. We have adopted the McCain-Feingold bill's formula, except that we subtract 20 percent from the upper limit. We subtract 20 percent because that is approximately the amount most candidates now spend to raise money. Under our bill they won't have to spend that time and money to raise money. In Minnesota, the clean money amount, which also is the spending limit for a clean money candidate, will be about $1.14 million for the general election. In a contested primary, the amount will be about $764,000. That adds up to a total clean money amount of $1.9 million in Minnesota for a clean money Senate candidate. Less than $2 million is enough in Minnesota: If we also ban soft money to the parties, which this bill does; and if we close loopholes on independent expenditures and so-called ``issue'' ads which are really election ads, which this bill does. Our provisions on these items are similar to those in S. 25, the McCain-Feingold bill, a bill which I am proud to have co-authored. I continue to support that bill. But we really need to go further. The Clean Money Clean Elections Act does so. It takes special-interest money out of campaigns. It gives the country's electoral system back to the people. Americans know that the current campaign finance system works for the monied special interests, not for them. They're paying too much now for our elections. Too much in special favors, whether it's tax breaks for huge companies, tobacco politics that threaten the health of children, unneeded spending, and misdirected national policy. These result in the systemic corruption that is enshrined in our present system of financing campaigns. That's why we need to change it. We need to take the special interest money out, and replace it with Clean Money Campaigns. Clean Money Campaigns would: Level the playing field for non-incumbents, including those who are not major party candidates; allow candidates to focus on seeking office and serving the public once in office, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time raising money; and utilize free media time to allow candidates to get their message out. Candidates who meet our bill's rigorous standard for showing serious public support will receive full public financing in contested primary and general elections. They will receive the full amount of the spending limit for their State. In Minnesota, to qualify as a clean money candidate, a major-party candidate would have to gather about 8,500 signatures, each accompanied by a $5 check to the Senate Election Fund. That is a tough standard of seriousness, but it is realistic. A candidate who is not seeking the nomination of, or who has not received the nomination of, a major party can also receive clean money financing for his or her campaign. That candidate must gather 150 percent of the qualifying contributions that a major party candidate needs to gather in the same State. Again, it requires that a candidate demonstrate genuinely broad support, but it is an achievable threshold. The American people can no longer afford what has been called ``The Best Congress Money Can Buy.'' That is why we have to take special- interest money out of campaigns. The roughly $160 million of annual cost of Senate elections under our proposal can be easily offset with reductions in current corporate welfare or other unneeded expenditures. Are Americans willing to fight for and put in the budget clean elections that really belong to them--that belong to the people? I believe they are. So do the many groups endorsing our bill: Public Campaign, Public Citizen, League of Women Voters, Citizen Action, USPIRG, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society. Still other organizations support our approach, even if they do not endorse specific pieces of legislation. Mr. President, the Senate needs to consider comprehensive campaign finance reform soon--before we leave this summer. This bill shows us the direction to go. It is workable, and it is needed. I urge my colleagues who have not yet read the bill to consider cosponsoring it. I am hopeful that this bill and a similar proposal to be introduced during the coming weeks in the House of Representatives will contribute to real momentum for genuine reform during this Congress. Mr. President, let me say that I am pleased to introduce this bill today with my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Glenn, Biden, and Leahy. And I am confident there will be other Senators in the future who support this approach to reform. There are other worthy and important efforts going on here, the McCain-Feingold bill being one of them, to try to reduce the amount of money that is flowing in and affecting the politics of our country. I personally think, and I think the majority of people in this country agree, that this is a core issue, a core problem. Many things which could happen here don't happen because they get trumped by money, big money in politics. The ethical issue of our time is the way money has come to dominate politics. If you believe each person should count as one, and no more than one, which is the standard of representative democracy, that is a harsh verdict. I do think we have corruption, but I don't like bashing colleagues. I am not talking about individual colleagues. The vast majority of Senators and Representatives with whom I serve--Democrats and Republicans alike--believe in public service and do their very best to serve people. Still, there is a systemic corruption. We have such a huge imbalance between those people at the top who have economic resources and access to power and the vast majority of people who just feel locked out. Mr. President, I have a friend--Jim Hightower, who used to be Agriculture Commissioner in Texas. He has a wonderful way of putting things. Jim Hightower says you don't have to be who's who to know what's what. The what's what is that a lot of people in the country think there has been a hostile takeover of our electoral and Government processes by big money interests. Many people don't feel a part of this system any longer. When that is the case, there is not anything more important that can be done than to pass a reform bill. The goals of the clean money/clean elections bill are simple: dramatically reduce the amount of money that is spent, get the interested dollars and private money out, have a level playing field, try to eliminate, or come as possible to eliminating special interest access, have real elections as opposed to auctions, don't have Senators spending so much of their time raising money, instead they should be trying to be good legislators. I think people want to turn this system, which they think is a rotten system, not upside down, it is upside down now, but right side up. What our bill does, with agreed-upon spending limits, so candidates don't have to go out and raise all the private money, is we break the link between private money and our votes and work as legislators. Under our bill, the money is no longer interested money. We dramatically reduce spending by setting voluntary limits, then campaign spending by clean money candidates comes from this Senate election fund. We tighten the definition when it comes to independent expenditures. And we do the same for issue advocacy ads, some of which are barely disguised campaign ads. Our bill includes free broadcast time. If you really want to have a system where the vast majority of the people feel like they can be a part of it, we are going to have to take this journey. Mr. President, two final points. If we can pass McCain-Feingold, that moves our country forward, that would be an important step. But this piece of legislation, which won't pass immediately, has a lot of energy behind it, too. We introduce it as part of the debate, as part of the energy behind reform. I have met with the people who were involved in the Maine effort, and they passed a clean effort option. I met with legislators and a lot of people in Vermont, and they are going to pass it. I met with people in the Midwest. There is a lot of energy in the Midwest and New England. It may be States which pass this kind of reform at first. You are going to see a lot of pressure on people here from the grassroots. We need to have a galvanized public. We are going to have to have an external jolt to this Congress to pass a reform bill, but there is no more important thing that we can do than to pass such a reform bill. This clean money/clean elections bill would represent an enormous step forward for our country, toward real elections as opposed to auctions, toward authentic democracy as opposed to pseudo democracy, toward a Government of, by and for the people, not of, by and for those who have the wealth and economic resources. I think people in this country yearn for a political process they can believe in. They yearn for reform, and I don't agree with one person who says, ``Look, people don't seem to care that much.'' People care deeply, they care desperately, they care about issues that affect themselves and their families. They have hopes for themselves and their families and their communities, but right now I think most people believe that they there is not a heck of a lot they can do on the issues that are most important to them, because our political process has essentially been dominated by big money, not people's needs. Mr. President, we have given people entirely too much justification for that point of view. We have to make some big changes. Some of us are going to be fighting hard on the floor for reform. I think there will be plenty of pressure building around the country. It will be a tough fight, but I cannot think of a more important fight as a Senator from Minnesota. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President I rise to express my strong support for the amendment introduced by Senator Lugar. The amendment accomplishes a number of things, including funding arrears to the United Nations within 2 years and fully funding fiscal year 1998 U.S. regular and peacekeeping dues to the United Nations. The full funding for fiscal year 1998 is important in that it will help ensure that the United States does not perpetuate U.S. arrears by not meeting current U.S. obligations to the United Nations. But as commendable and desirable as these provisions are, what I believe is most important is Senator Lugar's proposal to strip from S. 903 some 38 unilaterally imposed benchmarks or conditions that the United Nations would have to meet before we fully pay the debts we acknowledge we owe the organization. Included in these benchmarks are a permanent cut in our annual dues from 25 percent to 20 percent of the regular U.N. budget and from 31 percent to 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget. When I first joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was asked by a ranking State Department official what my position was on U.S. arrears to the United Nations. I said my position could be summed up in two-words: ``pay up.'' At the time I had no inkling that the majority of my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee would agree that our decision to finally pay up should be contingent on the U.N complying with numerous U.S. conditions. And the conditions contained in S. 903 provide for payment of arrears over a 3-year period, with new conditions imposed each of the 3 years--conditions that the United Nations will have to meet in exchange for U.S. payments. To other nations, including some of our allies, this formula is likely to be viewed as being tantamount to blackmail on the installment plan. Moreover, if implemented there is no question it would greatly weaken the United Nations and undermine our leadership role in the world body. What would happen to the United Nations if other member States were to follow suit and impose some of the same provisions contained in this bill as conditions for paying their arrears? Thus, they might refuse to pay their back dues and assessments until the United Nations agreed to make reductions they specify in their assessed rate for the U.N. budget and share of contributions to peacekeeping operations. Or they might condition repayment to specific reductions in the U.N. staff, reduced U.N job vacancy rates, or even providing their national counterparts to our GAO with access to U.N. financial data so that they may audit the U.N. books. Is there any doubt that we would be enraged if the national legislature of any other member state were to mandate that the United Nations jump through a series of hoops before that state pays its debts to the United Nations? And we would have a right to be enraged, not only because our own dues and assessments might consequently be increased. But also because U.N. compliance with such a unilateral diktat could well lead to the organization's collapse. No international organization can be viable if its members have the power to unilaterally determine what they owe the organization, the conditions under which repayment should be made, and what their future financial obligations should be. As Senator Lugar has pointed out, only 5 percent, some $54 million, of the $1.021 billion we acknowledge we owe is actually owed to the United Nations. It is important to note that the single largest portion of our arrears, almost two-thirds, is owed to countries who contributed troops to peacekeeping operations which the U.S. backed in the U.N. Security Council. In most cases these were operations in which the United States refrained from participating with our own forces. The bulk of this peacekeeping debt is owed to our NATO allies, with the United Nations merely serving as a conduit to reimburse those countries who supported peacekeeping operations with troops and equipment. There is no doubt that international peacekeeping eases our burden because other nations share the costs and risks. In fact, the United States will gain $107 million in reimbursements for U.N. peacekeeping costs, which we will credit against our U.N. debt obligations. In effect, by withholding our debt payments and making repayment contingent on a host of conditions, we've imposed a double whammy on some of our closest allies. We have yet to pay them what we owe for the costs of peacekeeping operations they carried out which we had deemed to be in our national interest. And by unilaterally reducing our own future obligations to the United Nations as a condition of paying our arrears, our NATO allies will wind up paying more for peacekeeping operations and the U.N. budget. To me, this seems like a sure-fire formula for undermining our relations with our NATO partners. Mr. President, I believe it is important to stress that the Lugar amendment enjoys strong and broad support. Among the backers is the Emergency Coalition for U.S. Financial Support of the United Nations which includes all the former Secretaries of State, and over 100 business, labor, humanitarian, faith-based, and civic organizations. Moreover, the premises of the Lugar amendments are consistent with the views of the American public. For example, a nationwide poll last year found that almost two-thirds of Americans believe the United States ``should always pay its full dues to the United Nations on schedule.'' Americans have long believed in having ``a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.'' I hope my colleagues will agree with me that imposing unilateral, take it-or-leave it conditions on the United Nations hardly reflects ``a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.'' Therefore, I urge my colleagues to strongly back the Lugar amendment. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't have any rehearsed remarks. I am trying to think exactly what to say. I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota, both Senators from North Dakota, and the Senators from South Dakota. It has been a pleasure to work with you. I certainly want to thank the minority leader, Senator Daschle, who has done a great job. Jim English, I am going to say the same thing about you. I want to thank Jim for just incredible work. Larry Stein has been phenomenal as well. I would like to thank Sarah Neimeyer who has worked with me in my office. We have had so much help. Senator Byrd, thank you so much for your support. And I would like to thank my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support. Finally, we have come together. Finally we are going to pass a disaster relief bill. Mr. President, all I can say right now is that this has been a long and sometimes bitter fight. I wish it had not been such a long, protracted fight. I wish it had not been a bitter fight. I do not think I am in the mood at all to point fingers today. I think it is better just to say to everybody here, we finally have come together. Senator Stevens, thank you for your help. And I think that what matters is not who wins or who loses here in the Senate or in the House. I don't really care. I don't think it's very important. But I do think the people back in Minnesota and the Dakotas win, and that does matter a great deal to me. People are trying to get on with their lives. They are trying to rebuild their lives. And they need the certainty. They need the certainty of knowing whether or not this assistance is going to be available. I think, finally, today, as a Senator from Minnesota, I can look people in the eyes, go back home and meet with people and say, ``This is passed, the help is going to be forthcoming. I hope and pray that this will help you and this will help your children and this will help your families.'' I am proud of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I thank colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support now. Finally, we are together. I am proud of my Democratic colleagues because I think we did the right thing. I think we used the rules of the Senate. The expert--I have to get his attention--the expert who knows more than the other 99 Senators combined is Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd, I want to get your attention. You do not have to respond. I would say I am proud of my colleagues, I am proud of the Democrats. I said one of the things I am most proud of is I think we did the right thing to be out here fighting for people, and I think it was important to use the rules of the Senate to fight for people. I was saying that you are, of course, the master teacher to all of us. Again, I thank you for what you have taught us. It feels good to be able to know the process and use the rules, if you can use your leverage to fight for people. I think we did that. But I think most important of all, it is the people who will benefit. We have come together, finally, finally. I think the U.S. Senate, and I hope the House of Representatives and therefore the Congress, will look good to people after what has been a terrible period of time. I do not believe the last several weeks have been a good several weeks for the Congress. They have not built up a lot of respect for our institution. People have not been able to understand the delay. I think, in a way, this is an important victory for people in our States and it is also, I think, a very good thing that finally, finally the U.S. Senate has come through for people. Mr. President, I have spoken many, many, many, many hours, have given enough speeches to probably deafen all of my colleagues and I do not need to say any more. I am so pleased, I feel so good that we finally are able to pass this bill and we are finally going to be able to help people--really good people who really need the help. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have had a chance to speak on this often. Five minutes, I think, will do it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I, too, want to thank Mayor Stauss and Mayor Owens from East Grand Forks and Grand Forks for their very courageous voices. They never gave up and they continue to give people hope. They gave all of us here a lot of hope. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask the Senator if he would grant me 15 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues today as an original cosponsor of the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997. I thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, as well as Senators Domenici and Kerry, for their leadership on this issue. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I have followed the success of the women's business demonstration sites--two of which are in Minnesota. I would like to note the effectiveness and good work of those two organizations: Women in New Development, or WIND, of Bemidji, MI, and the Women's Business Center, which is operated in association with the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council in Mahnomen, MI. This program, and these centers, fill a crucial need in many communities across the country. They deliver needed technical assistance, and they ultimately help provide tremendous economic benefits. I recently received a letter from Mary Turner, director of the White Earth center. She pointed out that her center and others operated through the program are committed to delivering services aimed at promoting self-sufficiency, and which are ``as diverse as the women we serve--women of color, women on public assistance moving on to self- employment, rural and urban women, and women starting home-based businesses.'' Mr. President, the bill will reauthorize the women's demonstration sites, increasing the program's annual funding and authorizing demonstration sites to receive funding for 5 years rather than the current 3 years. I look forward to working with the chairman and other members of our committee to include this measure as part of our broader reauthorization of SBA programs.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues today as an original cosponsor of the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997. I thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, as well as Senators Domenici and Kerry, for their leadership on this issue. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I have followed the success of the women's business demonstration sites--two of which are in Minnesota. I would like to note the effectiveness and good work of those two organizations: Women in New Development, or WIND, of Bemidji, MI, and the Women's Business Center, which is operated in association with the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council in Mahnomen, MI. This program, and these centers, fill a crucial need in many communities across the country. They deliver needed technical assistance, and they ultimately help provide tremendous economic benefits. I recently received a letter from Mary Turner, director of the White Earth center. She pointed out that her center and others operated through the program are committed to delivering services aimed at promoting self-sufficiency, and which are ``as diverse as the women we serve--women of color, women on public assistance moving on to self- employment, rural and urban women, and women starting home-based businesses.'' Mr. President, the bill will reauthorize the women's demonstration sites, increasing the program's annual funding and authorizing demonstration sites to receive funding for 5 years rather than the current 3 years. I look forward to working with the chairman and other members of our committee to include this measure as part of our broader reauthorization of SBA programs.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. If this would help in the deliberations, we have talked to Senator Grams and I plan on restricting my remarks to 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I shall be brief today. Let me just build on the comments of my colleague from North Dakota. It is my fervent hope, and it is not an exaggeration to say prayer, that when I go home this weekend, back to Minnesota, I will be able to say to people, ``Congress has acted, and we have passed a disaster relief bill that will provide you with help so that you can begin the process of rebuilding your lives.'' That is what people are asking for. No more than that. All of us, if we had been flooded out or if we had been faced with some kind of disaster like this, would also be hoping to get the same kind of help. Madam President, I, too, last night had a chance to talk to people around the country on radio and television and whatnot. I think that the goal of yesterday and today, because the Senate is not going to really be back conducting business as usual until we get this disaster relief bill passed--that is our commitment, that is how we fight for people in our States--but I think really the goal is to just press and press and press and keep fighting for people, but more with the focus on what we can do as opposed to finger pointing and getting personal. I have talked to enough Republican colleagues on the majority side who, I believe, even if we don't agree on every issue, want to come together, and I hope it will happen. I think it should happen this week. I think that this particular form of gridlock is not working well for this Congress, and I don't think people around the country understand how it can be that on a bill which is to provide emergency assistance to people, you get all sorts of other measures dealing with how the Census Bureau does its work or dealing with debates about appropriations bills and the budget and all the rest. I think most people believe that when it comes to disaster relief, you should try and get it to people and keep off the extraneous measures that are so controversial. There are a lot of good people here on both sides of the aisle. I was asked last night many, many times, especially from Minnesota, ``Do you think there is going to be some agreement?'' And I said, ``I cannot believe there won't be.'' I just think it is going to happen. It has to happen. The only appeal I would make to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that if, in fact, we are going to be talking about scaling back the disaster relief, I worry about it because we had a very clear definition of what it would take by way of emergency assistance--and I use those words carefully--to help people get back on their own two feet. This was really a good bipartisan effort. That is what we had. I really hope that my colleagues will understand that we are speaking and we are fighting and we are using our leverage as Senators in order to get the help to people back in our States. We are going to continue to do that until we, in fact, are able to get the job done. So my appeal to my colleagues is: Let's have an agreement; take the extraneous provisions off this bill. We can debate them separately. We can have an up-or-down vote, or if there is some alternative proposal that people have, great. Let's just try and get the help to people, and let's not delay it any further. I was asked by somebody back in Minnesota whether I really liked last night. I was on the first shift. I said, ``Actually, not so much so. I would rather be doing it on the floor of the Senate. I would rather be in a markup in committee. But I, as a Senator, will do everything I can to fight hard for people in Minnesota.'' I think from talking to colleagues in the majority party, we are going to reach agreement. I believe that, I say to my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams. There has to be an agreement. That is what we have. We have to make that happen so all of us can go back to our States and say to people, ``We wish this had not been delayed and delayed and delayed, but now, finally, a good bill is passed and we are going to get the help to you.'' That is the goal, that should be the result, and I hope that that happens this week. That is my appeal to my colleagues. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. People do not care a lot about what the majority leader is talking about; they have got a whole lot of pain they are dealing with. We want to get help to them. Can we get the commitment to get help to them?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the majority leader understand that in our States----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Providing assistance to people in our States?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not hold the floor any longer. I just want to say to the majority leader I am a little troubled by the very lengthy explanation on the census count only because again I think the question that we have put to the majority leader is why not take that issue, around which there is disagreement, and debate it separately and why not take the issue of appropriations bills and the continuing resolution and debate it separately? But that is what we do not agree on. That is controversial. We can have an honest debate. Why link it to what should be a disaster relief bill----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Last question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand. But the reason I ask the majority leader this, since he is the majority leader, is that--and I put this in the form of a question. Is the majority leader aware--and I believe you are because I think that, agree or disagree on issues, you are very adept at sort of understanding the mood of people in Mississippi or for that matter in the country--is the majority leader aware that the people in our States are just getting sick and tired of it all and they do not understand all the debate about census and all the debate about continuing resolution and all the rest; they do not mind our having separate debate on that and they understand there are disagreements. They do not understand why we just cannot get a clean disaster relief bill to them. Can the majority leader commit to us that that is what we will do this week, get a clean disaster relief bill that will provide the assistance to people that need it and we will get it done this week? Can the majority leader make that commitment?