Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Harold Edward Stassen who will be celebrating his 90th birthday on April 13, 1997. Harold Stassen has an outstanding record of public and military service to America. There is no question that his unique contributions have left a lasting impression on not only the history of his home State and his country, but at an international level as well. In 1938, at the age of 31, Harold Stassen was elected Governor of Minnesota and remained our Nation's youngest Governor until 1943. He then resigned to accept a commission in the U.S. Navy where he attained the rank of captain during World War II. He also won the Legion of Merit, three other decorations, and was awarded six major battle stars. Moreover, he was personally responsible for freeing thousands of American prisoners of war in Japan shortly before that country's surrender. Although Mr. Stassen also served as a key adviser in a variety of influential posts throughout the Eisenhower administration, he will be best remembered for his service under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the President's personal request, Harold Stassen served on the American delegation to the 1945 San Francisco Conference that founded the United Nations. Indeed, he is now the only living American who drafted, negotiated, and signed the original U.N. Charter. Moreover, Mr. Stassen has maintained a dedicated, passionate interest in the U.N. since its founding--educating the American public about the United Nations, and striving to make the organization more effective. Harold Stassen is celebrating his 90th birthday just 2 years after we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. On April 13, numerous national and State officials, including former Vice President and United States Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale, will come to St. Paul, MN, to honor Mr. Stassen. As Harold Stassen commemorates this significant milestone it is indeed an honor for me to join with his family, friends, and colleagues in conveying my warmest birthday wishes to this remarkable American and fellow Minnesotan who has such a proud and exceptional record of distinguished public service.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is time for attention to be given to Arnold Aronson. Few students in this country, when studying Civics in their high schools and elementary schools, learn of the name Aronson. When they read about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, and the Americans with Disability Act--each in their own right a high water mark for our Nation--they hear names like King, Kennedy, and Johnson--but not Aronson. This is a lamentable omission for two reasons. First of all, none of these landmark pieces of legislation would ever have happened if it hadn't been for him. Second, school children across the Nation should be taught about the vital role non-elected individuals have played in our society, and the indispensable role of grass roots efforts and coalition building--two pillars of our political structure exemplified by Arnie Aronson. Mr. President, this nation should understand that our landmark civil rights laws were born in our Nation's communities, not in the minds of our Presidents. The truth is that the leadership came from the bottom, so to speak; not the top. The initiative required for these fundamental shifts in our society were born in the hearts of thousands of individual citizens, each of whom reached out to their respective communities, and were strung together delicately and persistently by a few motivated and foresighted leaders like Arnie Aronson. The reality is that Arnie has no one to blame but himself for his lack of notoriety. Arnie, as his friends and colleagues all know, shuns publicity with the same energy that some employ in its pursuit. But had Arnie been a self-promoter, then he never could have satisfied the complex interpersonal agendas necessary to organize so many disparate views, so many different goals, so many challenging attitudes. Arnie weaved together practically every major civil rights organization in the country into the grandparent of all coalitions, and perhaps still one of the most successful coalitions this century, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Some of the organizations that eventually found a voice under his umbrella were in their infancy at the time and now are household names; others had such distinct agendas that it is nothing short of miraculous that they were willing to lend their names to any unified cause. But Arnie is a master consensus builder, and he accomplished more than most people could imagine, by advancing the interests of others rather than himself, by the practically unknown arts of self-sacrifice and behind-the-scenes hard work. By doing what he does, Arnie sets an example for us all. He has shown us what this Nation is capable of accomplishing, if it has the right goal in mind, and the will to reach that goal. He is an inspiration, because of his tolerance, his eagerness to hear out views that others might find offensive, his patience to find new, non-threatening ways of expressing strong opinions, and his ability to harness and channel tremendous energy in productive directions. There are millions of Americans enjoying lives and jobs and suffering far less discrimination than their parents endured, thanks to Arnie. Mr. President, Arnie Aronson should be anything but a secret in this nation. He is a role model for us all.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Of course, the Senator will stay within the 60 minutes. And, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, far less than 60 minutes. I just wanted to add a couple of things to what the Senator from Illinois has just said. First of all, I really appreciate the emphasis of the Senator from Illinois on representative democracy in our country. I think this is the central issue for this Congress. I think this is the most important issue in American politics. I have spoken before on the floor of the Senate about this. I am not going to repeat what I have said already. But I really think, if we want to have people engaged in the political process, if we want people to register to vote and vote in elections, if we want people to believe in our political process, if we want people to believe in us, then I think we absolutely have to deal with this awful mix of money and politics. Because regular people-- which I use in a positive way--in Illinois and Minnesota and Oklahoma and around the country, know that, No. 1, too much money is spent on these campaigns; No. 2, some people count more than others and there is too much special interest access and influence; No. 3, there is too much of a money chase and Senators from both political parties have to spend entirely too much time raising money. I just ran for office. I had to raise the money. And, No. 4, I think people in the country know that it is getting dangerously close to the point where either you are a millionaire yourself, or you have to be very dependent upon those that have the hugest amounts of capital for these expensive capital-intensive TV campaigns. Otherwise, you are disqualified. In a democracy, people should not be, de facto, disqualified because they are not wealthy or because they do not have access to those people who have the wealth or the economical clout or the political clout in America. That turns the very idea of representative democracy on its head. That takes the very goodness of our country and turns it on its head. That takes the American dream and turns it on its head. I have said it before, but it is worth repeating, that if you believe in the standard that each person ought to count as one and no more than one, then you would be for reform. My last point, because I could talk about this for a long, long time, my colleague was kind enough to mention the McCain-Feingold bill. He was kind enough to mention the bill that yesterday we agreed to introduce, Senator Kerry and I, and Senator Glenn and Senator Reid; and Senator Bumpers was there as well. Mr. President, the point today is as follows. I think people-- unfortunately, but the proof is going to be in eating the pudding-- believe that what is going on in the Congress amounts to little more than symbolic politics. I think people believe we are going to have a committee investigation, an attempt to move some of these issues to the Rules Committee, maybe try and bury this here, maybe have hearings and hearings and hearings, then have a variety of different charges or countercharges made, maybe more polarization, maybe more accusations. Then, after all is said and done, it will be the same moving picture shown over and over and over again, where you have hearings, speeches, reports, witnesses, you name it, followed by the same hearings, the same speeches, the same calls to action, the same kind of investigations, followed by inaction. I do not understand, for the life of me, why we do not move forward. I think the purpose of this resolution is to say, set a date. A good friend of mine, Jim Hightower, who was great on the Ag Committee, loves to say, ``You don't have to be `Who's Who' to know what's what.'' People in this country have figured this out. It is time for reform. We know more than enough about what is wrong. We know more than enough about what is wrong with this game, the ways it is broken, and it is time to fix it. So this resolution calls for a date certain. It is right on mark, and I am proud to support it. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do seek recognition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on April 1, the Nation will begin to see the disastrous effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Act of 1996, passed and signed into law in the 104th Congress. When Congress debated the bill, strong arguments were made for getting people off welfare and back to work. I supported those intents. However, I believed then as I do now that the bill we were debating went beyond what is humanly justifiable in terms of repealing basic assistance to people who are in need. This bill was not about able bodied people working. It was about good people suffering. Under the guise of able bodied people working, we are forcing disabled and elderly people into hunger, into homelessness. Beginning around April 1, roughly 500,000 legal immigrants will lose their SSI benefits and about 1 million will lose food stamps. By the year 2002, approximately, 260,000 elderly immigrants and 140,000 children will lose Medicaid coverage. The bill I am introducing today restores those benefits to elderly and disabled immigrants by repealing provisions of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. When the American people supported welfare reform, they supported that able bodied people would work. I want that. You want that. However, I do not think that the American people intended the ensuing consequences. These consequences are people like Yanira, who, with her husband came to the United States legally 20 years ago from her native El Salvador. For 20 years they raised three children. For 20 years, they paid income taxes. For 20 years, they paid sales taxes. For 20 years they paid State taxes. For 20 years, they paid their car registration. For 20 years, they abided by the laws and rules here. Then Yanira's husband divorced her. So, Yanira got a job. For about 8 years she cleaned toilets, washed floors and laundered towels in a hotel near her home. Eventually, the work became too demanding physically and she quit. At 64, Yanira has received SSI for a few years. Soon, she will not. Since her husband is no longer married to her, she is not entitled to count her husband's work history toward the required 40 quarters--10 years. In spite of the fact that we willingly took her taxes and other fiscal contributions, we are denying her the basics for human survival, human dignity. How will Yanira survive? She doesn't know. Neither do I. Yanira's situation is not isolated. There are Yaniras living in Minnesota, in Ohio, in New York and Mississippi. They are here legally but will not receive SSI until they become U.S. citizens. Many of them are elderly and cannot work and considering their age, learn all that is necessary to become citizens. They will be denied benefits for the rest of their lives. Gladys has lived in the United States for 40 years, working as a nanny--caring for children in our Nation. Though she paid taxes and followed all the rules of the United States, she will lose her SSI benefits in July. She does have the option of struggling through forms and tests to become a citizen. Sounds like a good option until you realize: Gladys is 105 years old, blind and housebound. Gladys spent a good share of her times caring for and nurturing our children. She now needs the same. Lucrecia has lived here for 17 years. For 8 of them, she labored in a factory, assembling artificial Christmas trees. At 75, facing the loss of her sole means of support, Lucrecia is desperate. Rose, a 92-year-old, came from Lebanon 76 years ago. She has lived in a nursing home for the past 30 years. She has dementia. In December, she received a letter from the Government. The letter said, in essence, Rose had been shirking her responsibilities and she will no longer receive her benefits that support her stay in a nursing home. She can't speak for herself. I think we should speak for her. We should send the message that this is unacceptable. We must not let this happen to Rose. During my many visits with communities in Minnesota and while talking with folks here, I have never seen more fear in the faces of so many people, so many good people, people who came to this country and followed the rules. I hear stories every day of people so full of fear that they take their own lives. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act has abjured the contributions the legal immigrants like Yanira have made to our economic livelihood. I ask, How will their contributions be rewarded? Taxation without benefits is morally wrong. Last year, we discussed and debated the merits and failings of the welfare reform law. As you know, I voted against it. I did not vote against it because I am against people working, people contributing to our country. I did not vote against it because I am against paychecks replacing welfare checks. I voted against it because I am against pushing the unemployable into poverty. I am talking about benefits for the disabled and elderly immigrants in our country. On April 1, we will see the first trickle in the torrent of suffering that this bill will inflict on our Nation's most vulnerable. Around this time last year, we heard testimony from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation that ``welfare is becoming a way of life for elderly immigrants.'' A picture was painted depicting newly arrived immigrants being picked up by a sponsor at the airport and driven in a Cadillac directly to the welfare office to sign up for benefits such as SSI and food stamps. While I will not argue with you that there has been some abuse, I think this assertion is absurd. Last year, Robert Rector also testified that ``the presence of large numbers of elderly immigrants on welfare is a violation of the spirit, arguably, the letter, of U.S. immigration law.'' I beg to differ. This country was based on the dignity of the human spirit, fairness and equity. The spirit of this country is to give voice to the voiceless, to care for the elderly and to nurture the children. When we talk about reform, we should focus on change for the better, improvements to the system, revisions on our mistakes. When we talk of reform, we should not be discussing more people in hunger, more people who are homeless, more people in poverty. That is what this ``reform'' has led to. People who supported the welfare reform bill said they ``responded to the wishes of the American people and put an end to the widespread use and abuse of our welfare system.'' I am asking you now to respond to the voice of the American people. A recent nationwide L.A. Times poll found that 56 percent of the American people favor restoring cuts to legal immigrants. Not too long ago, several Republican Governors were here. They are already anticipating the effects of this legislation. The American people do not want people like Gladys and Lucrecia left hungry and homeless. They want responsible, ethical government. Responsible, ethical government costs money. I know that. I propose that instead of taking food from our Nation's elderly and children, we tax oil companies, we tax tobacco companies, we tax pharmaceutical companies. Why should wealthy corporations flourish and benefit from our policies while hardworking, law abiding people go hungry? This is not reform. This is a sham. Furthermore, it is shameful. People like Gladys and Lucrecia don't have high-paid lobbyists. Privileged industries avoid paying their fair share of taxes because of the efforts of lobbyists. I propose that we take away the privileges of the wealthy and provide necessities for the poor. Today, I am imploring you to look beyond politics and look beyond polls and see the faces and hear the stories that this reform will portend. This is no longer a political issue. This is an issue concerning humanity. To disregard this population, to turn our backs on those who are so vulnerable is disgraceful and dishonorable. Tonight, you know where you are sleeping. Tonight, you know what you will eat. Soon, Gladys and Lucrecia will not be able to say the same. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I echo what my colleague from Wisconsin has said. I believe, I say to the Senator from Georgia, that when we pass the reform bill in this Congress--and we must and we will--the words uttered in the Senator's first speech on the floor of the Senate will be remembered and will be part of a good piece of history in this country. I thank my colleague from Georgia, and I thank the people from Georgia for sending him here.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I may have 30 seconds.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues and original cosponsors Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Byron Dorgan in reintroducing the Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection Act, legislation that will outlaw discrimination by insurance companies against the victims of domestic violence in all lines of insurance. Congressman Bernie Sanders is introducing an identical bill in the House this week. With this legislation, we are trying to correct an abhorrent practice by many insurance companies--the denial of coverage to battered women. It is plain, old-fashioned discrimination. It is profoundly unjust and wrong. And, it is the worst of blaming the victim. Denying women access to the insurance they require to foster their mobility out of an abusive situation must be stopped. While we were successful in including language in the Kassebaum- Kennedy law which prohibits insurers from denying insurance because the applicant is a victim of abuse, insurance companies can still charge victims of abuse a higher rate. In Minnesota, three insurance companies denied an entire women's shelter insurance because, as a battered women's shelter, we were high risk. The Women's Shelter in Rochester, MN, was told that it was considered uninsurable because its employees are almost all battered women. Another shelter in rural Minnesota purchased a car so that women and children in danger who were trying to leave an abusive situation could use this anonymous vehicle and thus the abuser could not track their automobile to find them. The shelter could not find a company to provide them with automobile insurance once the companies knew of the risks surrounding battered women. A woman in Iowa named Sandra was denied life insurance after the company found out that she had been beaten up twice. In one incident, she had been so badly beaten by an ex-boyfriend that her cheekbones were splintered, and one of her eyes had to be put back in its socket. Her mother, Mary, was the one who originally applied for the life insurance policy, explaining, ``I didn't ask for a lot of coverage. I just wanted to apply for $1,000 coverage, just enough that if something happened, God forbid, that we could at least bury her.'' Mary was angry about the denial, so she wrote to State officials and the Iowa insurance commissioner's office tried to intervene on their behalf. In four separate letters, the insurance company officials stated they denied the coverage because of a history of assaults. In one letter they defended their decision by citing numerous documents which showed that people involved in domestic violence incidents are at a higher risk of death and injury than others, and, therefore, not a good risk. There are, unfortunately, many other instances of victims of domestic abuse being denied fire insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, and health insurance--denied because they were victims of a crime. This bill goes a long way toward treating domestic violence as the crime that it is--not a voluntary risky behavior that can be easily changed and not as a pre-existing condition. Insurance company policies that deny coverage to victims only serve to perpetuate the myth that victims are responsible for their abuse. In order to address the practice of insurers using domestic violence as a basis for determining whom to cover and how much to charge with respect to health, life, disability, homeowners, and auto insurance, this legislation prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against victims in any of the following ways: First, denying or terminating insurance; second, limiting coverage or denying claims; third, charging higher premiums; or fourth, terminating health coverage for victims of abuse in situations where coverage was originally issued in the abuser's name, and acts of the abuser would cause the victim to lose coverage. This legislation also keeps victims' information confidential by prohibiting insurers from improperly using, disclosing, or transferring abuse-related information for any purpose unrelated to the direct provision of health care services. Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone for being a victim of domestic violence. We may never know the full extent of the problem, but it is a grossly unfair practice and should be prohibited. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Virginia. I say that I felt I was just expressing my honest opinion about what I think is going to happen in the Rules Committee. And my comment was not aimed at my friend from Virginia. Mr. President, I will say one more time--and I will finish up because I see my colleague from Mississippi is here and I know my colleague from Mississippi is going to agree with everything I am saying so I am anxious for him to get the floor. But let me just finish up. Two points. One, I think it is problematical, I think it is suspect, I think it is weaving and bobbing and dancing around and a big step sideways to have moved the Government Affairs Committee away from what should have been the scope of the inquiry. We are going to come out here to the floor with language which is going to make it clear that we are serious about reform. And we know that what is key to reform is an investigation not only of illegalities--and you get into a definitional battle over that--but also what is improper, what is not appropriate. You name it. And also all of the ways in which money and politics have now interacted in such a way as to severely undercut the very idea of representative democracy and really undercut the trust people have in our political process. That is No. 1. No. 2. I just think people in the country are scratching their heads and saying, these folks in the Senate, they are saying that they actually need a lot of time to study all of these problems and they do not want to make a commitment to any date to bring up any piece of campaign reform legislation; permit us to be a little skeptical. We have this idea that politicians are pretty good at delay, and they are pretty good at sidestepping issues, and they are pretty good at not getting down to the work; permit us to be a little skeptical. How much more do people need to know about abuses, improprieties or illegalities in order to make some change? Many of us, my colleague is right, are pushing for some action. Now, I am not arrogant enough to say that one person has all the ideas about what should be done, but I do get very concerned about sidestepping here, narrowing the scope of inquiry here, delaying here and maybe, just maybe, at the very end laboring mightily and producing a mouse--hardly any kind of reform. I want to tell you, if we do that, people in the country should hold us accountable. I think that my colleagues, some colleagues, fail to make a distinction. I could be wrong about this. But I am coming to believe that every day there is a headline about something new. I think people read it and they just quickly go on to other stories. I think part of the reason is, unfortunately, people's expectations are not very high, and that should trouble all of us. But at the very core, what is inside of people in this country, is we do not like this system at all. We do not feel as though we are well represented. We feel ripped off and we want you to change it. I would say to my colleagues--yes, we talked about McCain-Feingold. I support McCain-Feingold. I worked with both Senators from the word go. I think it is an important, significant reform effort. If I had my way I would go the ``Maine option,'' legislation which really gets the interested money and private money out; a major overhaul of the system. If not, Senator Cochran and I had an opportunity to be at a show last night and I said, ``Look, I will come to the floor with an amendment just to prohibit soft money.'' We are going to take action. There are a variety of different approaches and there are other things that can be done that represent reform. But I say to my colleagues, ultimately it gets down to this. We have to dramatically reduce the amount of money that is spent. We have to dramatically reduce the influence of interested dollars and special interest access to decisionmakers. We have to dramatically reduce this money chase. And we have to move toward something that approximates, more or less, a level playing field so we have competitive elections and so challengers have a chance against incumbents. If we do not do that, we have not done the job. I think people are going to hold us to that standard. So we might be debating kind of the process we are going through to get to the end. But we need to get there together at the end. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. And I am not talking about the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to respond to the question--and I believe my colleague has asked a question--I do not know any other way to say this but to be straightforward and honest. The proof will be in the pudding. But I think once upon a time the Governmental Affairs Committee under the leadership of Senator Thompson was going to look at illegalities; it was going to look at improprieties; it was going to be a full scope of inquiry, and I think we were looking in the proper direction. With all due respect to my colleague, whom I respect, I think the majority of the Rules Committee is not interested in reform. I think the Rules Committee could very well be a burial ground for reform. Now, if I am wrong, I am pleased to be wrong. But right now, as I think about some of the people who are most active on the Rules Committee and some of the people I have heard speak on this, certainly some of them have made it crystal clear that they are not interested in any reform at all.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct. I do think--if I could finish.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator is correct that I can see a number of pieces of legislation, and I am going to outline some of them in a few moments, that I think would make sense, but I also am interested in the give-and-take with colleagues and fashioning compromise if I think it represents a step forward.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleagues-- and I have a lot of respect for my colleagues on the other side--I think the decision of the Rules Committee doesn't represent a step forward, it represents a great leap sideways. The Governmental Affairs Committee had voted unanimously to have a full inquiry. The inquiry certainly was going to focus on illegalities, but also on improprieties. That's the way we should proceed. The Rules Committee has stripped down the scope. And for people in the country who care fiercely about our getting away from auctions and back to elections, for people in the country who care about our getting away from what we have right now, which is pseudo-democracy, with big money dominating, back to authentic democracy, what the Rules Committee has done represents not a step forward, but a great leap sideways. It is a great leap sideways from an investigation that has to take place. Mr. President, I know that sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know. But, quite frankly, I don't believe that this Congress is going to be able to step sideways from a full investigation into all of the ways in which money has come to dominate politics today in the United States of America. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Glenn, at some point in his prepared remarks, said something like: Even what is legal quite often can be scandalous when you are looking at all the ways which money and politics interact today, and it really undercuts the whole idea of representative democracy. He is absolutely correct. We all know that there are all sorts of examples of, No. 1, too much money being spent in these campaigns; No. 2, too much special interest access; we all know all about that; No. 3, too much of a money chase with Senators spending way too much time, more than any of us want to, raising money; No. 4, therefore, a system where regular people, ordinary citizens, which I do not use in a pejorative sense but in a positive way, don't even think they can play the game. That is what we are facing--money determining who gets to run, money determining who is considered a viable candidate, money determining the outcome of an election, money determining what issues are on the agenda, money determining which people are here lobbying every day and which are left out, and money determining the outcome. This really represents a corruption. But I am not talking about corruption as in the wrongdoing of individual officeholders. I am not here to bash any colleague on either side of the aisle. I am talking about a corruption which is systemwide. It is systemic. It is systemic corruption in the following sense: Too few people with this system we have right now, this rotten system we have right now, have far too much wealth, power, say, and access to decisionmakers, and the vast majority of people are left out of the loop. That is what is going on in the country. My colleagues want to narrow the scope of inquiry. The Rules Committee basically has made an end run around the Governmental Affairs Committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee at one point in time had a unanimous vote. What happened? What happened? At one time the Governmental Affairs Committee said we are going to be a reform committee, and we are going to look at illegal behavior--by the way, we should; I am not defending any of it--and, in addition, we are going to look at improper behavior, what is inappropriate, and if people have special-color stamps for big contributors, maybe that is not appropriate, and if people take folks on trips and give them access to Republicans and Democrats based on their being big contributors, maybe that is not right. If people have special meetings, special dinners with special access to Senators because they are big givers or heavy hitters or well connected, maybe that is not right. Or if there is evidence of people being invited to help write legislation because they are big givers, maybe that is not right. Or if there is a meeting with a business community or labor community and one party or the other says, ``We noticed you have made contributions to Members of the other party, and you had better not do that or you're not going to have access to us,'' that is not right. The list goes on and on. What is legal is scandalous. This whole system needs to be turned not upside down--it is upside down right now--but right side up. We need to get the big money out of politics. We need to get the big money out of politics. Anybody who believes in free and open elections, anybody who believes in political equality, anybody who believes that each person in the United States of America should count as one and no more than one, should be genuinely horrified with this system that we now have. Mr. President, I think--I hope I am proven wrong--but I think the action of the Rules Committee represents not a step forward but a great leap sideways. I have my doubts as to whether or not we are going to pass the reform that gets the big money out of politics. Given the scope now at least of Governmental Affairs, they are not going to be looking at soft money, they are not going to be looking at independent expenditure, they are not going to be looking at what the New York Times yesterday in their editorial called systematized influence peddling, which by the way is a bipartisan invention. And when we narrow the scope and don't look at all of the abuses --we can have abuses; they may not be illegal but they are abuses--it is arrogance. It is what people in the country hate. It is what destroys confidence on the part of people in our political process. When we don't look at any of that, how convenient it will be. Because, if we do not have a full inquiry into all of these abuses, into all of this improper behavior, into all of the ways in which legally big money has come to dominate politics, guess what? We don't make the case for reform. My concern is as follows: I think if we are not careful--on this point, even though I am in sharp policy disagreement with him, I think Senator Warner is the best when it comes to civility. I do not have any question about him at all when it comes to civility. But my concern is that we have to really be careful so that what doesn't happen here--is that you have just got people going after each other with accusations, throwing bombs at each other, and all of the rest--is that we don't get down to what should be the real business, which is when push comes to shove there is plenty of blame on all sides. I include myself as being a part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. I have said, in my not so humble opinion, that everybody in public office should hate this system and want to change it because when you run for office you have to raise money. I just finished running for office, and I raised money. You call people. You call people to ask them to support you. We do that. You may believe--and I did believe and I do believe -- that the compelling necessity to raise money in these campaigns, given the current system, that it has never once influenced any position you have taken on any issue. You may believe that. But I tell you something. It doesn't look that way to people. Even if you are very honest--and I think my colleagues are--it doesn't look that way to people. We have to change this system. My real concern--and we will have an amendment or several amendments on the floor of the Senate starting tomorrow--is that what the Rules Committee has done is not moving us forward, but, as I say, it is a great step sideways. It is a great step sideways from full inquiry. It is a great step sideways so the Governmental Affairs Committee is not really looking at all of the abuses. It is a great step sideways in not looking at the full range of problems and not looking at all of the ways in which money dominates politics. Therefore, is it is a great step sideways from reform. I mean, ultimately here is the litmus test for all of us. Speeches can be made. I am making this speech right now on the floor. Words can be uttered. But really the litmus test is, are you or are you not, regardless of political party, interested in change? Are you interested in getting this big money out of politics? Are you interested in having these Senate races with less money being spent? Are you interested in elections as opposed to auctions? Are you interested in reducing special interests access to decisionmaking? Are you interested in a system where there is a level playing field for challengers? Yes, challengers who can challenge all of us who are incumbents whether we are Democrats or Republicans. I will tell you. I do not think most people in the country think we are interested in that. I do not think most people in the country think we are going to pass any significant reform. I think most people in the country think that this is as much of a debate between ins and outs as Democrats versus Republicans, and the ins don't want to change a system that is really a great benefit to the ins; that is to say, people who hold office. I am telling you that I think all of us are under a lot of scrutiny. And I think we had better figure out a way that we push through some significant reform, and it had better not be cosmetic, it had better not be one of these pieces of legislation that has a great acronym, a kind of made-for-Congress look; you know, sounds great, but as a matter of fact very little substance by way of really changing this system. I do not think we are heading in that direction. I think the Rules Committee decision takes us not forward, but again I think it represents, if not a retreat, the best I can say is it is a step sideways. That is why we will have an amendment or amendments on the floor demanding a full inquiry. By the way, Mr. President, in the debates that I have been in, the argument I usually have to do deal with is, ``Well, this is just some kind of convenient strategy because you don't want to focus on the illegalities.'' Of course, we do. But there is nothing mutually exclusive about saying get the facts about illegalities, then there is a full investigation and people are held accountable, but also look at the abuses, also look at the improprieties, also look at the reform issue, also go down the path of changing the system for the better. Mr. President, that, I think, is the missing piece. That will be our challenge on the floor of the Senate, and that is the direction that we have to go in.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is an A and a B part. A, I do not think people in the United States of America need to be convinced that there are huge problems, and I do not think they believe we do not already know what many of those problems are. It is not like all of a sudden we have to get all sorts of more and more investigation to know what we can do. But I think the investigation can be helpful if you have a full scope of inquiry. I think now where we have gone with the Government Affairs Committee is a step sideways, and I think we should take action.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be able to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have had a lot of focus in the media about money and politics, and we are involved in a debate here on the Rules Committee about the Government Operations Committee and the scope of the inquiry. I thought I would speak in this Chamber for a few moments about what I think is the most important issue in American politics. I guess I want to start out by saying to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to people in the country, if what happens in the Congress is that you just have accusations going back and forth and the climate becomes really poisonous, I fear we will not do anything right. I really do believe that this is the core issue of American politics. I think the ethical issue of our time is the way in which money has come to dominate politics. I do not think it is so much the wrongdoing of individual officeholders. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, I have said it in debates, I have said it in interviews: The whole system is inappropriate. The whole system is inappropriate. It needs to be turned not upside down --it is upside down right now--but right side up. If we are going to talk about any kind of corruption, it is not the wrongdoing of individual officeholders. We are talking about something far more serious. It is systemic corruption. By systemic corruption, I mean we now have reached the point where too few people have way too much wealth, power and say, too much access, too much say by virtue of their economic resources and their big contributions, and the vast majority of people feel left out of the loop. That is the fundamental issue. To most people in the country, the vast majority of people in the country, it is really clear: First, too much money is spent in these campaigns; Second, there is too much special interest access and influence as a result of the money spent; Third, too much time is spent by all of us--all of us--in what can be described as a money chase, trying to raise money because you are running for office; and Fourth, regular people, ordinary citizens, which I do not use in a pejorative sense but in a positive way, do not feel they can run for office. Mr. President, we are talking about nothing less than the question of whether or not we are going to have a real representative democracy. We have now really gotten to the point --and I am not going to use all the terms such as ``independent expenditures'' and ``soft money'' and ``hard money.'' Let me just make a more basic point. We are talking much more about auctions than elections. We are not even talking about authentic democracy anymore. It is a minidemocracy at best. If you believe that each person should count as one and no more than one, and you believe in equality and you believe in fair and open elections, people in the country know this is all trumped by big money. It is time for reform. It is time for reform. It is time to get big money out of politics. There are a lot of proposals. Some of us really believe you ought not to have any private money in the system and that ultimately, absolutely is the way to go. Some focus on other legislation. Some focus on soft money. I just want to make this clear, that we are going to be making a huge mistake, all of us are going to be making a huge mistake if we do not pass a major reform bill this Congress. We are going to make a huge mistake if the only thing this boils down to is just sort of piling acquisitions on accusations and people going after one another. If this becomes a kind of slash-and-burn politics, search-and-destroy politics, we are going to get absolutely nowhere. I will say this. I am only speaking for myself. I do not know how the Chair feels. Actually, I believe, even though the argument is made often that the problem is that those in office do not really want to change the system because the system is wired toward incumbents, because we are able to raise more money than our challengers--the statistics bear that out--I think it has come to the point where all of us should hate the system, because when you are raising money and you are running for office and you have to be on television and you are trying to figure out how you are going to go after your opponent and destroy your opponent--that is the way some people view politics; they should not but they do--or you are figuring out how to raise millions of dollars so you do not get ripped up into shreds, the fact is even if you are absolutely sure in your head and your heart that not one time has the compelling need to raise money ever affected any position you have ever taken on any issue, it certainly does not look that way to the public. I am convinced that all the good things that could happen here are trumped by money in politics. I am convinced that one of the reasons we are not responding to the very real concerns of citizens across this country, which have to do with affordable education and good jobs and the standard of living and reducing violence in communities and all the rest of it, is because of this influence of money in politics. This is the core issue. There is too much access for the big givers and the heavy hitters and the well connected, and the vast majority of people feel left out of the loop and they are right. What concerns me is I have heard some colleagues say, ``But the fact of the matter is, the polls do not show this. The polls do not show that the people seem to consider this a burning issue.'' I think what is sad is that people's expectations are so low in the country right now that they are not at all sure there is anything we are going to do about this. But we better prove ourselves to the people we are asked to represent. We better pass a reform bill. We better make sure that we dramatically reduce the amount of money that is spent in these campaigns. We better make sure we try to lessen--if you cannot eliminate it, at least lessen--special-interest access. We better make sure we do something about this constant money chase. We better make sure our elections do look like elections and not like auctions. We better make sure that people in the country, whether they are Democrats or Republicans or independents, feel like they can run for office. We better do that, because this is all about democracy. We keep spending more and more money every election cycle, and participation goes down, down, down. So I am hopeful, even though this is a tough time in the Senate. We have major divisions. People are drawing the line. It seems to be an all-out battle. By the way, I am all for good debate. I do not like to hate but I like debate. But I am telling you, every single one of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, are making a big mistake if we do not line up behind major reform. We should want to do this. If we want people to at least have more confidence in the political process than they have now, if we want people to begin to believe in us, if we want people to believe in the legislation that we pass, which is a product of this process, then people have to believe that politics in Washington, DC, is not dominated by big money. People have to believe the Congress belongs to them, that the Capitol belongs to them, that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, belong to them. I know I may sound melodramatic on the floor of the Senate, especially since today there is no one to debate. But I came to the floor to speak because I am absolutely convinced that this is the priority. There is nothing that we could do that would be more important than to try to move forward on a reform agenda. I am hoping that, in this Congress, we will do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I chose to vote against the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, like I have in the past. Many good arguments were made throughout the debate against amending the Constitution of the United States to require a yearly balanced Federal budget. In fact, the Senate voted 14 times on amendments to improve the underlying resolution, in the hope of revealing its shortsightedness. In every instance, I supported my colleagues. I believe we were successful in painting a clear and honest picture of the disastrous effects such an amendment could have on the economic and social fabric of this country. This debate is about our Nation's spending priorities as much as it is about constitutional integrity. During the course of debate, I offered an amendment that would have made it a policy of the United States that in meeting the requirements of an annual balanced budget no cuts would be made that disproportionately affect children's programs in the areas of health care, nutrition, and education. Look at the evidence. In the 104th Congress, dramatic cuts were made to programs for low- income families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 93 percent of the cuts in entitlement programs came from programs for low-income people. Congress reduced entitlement programs by $65.6 billion over the period from 1996 to 2002. In a letter of opposition to the BBA, the Women Legislator's Lobby, a group that speaks for women legislators across the country, pointed out to Senators that in 1997 the Federal Government spent four times more on the military than on housing, education, job training, and community development combined. The people of Minnesota sent me to Washington to make tough, responsible, fair decisions. Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget would put a legally binding dollar target above the economic and social health of our country. Our goal of achieving fiscal responsibility should appropriately focus on critical investments in programs that provide basic nutrition, housing, health care, and education to those less fortunate, especially children. Our fixation with a constitutional amendment and our hunger for political gain have detracted from that important task. I will continue to press forward on finding a fair and equitable way to balance the budget because I think it is important to our country's future. Amending the Constitution in this way is not the answer.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while we have begun to make important progress toward seriously addressing the devastating physical and emotional effects of domestic violence, little attention has been paid to the severe economic consequences of domestic abuse. The Battered Women's Employment Protection Act, which I am introducing today, will ensure eligibility for unemployment compensation to women who are separated from their jobs as a direct result of domestic violence. Several new studies illustrate the need for the legislation I am introducing today. The evidence is irrefutable, domestic violence dramatically affects women's ability to work and support themselves and their children. According to New York City's Victims Service, one-quarter of battered women recently surveyed who have survived abuse had lost their jobs due to the effects of domestic violence. Abusive husbands and partners harass 74 percent of employed battered women at work, either by showing up at the workplace or calling them at work. It is not unusual for women in abusive relationships to be late for work at least 5 times a month, to leave early at least 5 times a month, and to miss at least 3 full days of work a month--National Work- place Resource Center on Domestic Violence. There have been cases brought to my attention in my home State of Minnesota where the women trying to escape abusive relationships could have benefited from this legislation, and we know that, sadly, there are many more such stories throughout the country. On February 12, 1997, a woman came into the Women's Rural Advocacy Program in Marshall, MN, after her partner had emotionally, verbally, and physically assaulted her. After many years of fighting, her abuser finally let her get a drivers license and a car. His motivation for allowing her to do this was that she could get a job, resulting in more money for himself. Three months into her job, her partner assaulted her and she was in need of safe housing and constant protection. Because of the fear of her abuser finding her and her child, it was not safe for her to take their child to daycare, so she was unable to get to work. Seeing that this was a new job, she did not have any vacation days she could use. Her abuser soon found out where she was located. She panicked and took her child and left the shelter, presumably the city, her friends, and her job. The shelter advocate we spoke to had no idea where she went, but was sure she had no money, very little clothes, and no car. A woman, known as Sarah, is a 34-year-old college educated mother of 5 children, all under the age of 12. Sarah and her husband of 15 years had a successful market research company. Their combined salaries totaled over $225,000. The husband was the president of the company, Sarah the vice president. They were equal share holders in the company until Sarah came in contact with law enforcement and the Lewis House Shelter due to her hospitalization for extensive injuries suffered at the hands of her abusive husband. Sarah admits that the abuse has gone on for years. She filed for an order of protection, filed assault charges, and filed for divorce. Her husband then fired Sarah from the company they started. Her lawyer tells Sarah that she can sue for her position to be reinstated in the company. Sarah knows she is not safe and that nothing can protect her or her children from the repeated pattern of abuse. She is faced with the loss of her position, her income, legal fees, medical bills, as well as the foundation of her children's lives. It took Sarah 6 months to find a full-time position. She has supported herself by using credit cards she maintained in her own name. She begins her new life with $30,000 of new debt. Her batterer maintains his company today, with no loss of position and an increase in income. For women attempting to escape a violent environment, this legislation can be a lifeline. There has been great progress in the last few years in societal and legislative response to violence within the home. One area that has not been sufficiently addressed, in my opinion, is the economic cost of domestic abuse. The Bureau of National Affairs recently estimated that domestic violence costs employers between 3 and 5 billion dollars per year. Domestic violence results in lower productivity, greater absenteeism, and increased health costs. The National Institute for Justice estimates that from 1987 to 1990, domestic violence cost Americans $67 billion a year. According to annual estimates for reported domestic violence injuries, family violence exacts a significant economic toll on the well-being of the family, and the United States. Forty-four million, three hundred ninety-three thousand, seven hundred dollars total annual medical costs, 21,000 hospitalizations, 28,700 emergency room visits, and 175,000 days lost from work. In addition--50 to 80 percent of women on AFDC are victims or past victims of domestic violence (Taylor Institute Study, 1996). One year after divorce, women's incomes average only 67 percent of their pre- divorce incomes compared to 90 percent for men (Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996). The Battered Women's Employment Protection Act will help women retain employment and financial independence by ensuring that employed victims of domestic violence can have time off from work to make necessary court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning, without penalty from the employer. This bill enables employees to use their family, medical, sick, and other leave in order to deal with circumstances arising from domestic abuse. Circumstances that would allow an employee to take leave include going to the doctor for injuries caused by domestic violence, seeking legal remedies such as going to court, seeking orders of protection, or meeting with a lawyer. Current Federal and State laws fail to address the negative economic consequences domestic violence can cause. Today, battered women are not expressly allowed to take leave from work to address the consequences of family violence--both the physical and legal effects. This bill will help women to escape abusive situations by helping them retain employment and financial independence. And, by requiring employers to provide leave to employees for the purpose of dealing with domestic violence and its aftermath--it does not increase costs to employers, it permits employees to use their existing leave to deal with domestic violence. Furthermore, to ensure that battered women can retain the independence necessary to leave their abusers without having to rely on welfare, the bill requires that States provide unemployment benefits to women who are forced to leave work as a result of domestic abuse. The bill ensures eligibility for unemployment compensation to women who are separated from their jobs as a direct result of domestic violence. For example, victims of abuse could not be denied unemployment if they were forced to leave their jobs because they had to relocate for safety reasons. Similarly, a woman would be eligible for unemployment compensation if she was fired from her job because she repeatedly showed up late for work with physical signs of abuse or was excessively absent from work as a result of abuse. In addition, the bill provides for specialized training of personnel in assessing unemployment compensation claims based on domestic violence. All of us here today are committed to doing what we can to help battered women and their children escape domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort by cosponsoring the Battered Women's Employment Protection Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.