Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there will be no more response, it is fine to go to a vote. I do not know what my colleague would like to do. I will defer to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say to my colleague from South Carolina that part of this authorization is, in fact, even above the majority party's budget resolution. Again, I point out to my colleagues that if this amendment fails, I will have another later on, with Senator Harkin and a good many other Senators, I believe--I hope Democrats and Republicans alike--which will take that $1.3 billion above even the budget resolution that the majority party passed and say that ought to go, not to the Pentagon, that ought to go into restoring the funding for Pell grants and low interest loans for higher education up to the President's request. The second point is, with all due respect to some of my colleagues who have a different point of view, I do not think people should be fooled about what is going on here. Yesterday we voted for an amendment, introduced by Senator Lieberman--I bet it was unanimous, or virtually so, I am not sure--which said, ``Let us take a look at our force structure and let us look at the whole question of modernization of weapons. Let us do a very thorough study and see where we need to go.'' Why in the world, after the U.S. Senate agrees to that unanimously, are some of my colleagues in such a hurry with all of these add-ons for these weapons systems which represent projects back home? This is pork, that is what this is. Let us be crystal clear about it. This is pork. Much of these are special add-on projects, or acceleration of spending for weapons systems which may or may not even be necessary. The Pentagon said it did not need this spending now. And yet we press it on them anyway. Again, it seems to me that, given the position that the Defense Department has taken, given the position the President has taken, given our concern about deficit reduction, what are we doing spending almost $13 billion on these sort of special pet projects that go into different States that represent, essentially, pork, much of which or some of which are just add-on projects? Yesterday we said we ought to do a thorough force modernization study. What is the hurry to spend the additional $13 billion? Are some worried that an independent panel might urge a major reassessment of al this spending? I actually could just go over some of these different projects. But there are so many of them it would probably take me more than the little time I have left. Instead, I will simply urge my colleagues: Let us not be in such a hurry to add on $13 billion for pork projects for our States for military weapons contracts and programs that we do not need. Let us not spend $13 billion more than the Pentagon asked for, than the President asked for, than our military leadership asked for, not when we say we are serious about deficit reduction. Mr. President, let me also make it crystal clear that I think part of what is going on here is a definition of defense. I thought it was in our national defense to invest in education. I think education is a defense against prejudice. I think education is a defense against ignorance. I think education is a defense against hopelessness. I think education is a defense against poverty. I think education is a defense against despair and bitterness and anger and cynicism. We have a majority party--not everyone but unfortunately the vast majority of the majority party--wants to cut education programs. They say they are for deficit reduction and now want to authorize $13 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs. This is a vote for deficit reduction. This is a vote that says, take almost $13 billion and put it into deficit reduction; do not authorize $13 billion of spending more than the Pentagon says it needs for our national defense. This is a reasonable proposition, and I hope it will receive strong support. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. While waiting, I ask unanimous consent to add on Senator Feingold as an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time to be equally divided.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am trying to move things forward. I know my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague from Georgia have a whole agenda of amendments. I thought I would take another 5 minutes on the amendment, and, if it is OK, I want to reserve a little bit of time to respond to the arguments that have been made on the other side. Mr. President, I wanted to point out that if this amendment goes down, I will have another amendment that I will introduce either later on today, or tomorrow, with Senator Harkin and others. It will say that we ought to take the $1.3 billion in this authorization that is even above the budget resolution that we passed, which is only about 10 percent of the $13 billion over what the Pentagon says it wants, or needs, and we ought to put that into restoring funding for Pell grants, low-interest Perkins loans, programs for dislocated workers, and summer jobs programs, and reform of the job training system. We ought to at least put that money into those programs. That to me is really I think the priority that people in the country are interested in. I will do that later on. I want to make it clear that in this whole argument about whether or not this additional money is needed, I think the reason the Pentagon said we do not need this $13 billion, the reason the President said we do not need it, the reason the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says we do not need it, is because right now we spend along with our allies about $510 billion on defense and on our interests worldwide. According to estimates prepared by respected arms control think tanks and other experts, all of our potential enemies combined spend about $140 billion. It is not as if we do not spend a considerable amount of resources for defense. It is not as if we do not need to be concerned about defense. We do. It is not as if we do not need to be concerned--God knows the news of yesterday makes us concerned--about the threat of terrorists and arms proliferation. We do. We all agree on that. But I'm talking about eliminating waste. I have recited studies already about just some of the inefficiencies within the Pentagon, some of the waste, some of the ways in which we can cut down on expenses internally, not to mention the fact that we can give our allies a larger share of the burden, so on and so forth. There are a whole lot of ways to save money by simply scaling back waste and reassessing our spending priorities, Mr. President. Let me quote from a New York Times editorial from the other day on defense spending. I find this editorial on the mark in its characterization of the Republican defense authorization bill. The not-so-hidden agenda for many Members of Congress is delivering Federal spending to their districts, and there are few better ways to do that than fattening the Pentagon budget and ordering up expensive new weapons systems. The cold war provided cover for this wasteful practice, but it is now indefensible. With vital domestic programs shrinking to bring the budget into balance, Congress should not be buying military hardware the Nation does not need. Mr. President, we need to maintain a strong defense. We can increase burdensharing by allies. We can impose cost and accountability controls called for by the General Accounting Office. We can eliminate unnecessary weapons programs. We can reassess some of the assumptions that continue to drive continued high Pentagon spending, like the requirement that we be able to fight two major wars at once. But really this debate gets back to an even more simple point. We have in the Republican authorization bill a request for $13 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs. I think it is just unconscionable for us to be cutting programs and educational opportunities for young people, cutting financial aid programs for higher education, cutting into health care programs that are so important for senior citizens, cutting into environmental protection programs, and say that we are for deficit reduction and then turn around and authorize $13 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs for our defense. The New York Times editorial was right on the mark, and it is for this reason that I bring this amendment to the floor with Senator Harkin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Bumpers. Senator Bumpers, probably more than any other Senator, has been the most vigilant and the most eloquent and the most powerful in pointing out we have to be serious about deficit reduction, but we have to do it based upon a standard of fairness. If we are going to talk about administrative inefficiencies, and we are going to talk about waste, then yes, we should focus on waste wherever it is. We should, as some of my colleague has done, focus on the Departments of Energy, or of Commerce, or other agencies. And we should, and we can, hold all these agencies accountable for their own budgets. But what happens when it comes to the Pentagon budget? I can think of very few times in my adult life where the Congress has proposed spending more money than the Pentagon has asked for. I cannot think of a worse time for us to do this. Frankly, it is just downright embarrassing. We should take this $13 billion and put it into deficit reduction. I withhold the remainder of my time to respond to arguments on the other side.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would prefer to use my time to respond to some of the arguments that were made on the other side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bumpers as a cosponsor and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, as a cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague how much time he may need? I would like to yield to my colleague from North Dakota 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment we are now debating, which I propose with Senator Harkin from Iowa, is an amendment to the 1997 defense authorization bill to eliminate the nearly $13 billion in extra military spending that the Armed Services Committee has authorized above what was requested by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to use the funds to reduce the deficit. The total funding authorized, $267.4 billion, is well above what the President had requested. It is also about $1.7 billion above the Republican budget resolution that was passed earlier, a month or two ago. Mr. President, let me repeat that. The total funding authorized, $267.4 billion, is well above the President's request. It is also $1.7 billion above the Republican budget resolution passed earlier, a month or two ago. At the request of the Republican leadership, the committee has authorized $12.9 billion more than was requested. That is right. The majority wants to spend $12.9 billion more than the Pentagon has requested, or than they have indicated they will be able to responsibly use next year. So we have a proposal here that calls for almost $13 billion more than the Pentagon actually wants. About $4.6 billion of that figure was not included in the Pentagon's 5-year plan, and much of that was not even on the so-called wish lists that were solicited by the congressional defense committees. The Pentagon has said clearly that they do not need these funds now. The projects are not in their 5-year plan, and they are not even on their wish list. My amendment seeks to redirect these billions in wasteful and unnecessary Pentagon spending, and instead put all of the money into deficit reduction. Mr. President, about a year ago, the Pentagon's own spending watchdog, its comptroller general, John Hamre, conceded that the Department of Defense could not account for about $13 billion in spending. It has just been lost in an ocean of paperwork at the Pentagon and likely will not be sorted out. In fact, the comptroller has all but given up on trying to find out what happened to most of the money, arguing that it would be more expensive than it would be worth to account for these funds. They cannot even find out what has happened to about $13 billion in the Pentagon's budget. Coincidentally, the bill provides about $13 billion more than was requested by the Pentagon. Mr. President, while I appreciate the symmetry here, it is particularly outrageous that the Armed Services Committee has proposed these hefty increases at the same time that the Defense Department is being called to task for not being able to account for billions of dollars in its own spending. Waste, possible fraud in Pentagon spending, and certainly egregious abuses of basic accounting rules. These are serious problems. But no one seems to be doing very much about them. Indeed, instead of vigorously overseeing spending in this budget, we are trying to foist off on the Pentagon an extra $13 billion in military hardware and other spending that they have not requested. We should instead use this money for deficit reduction. If we pass this bill without my amendment, my Minnesota constituents will continue to pay their taxes to bolster the Treasury of bloated defense contractors, who are building ships and planes and weapon systems that we do not need, cannot use, and that will not make our Nation any more secure. Mr. President, so there is no mistake, let me repeat that for those who are listening. We are considering today a defense bill that wants to spend a full $13 billion more than the President has requested in his budget. We are doing this despite the fact that there is no sudden extraordinary threat to justify such an increase. And many of those in this body who are pressing for such a huge increase are precisely the same people who are out here on the floor day after day, week after week, month after month, howling about how we must simply get the deficit under control. Again, the very people that want to authorize $13 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs are also the very people who are talking about how we need to reduce the deficit. This amendment is simple. It says that we should not go forward with the additional $13 billion that the Pentagon does not want. We should put it into deficit reduction. And the cuts should be made by the Secretary in a way which protects military readiness and the quality of life of our servicemembers. Mr. President, while some of my colleagues are talking about deficit reduction, at the same time they are larding the defense bill with billions in spending for the benefit their local shipyards, weapons contractors, or plane manufacturers. Mr. President, we ought to be very straightforward with people in this country. Is there no sense of limits in this body when it comes to wasteful and unnecessary weapons programs? Controlling the deficit is important, and I have supported reasonable fair-minded deficit reduction proposals totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. But I cannot let this debate move forward without pointing out this contradiction. If we are serious about deficit reduction, what do we do? Do we spend $13 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs? I don't think so. For the past couple of years we have heard from many of our Republican colleagues who have sought to look like they were reducing the Federal deficit through various proposals and schemes, most of them involving rather nonspecific formulas. Even when they have offered something specific, they tend to go after education or Medicare, or medical assistance, or programs that protect our air, our lakes, our rivers, and so on. Mr. President, I cannot understand why it is that the very folks who want to cut Pell grants, want to cut Head Start, want to cut programs for kids that come from difficult backgrounds, want to cut environmental protection programs, want to cut into health care programs, are the very people who now want to authorize almost $13 billion in spending above and beyond what the Pentagon has requested. I know some argue that there has been a drop in defense spending. In fact, one thing is clear: this bill provides more for defense, in dollar terms, than last year. This is in stark contrast to the fact that non-defense spending as a whole is frozen or declining substantially in many areas. And when you consider the recent re- estimates of the likely future inflation rate, it's clear that in the next few years, we can buy as much for our defense dollar as we had planned, but spend almost fifty billion less than we expected we'd have to spend last year. I see my colleague from North Dakota on the floor. I think I would like to defer to him for a while and then come back a little bit later to conclude. But before I do, let me say clearly: This is a vote for deficit reduction, and it is a vote for priorities that people in the country are demanding from us. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been my honor to work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain from the very beginning, and Senator Thompson. I spoke yesterday, so I will be very brief, less than a minute. The way in which big money has come to dominate politics, I believe, is the ethical issue of our time. Too few people have way too much power and say, and the vast majority of the people in our country are not well represented. The standard of a representative democracy is that each person should count as one and no more than one. That standard is violated every day by the way in which big money dominates politics in our country today. I say to my colleagues, I have worked on gift ban. I have worked on lobby disclosure. This is the reform vote of the 104th Congress. We are just asking for an opportunity to have the debate, move the bill forward, and make it better. Mr. President, to go to a commission--I say to my colleagues, do not look for cover, because a commission to study the problem is not a step forward, it is a great leap backward.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Hlavac, who is interning with me, be allowed to be on the floor throughout the duration of this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield me 5 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has only gone from bad to worse during the decade of the 1980's and the 1990's. It is just absolutely out of control, absolutely out of control, with the new twist being soft money. Much of it is just shifting to soft money. I mean, you have the individual contributions. And by the way, the people who make the large individual contributions represent a tiny slice of the American population. You have PAC money. In addition, you have soft money that is supposed to be for party building or for issue-oriented ads. I know all about those ads in Minnesota. The sky is the limit. The parties are awash in this money. The attack ads do not add one bit of information to one citizen anywhere in the United States of America. They do not contribute toward representative democracy. I have to smile when I hear the argument made, well, we ought to actually be spending more money. There are some people here that want to do that. On the House side they are talking about actually raising the limits. That is an interesting argument. The argument goes like this. ``Well, Senators and Representatives wouldn't have to make as many calls and do as much fund raising if you could just raise it to larger chunks.'' That goes in exactly the opposite direction of having a representative democracy where there is some political equality and where citizens really count. Or I heard my colleague from Utah make the argument about expanding disclosure. I'm all for more disclosure. But that's not enough. Even so, that could be an amendment. Give us the cloture vote and then let us have amendments. That is the way to deal with this. ``If we make no changes, we will do better on disclosure.'' Every 2 years and every 4 years people will see clearly that even more money is being spent by special interests or by people who are wealthy. And people will become more disenchanted. And we will be stuck with all the problems we have right now. I do not see that as the answer. So I will not summarize our bill. I think everybody here is aware of what we are doing. We are reducing the spending limits. We have some strict disclosure on soft money. We banned bundling. We banned PAC money for Federal candidates. If that is declared unconstitutional, then we have a fall-back smaller limit on PAC's which would apply. We ask that people raise the majority of the money from within their States. And we have some incentives which I believe really help when people agree to these spending limits. We set a standard. We do not have the public financing that I would like to have. But this sets a standard for the country. It is a significant step forward. I believe it is good for each and every one of us here. I certainly think it is good for challengers. I think it deals with some of the disparity. I think it gets us closer to a level playing field. I think that it is probably the most important step we can take in this Congress to pass this legislation. So to my colleagues, if you want to debate this, let us debate it. But do not block it. Do not think it is going to go away. Give us the cloture vote. Bring out your amendments. Try to improve it. Let us have the debate that people in this country want us to have. And to each and every one of you, this is the reform vote of this Congress. The people back in our States will hold us accountable. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Center for Responsive Politics, June 14, 1996. Senator Paul Wellstone, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Paul: I want to share with you the enclosed series of five op-ed ads that the Center has placed in The New York Times, The Washington Times, and the Atlanta Journal- Constitution. A version of the first ad will also run in the Boston Globe, The Advocate (Stamford, CT), the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Arizona Republic, the Louisville Courier-Journal, The Nation, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Roll Call, The Washington Monthly, and Talkers Magazine. The op-ed ads will appear during a two-week period starting Monday, June 17, preceding the upcoming debate in Congress on various campaign finance reform bills. The purpose of these ads is not to support or oppose any particular piece of legislation now before Congress, nor is it to put forward a reform proposal of our own. It is simply to help re-frame the debate. What are the real problems? What must real reform accomplish? We see these ads as providing ``guideposts'' for evaluating what is real reform and what is not. In short, we want to use the ads to push the debate onto higher ground by reminding people that democracy carries with it certain fundamental principles--principles that are now violated by our campaign finance system. If you would like additional copies of the ads, or would like to talk about the ad series, please give me a call. You are welcome to insert them into the Congressional Record if you so desire. With warm regards, Ellen S. Miller, Executive Director. Financing Elections . . . As If Democracy Mattered Remember when democracy was something you believed in, not something for sale? Those days have come . . . and gone. Big money from big campaign contributors has put a price tag on our democracy. Our fundamental principles--like a government accountable to the people--are undermined as candidates collect millions of campaign dollars from rich people and organizations with specific and special interests. When the election's over, the donors collect. Fancy dinners. Private briefings. Special favors. Subsidies. Tax breaks. No wonder average Americans are angry. Democracy is supposed to be about empowering all the people, not just the people with money. Political equality and government accountability are the values that inspire our faith in democracy. America's history is the history of our progress toward making these goals real for every citizen. These same values should inspire efforts to reform campaign financing. Americans want real reform--not empty promises. But not all the proposed reforms in Congress and in state legislatures across the country will solve the problem. How will we recognize real campaign finance reform? In this series of essays, the Center for Responsive Politics presents four essential ``guideposts'' for reform. Keep these in mind when you hear lawmakers talk about campaign finance reform. Real campaign finance reform will: enhance competition Allow qualified Americans of diverse backgrounds and perspectives to seek public office regardless of their personal wealth or their access to wealth. restore public confidence Eliminate the inevitable conflicts of interest created when big money buys elections and the special interest replaces the public interest. ensure equal access Provide all Americans access to their government and their elected representatives regardless of their ability to make campaign contributions. stop the money chase Place the people's business first by freeing elected public servants from the money chase that distracts them from the responsibilities of governing. Campaign finance reform . . . as if democracy mattered. Because it does.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just following up on what my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, has had to say, I think what this bill will do, however, is it will set a higher standard. You do not have to comply with it. But once we, as a U.S. Senate, and then hopefully the House of Representatives, respond to what I think people are telling us in the country about what they yearn for in our political process, it sets a higher standard. I think the focus will be on how to make this political process more accountable and more open and more credible and more believable for people. I want to get to my more formal remarks. But I want first to respond to a little bit of what I have heard said. My colleague from Kentucky-- we have debated other issues on the floor of the Senate--talked about how in Kentucky a whole lot of other things would have to be done in order to have a level playing field: You would have to change part of the history, you would have to change who owns some of the newspapers, et cetera. This is a bit of a strawperson argument. We are not making the argument that this piece of legislation will create a political heaven on Earth. We are just trying to talk about how to make this a little better, to improve people's confidence in it and in elected officials. We are talking about how to try to make this system work better for people. I suppose the argument can be made that you can never have a 100 percent completely level playing field. But this piece of legislation is a significant step toward dealing with some of the disparity that now exists and toward making this system less wired for people who are incumbents, less wired for people who are wealthy, less wired for people who are connected to the well-connected. Some of the arguments made by this bill's opponents this afternoon kind of miss the point. I do not want right now to get into a long discussion with my colleague from Utah. Maybe we will later on. I plan on staying on the floor for the duration of this debate, or for a good, long period of time. But if we want to go back to the Federalist Papers, let me also just suggest to my colleague that part of the intention of those who wrote Federalist Paper No. 10 was to figure out how, in fact, you could check majority rule. There was a big concern about the tempestuous masses. I must say, I think part of what is going on here on the floor is trying to figure out how to check majority rule, because this system right now does not meet the standard of real representative democracy, because the standard of a representative democracy in our country, or any other country, is that each person counts as one and no more than one. I dare any of my colleagues to, in this debate, come out here on the floor and say, given the system we have right now and the reliance on huge contributions--whether it be soft money, PAC money or individual contributions--that, as a matter of fact, each and every citizen has the same influence over our political process. It is simply not true. And it is certainly not the perception that many have of our system. This current system does very severe damage to the very essence of what representative democracy is supposed to be all about. I think this vote is going to be the reform vote of the 104th Congress. That is what this is all about. This is going to be the reform vote of the 104th Congress. I want people to understand exactly what is at stake here over the next day or so. We will have a vote on this, to bring to a close the Senate filibuster. We have been able to bring this bill to the floor but we've been blocked from amending it or otherwise moving forward on it by this filibuster. We will have a vote to try to break the filibuster at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow. In the meantime, we do not have the opportunity to amend the bill. Senators do not have the opportunity to improve the bill. Senators should have that opportunity. And then we should have a chance to vote on it, up or down. Last Congress we debated campaign finance reform--that is to say, ways in which we could begin to get some of the big money out of politics, ways in which we could bring the spending limits down, and make the system work better for people--for several weeks. What is going on here is an effort to filibuster this bill, motivated by a hope that tomorrow at 2:15 we will not get the required 60 votes to end the filibuster and then it will all go away. Then I suppose the sort of political cover position will be: Let us appoint a commission. But that's not going to fly, either here or with the American people. And if we are unable to break the filibuster tomorrow, we will be back again on this issue until we get it done. I want to remind my colleagues one more time: this is the reform vote of the 104th Congress, and people will hold us accountable. Our constituents in our States, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, will hold us accountable. Nobody should believe this is going to be an easy vote: Vote against cloture, block this legislation, and then duck for political cover by saying you want to appoint some commission. I want to talk about this piece of legislation, not in a technical way--though we can have that debate as well--but, rather, just in terms of some simple human realities. First of all, I will start with Senators and Representatives. I do not know, my colleague from Wisconsin talked about this, but I think I am speaking for almost everybody here. I think most of us dislike the current system. Most of the people in Congress, on both sides of the political aisle, with whom I talk in private say it is a rotten system. People spend too much time fundraising and they do not spend enough time legislating. People hate to have to call and ask for money. We all know that what my colleague from Wisconsin said is true, which is that the very definition of why you are a viable candidate, unfortunately, has nothing to do with content of character, with leadership, with vision, with your sense of right or wrong for your country; it has to do with whether or not you are independently wealthy or you have raised or will raise millions of dollars. I think all of us should want to change this system because I think, when we are involved in the fundraising, the perception--and I do not accuse one colleague here of any individual corruption--but the perception of people is often that we are out there raising money from this person or that person or this PAC or that PAC, and people just simply lose confidence in the political process. All of us who care fiercely about public service, all of us who care fiercely about good politics, all of us who are proud to serve in the U.S. Senate ought to be concerned about the fact that people have lost confidence in this process. So I argue the human realities are this: We need to pass this reform bill to restore some trust in this political process. That is what this is all about. I would say there is an A and a B part to this. The A part is this. I am wearing a political science hat, I am wearing a U.S.-Senator-from-Minnesota hat, and I am also wearing a citizen hat. People are not going to believe in the outcomes of this process unless they believe in the process itself. And as long as people believe that too few people, with so much wealth, power and say, dominate the political process and the vast majority of people feel left out, ripped off, underrepresented, not listened to, then I would say to everybody here we are not going to do well with the public. People want to believe in this political process. They do not like the fact that big money dominates too much of politics in America. Regular people do not feel well-represented within the current system. Mr. President, I have worked with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, I worked with Senator Simon on many, many, many issues. If it does not get him in trouble, I will say he is my best friend in the U.S. Senate. You can only have one best friend. I wish he would not leave. I think it is a huge loss for our country. We have worked on other things. We worked on the gift ban, and we worked on lobbying disclosure. Senator Levin from Michigan played a major role as a leader on lobbying disclosure. In some ways, this has a sense of deja vu to me. For many months, many of our colleagues said they were opposed to the gift ban and opposed to lobbying disclosure legislation. In fact, they were both filibustered and stopped at the end of the last Congress. But we came back in this Congress, and we won. What were we saying there? We were saying, ``Look, we're not bashing people here, we're proud to serve. But if you want the bashing to stop, if you want the denigration of public service to stop, if you want people in our country to be more engaged in public affairs, if you want citizens to be more active, then, for gosh sake, give up this practice of having this interest or these folks or those folks pay for you to go, take trips, wherever, give it up, let it go. We don't need it.'' And we passed that. Then we came to the floor and we said, in the spirit of sunshine and full disclosure, if somebody lobbies here, Americans should know what they're up to. People lobby for different interests. That is not the problem, but there are two problems. One problem is we wanted to deal with an outdated bill passed in the late 1940's and have full disclosure so we would have accountability, as to who was doing the lobbying, who was working for whom and what were the scope of their efforts. And the other problem, by the way, is lobbyists, by and large, those people who march on Washington every day, tend to represent a very narrow segment of the American population. That is the problem. Many other people are not well represented. Now we come to the ethical issue of politics, I think, of our time, which is the way in which money has come to dominate politics: Who gets to run for office? Who is likely to win the election? Who is the best connected? Who are the heavy hitters? Which people have the most influence? What issues are on the agenda? What issues are off the agenda? How many people are out there in the anteroom, and whom do they represent? How do they secure access? what are their patterns of political giving? Political scientists and reformers have been asking these questions for years, and they've come up with some very telling answers. And we see it here everyday. We don't need anybody to point out what's going on. When it is a telecommunications bill or it is a health insurance reform bill, that anteroom is packed wall to wall with people. They represent the most powerful in America. But when it comes to children's issues--Head Start, title I, support for kids with disadvantaged backgrounds--I never see it wall to wall lobbyists. This is the ethical issue of politics in our time. And, Mr. President, we are talking about a systemic problem, but not about the corruption of an individual officeholder. I do not believe that is the case. We are talking about systemic corruption when what happens is too few people have way too much power and say, and those are the people who can most affect our tenure in office and, unfortunately, in this system, those are the people who have the financial resources. We are trying to, through this legislation, take a significant step toward beginning to end that. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Wisconsin, if I can get his attention for one moment, that when he was talking, I was very moved by what he said when he was talking about meeting with students. He said, ``I just feel like this isn't the American dream. Money is so important in terms of who can run, who can get elected.'' He said, ``Maybe this isn't exactly as important as health care, or maybe it's not as important as whether people have a job, maybe it is not quite up there.'' I think it is; I think it is. As a matter of fact, this is the core issue, the one that's in a way prior to other political issues. The first chapter in one of the many books my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, has written dealt with the whole issue of campaign finance reform. That was not by mistake. This is the core issue, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin and my colleague from Illinois. This is, in many ways, the most fundamental issue, because you know what we are talking about? We are talking about something we all must hold dear that is fundamental: whether we are going to have a functioning democracy. If you believe that each person should count as one and no more than one, if you believe there should be some political equality, if you believe that citizens should have real input and real say and have the same opportunities to participate and be listened to and to be involved in public affairs and to run for office and to be elected for office, it is simply true--I do not want it to be true--but most of the people in the country know it to be true, that this is not what is happening in our country today, and big money mixed with politics has severely undercut the very ideal of representative democracy. That is why people are so disenchanted. That is why people are so disengaged. That is why this has become a cafe issue. That is why people are talking about this, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, in the same way they are talking about a lot of other issues. This is no longer just Common Cause. I honor Common Cause. They have done marvelous work as fierce advocates of political reform. But this is no longer being pushed just by good government, United We Stand, reform parties. More important, this is an issue people are talking about in their own homes, and people want change. I will just take a couple of more minutes, Mr. President. I have said that this is a core issue, and that we must deal with it before we try to address other problems. I am going to get some colleagues angry at me when I say that, and we will have a good debate on it. I think many people have decided that we will never do deficit reduction on the basis of some standard of fairness. That is to say, yes, we will target a whole lot of deficit reduction on those citizens on the bottom economically who have the least political clout, but we do not do deficit reduction when it comes to the big military contractors or all those oil companies and coal companies, and tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies that get all of their tax breaks. I do not think people believe we will do deficit reduction with any standard of fairness. I do not think people believe that we are going to deal with the fundamental problem of making sure every child has a decent educational opportunity in our country; that we are going to resolve inner-city poverty; that we are going to make sure we have a clean environment, within our current system. I do not think people believe that we are going to deal with the budget deficit or with the investment deficit, because I think people believe that this political process will not work, and the reason they think it will not work is because they think it is dominated by big money, because the citizens of the United States of America do not believe they exercise real power. And guess what? In a democracy, the people ought to have the right to dominate their political process. They have the right to believe that the Capitol belongs to them. But it does not. So we are at a critical juncture. Either we are going to go forward without a truly representative democracy, what some have called checkbook politics, or we are going to have a democratic renewal, and I mean democratic renewal not with a large ``D,'' I mean with a small ``d,'' where people have confidence in this process, where people feel like they are being listened to, where people feel like they can participate. That is what this is all about. Mr. President, my colleague from Wisconsin already recited the statistics. And he noted the work of the Center for Responsive Politics. I ask unanimous consent that a letter and three short opinion pieces written by the director of the center, Ellen Miller, which have appeared in newspapers throughout the country, be printed in the Record following my statement, because they outline succinctly what I have been talking about in terms of the problems with our current system.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I now yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will defer to my two colleagues, and then I would like to follow. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Very well. And I would like to get the floor. Could I ask unanimous consent that after they respond I might have the floor?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin want to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota be in this colloquy.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about what I hope will be a bipartisan approach, but I speak with a considerable amount of concern. I have worked very closely with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, a Republican, and very closely with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, on a mental health amendment to the insurance reform bill. That amendment passed, Mr. President, by a 68-to-30 vote. What that amendment said was that as we look at insurance reform, we do not mandate benefits, but once plans are put into motion, and once there is an agreement about a particular plan for employees or for citizens, this ought not to be discrimination against people who are struggling with mental illness, illness that is diagnosable and treatable. That amendment passed by a 68-to-30 vote. What we were simply saying is, for gosh sakes, do not put people in a position where they cannot work because they will not get the coverage, and they have to be on medical assistance. Do not put people in a position where they could do well in school, but they cannot do well in school. Do not put people in a position where they are homeless, and they should not be homeless. Do not put people in a position where they wind up incarcerated, where that is not where they should be. Mr. President, we had strong bipartisan support. It then went to what will, hopefully, be a conference committee. It is with profound disappointment and some indignation that I say on the floor of the Senate that what has now happened on the part of my Republican colleagues on the House side is they have essentially knocked out the whole amendment. Mr. President, working with Senator Domenici, Senator Simpson, people like Senator Conrad, we came up with a pared-down formulation that said at least for lifetime limits, at least for annual limits, have the same caps as for physical illness, so that people who are struggling with mental illness are not put under economically, so that people can receive the care that they need. We should end this discrimination. This particular compromise would cost, according to CBO, 0.2 of a 1- percent increase. That is it. Mr. President, there is no good policy reason, I say to my colleagues on the floor of the Senate today, there is no good policy reason why this compromise that we presented to members of the conference committee on the House Republican side should not have been accepted. It is fair. It is equitable. It economically makes sense. It is just. It is the right thing to do. There is not one single article that can be made against it. Not one single argument that can be made against it. Now what we hear on the House side from Republicans is that what we will get is a commission to study the problem. Senator Domenici does not consider that acceptable. I do not consider that acceptable. Senator Simpson does not consider that acceptable. That is not even the point. It is not acceptable for families all across this country who thought we were going to finally end this discrimination. Mr. President, there will be a press conference this afternoon at 2 o'clock. A lot of the families, men and women and children who are struggling with mental illness, will be there. Several of us will be there. I think what they will say is they are going to visit with every member of that conference committee on the House side, Republican and Democrat alike. They are going to visit, I say to my good colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, they are going to visit with leadership, and they are going to say to leaders and they are going to say to Democrats and Republicans alike: ``Tell us why it is still not time to end the discrimination. Tell us why you are unwilling to end this discrimination against our children, against our wives, against our husbands. Tell us when it is not time to end discrimination.'' Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Mississippi, if I could get his attention, I want to mention this afternoon at 2 o'clock we will have a press conference with some wonderful families who have been struggling with mental illness. You know Senator Domenici cares so much about this. They are going to meet with leadership and say, ``Look, the formulation that we now came up with,'' not the commission, ``at least should not have arbitrary caps on lifetime and annual limits, costs 0.2 of 1 percent.'' It helps end the discrimination. Please do not shut our families out. I hope you will give them your utmost consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually came to the floor to speak about another issue, but I do want to, first of all, congratulate Senator Lott and Senator Cochran. I cannot pledge to my friend from Mississippi my wholehearted political support, but I certainly can pledge my personal support. I wish you well, Senator Lott. And Senator Cochran, I do not think there is anybody that at least I have had a chance to meet on the floor of the Senate, that is more honorable and more personable. When Senator Cochran talks about civility and when he talks about good politics, of bringing people together, he epitomizes that. I mean that very sincerely.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be pleased to defer to the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a different perspective. I also feel it is not much of a compromise. I just wanted to say, having been a cosponsor of this amendment with my colleague from New Mexico, that when the medical savings accounts--I am all for working out an agreement--came to the floor of the Senate, that amendment was defeated. Then we talked about compromises. I know the Senator from Massachusetts will talk about that. The mental health amendment, I think, passed with 68 votes. Then we worked very hard to pare this down. What we came up with was a very reasonable formulation, if you want to talk about a compromise, which dealt with lifetime annuals; just have the same cap parity with that, which would have been so important to families to get under. I urge my colleagues, as we get into negotiations, I would like for that to continue to be in the mix. It was a very reasonable formulation. The Congressional Budget Office projection was like two- tenths of 1 percent increase. To me it is just unconscionable that this cannot be accepted. I mean it passed by 68 votes. I do not believe that this should now be knocked out of the mix. I have urged my colleagues on the Democratic side to please hang in there on this. The White House supports this. The Democrats support this. I know many Republicans do. I do not know anyone who has worked harder on this than Senator Domenici. I urge my colleague from Kansas, whom I believe in, and certainly my colleague from Massachusetts, please, as we go forward with these negotiations, do not just simply cancel us out. By the way, the ``us'' is not Senator Domenici and myself. The ``us'' are citizens all across this country who thought finally that they were going to see a time come when the U.S. Congress would put an end to some of this discrimination and do something very good and very positive and very helpful for families all across the country. Do not shut us out. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I indulge the Senator for a moment on a comment on this?