Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. I will be brief. I am sorry to put it this way but it is a question, in the form of a question, but it is a point. In the spirit of honesty, I just wonder whether the Senator from Vermont knows--whether or not the Senator from Vermont knows that, as much respect as I have for the Senator from Arizona, and I love working with him on issues, that I believe that this morning--I could be wrong, we can look at the record, but I was here out on the floor--I wonder whether the Senator from Vermont knows that when the minority leader came out, he was just simply saying that, if we keep putting together all these different kinds of pieces of legislation, what will be the final combination? He then went on to say, we could have campaign finance reform, we could have foreign policy, we could have something dealing with arms agreements. I do not think it was an announcement that in fact the minority leader intended to put the campaign finance reform bill, the bill so many of us have worked on, as an amendment on this. I wonder whether the Senator understands that? That is a clarification.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague, and this is asking for a courtesy, that I might have a moment? It will not be acrimonious at all.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Consider each one separately, so all of us are accountable, no putting different kinds of combinations together, no confusion for people, no blurring distinctions, just straightforward accountability to people in the country as to where we stand. Is that what the Senator is proposing?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Listening to the Senator talk about the distinction between games and moving this forward, am I correct that the Senator is saying, the minority leader is saying that we ought to have the opportunity to have amendments and debate on these issues, legitimate debate, and then have separate votes on the wisdom of enacting all three bills, whether it be minimum wage, whether it be TEAM, or whether it be a repeal of the gas tax, that that is what we are aiming for, that we want to have an opportunity for amendments and we want to address each bill in turn?

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is a very brief question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just in the form of a question, I guess. The Senator yielded for a question from the Senator from Arizona; is that correct? It sounded like----

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to read a letter that I have today as the Senator from Minnesota sent out to a number of oil companies in our country. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will quote from sections of the letter: Much has been said recently about the rise in the price of gasoline, attributing this rise to a number of factors. As you may know, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member, will hold a hearing to look into this matter on May 9, 1996. That is next week. My understanding of the industry position on this question is that several unrelated factors have led to the increase of gasoline prices: high demand for heating oil due to the long winter, seasonal refinery maintenance practices, refinery shutdowns, and the failure of Iraqi oil to enter the market as expected. Although all of these are credible explanations, there is an argument that runs counter to this position which I would like you to address. This letter is in the spirit of all of us having the information we need to make responsible decisions. Mr. President, what I am talking about is what ways this low inventory may have affected this spike in the prices that consumers are experiencing. Since there has been a lot of information that has been coming around, or at least a lot of speeches given, it seems to me one of the things we want to do as Senators, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, is get to the bottom of this and try to really understand the why of this spike, the why of this rather dramatic increase in gasoline prices. These low inventories, really record low inventories, are something that I think we ought to look at. Undoubtedly, this saves money for the companies. But on the other hand, what happens if demand goes up at all with the inventory, the supplies, kept down by the oil companies? Then your supply-and-demand curve is such that it could lead to the very spike in prices that we are now experiencing in the country. I have sent this letter to the oil companies. I am hoping that they will be forthcoming with the requested information. On May 9, in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I will put the questions to the oil companies. I hope they will be accountable. Those of us in the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, will have this information. I think it is a very important issue. I think it is extremely important that we understand what is now happening to consumers that we represent. I yield the floor. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will be brief, I say to my colleagues. I will stay under 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

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 today to introduce the Working Families Economic Security Act of 1996. This legislation is an effort to bring together in one comprehensive bill a number of items that have been on my legislative agenda for working families over the years, along with a number of new ideas, and to move forward on them in this Congress. It does not address every issue vital to the economic prosperity of American families; it does not pretend to. It is simply one more way of ensuring that bread-and-butter economic issues, which are so important to people in my State and throughout the country, are brought back front-and-center to the attention of this Congress, which has so far all but ignored them. Passing this omnibus legislation would be a good step toward protecting the working people who are the backbone of our economic, political and social system. This bill contributes significantly to efforts within the Democratic caucus in the Senate on improving the paycheck security, health security, and retirement security of all Americans. The very real and historic changes that have rocked the American economy have helped some Americans, but have done great harm to many others. While some of the statistics that we use to measure the performance of the economy and to gauge the standard of living seem to show that the U.S. economy is doing well, the reality for many is that good-paying jobs are being lost in the face of unprecedented downsizing by many firms. Many of the new jobs that are being created pay lower wages; corporate executives' salaries are rising, while workers' salaries are declining; the health insurance system is inadequate to the tasks of the modern workplace. There is deep apprehension and concern about the future. Let me give just one recent example from Minnesota. I visited during the recess with members of the Cusick family in Duluth about their economic worries. A life-long resident of Duluth, Ken Cusick will graduate this Spring from the University of Minnesota-Duluth. He has three kids and a wife who works, and yet they struggle every day. They worry about having money to pay for groceries, day care costs for their kids, and rising education costs. Their lives reflect a broader reality in our country. Underneath the numbers which reflect record highs in the stock market, low unemployment, and slow growth in the economy, a time bomb is ticking for American families. Many workers are in fact being left behind, with only dim hope for a brighter future. They are working more and earning less. And even though some Clinton administration economic advisers have begun to highlight certain positive economic news, including in a report last week that challenges certain assumptions about lay-offs and jobs in the economy, I agree with Labor Secretary Reich: it is still true that for many, especially low and moderate income working people, the economic recovery is spotty, partial, and has failed to increase their real take-home pay. Many working families today are afraid. Workers fear losing their jobs, having no money for retraining, losing their pensions and health care, not being able to take care of aging parents, and paying for their kids' college. And they are angry that their wages are stagnant while corporate executives--even those who may be failing in their jobs--reap windfall salaries for downsizing their firms, and putting good people out of work. Twenty years ago the typical CEO of a large company earned 30 or 40 times the salary of an average worker. Today that CEO earns almost 200 times more. A recent survey of American CEOs reported in the New York Times indicates that CEO compensation last year rose at the fastest rate since the mid-1980's, skyrocketing by 31 percent in 1995 alone. This increase was double the rise in 1994, and triple the one in 1993. This illustrates a larger societal trend that is spinning out of control: the vast majority of the economic gains in today's economy are going to the very wealthy few, while working men and women are being short-changed. For example, from WWII until the 1970's, American workers were responsible for an almost 90 percent increase in productivity. In return, their real wages increased by over 95 percent. But from 1973 to 1982, workers got only half as much of an increase in real wages as they gave in new productivity. And from 1982 through 1994, they got only a third as much. This legislation addresses a number of basic economic concerns of the average American. It includes an increase in the minimum wage; a means to directly address government subsidization of growing wage disparities, protections for striking workers, a streamlining and expansion of job retraining, and modest health care portability reforms. It embodies a number of initiatives that I've worked on over the years, as well as some new ideas that I think must be part of an economic program to provide real economic security for America's families. I know this Congress won't act on all these initiatives, but I hope we will act on some this year. Those which remain may have to wait for a new Congress to be elected, controlled by a Democratic Party which considers the interests of working Americans priority one. Minimum Wage This provision would raise the Federal minimum wage from the current $4.25 to $5.15 by 1997. But unlike some other approaches, it proposes to index the minimum wage to prevent its erosion by inflation or by long periods of Congressional inaction to the point where it is no longer possible for minimum wage workers to lift themselves or their families out of poverty. This measure provides for modest but overdue increases and, most important, begins to narrow the gap between the minimum wage and a living wage. I am pleased that we are now moving forward on the minimum wage, and I intend to push it forward with Senator Kennedy and others until it's enacted. So far, we've been blocked from even getting a clean, up-or- down vote on raising the minimum wage, but that can't be blocked forever. Sooner or later, democracy must rule, and we will get a vote. It is unacceptable that today an American who works full-time, year round at the minimum wage--even with the expanded earned income tax credit--does not earn enough to bring a family of three above the poverty line. At $4.25 an hour, a person working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage earns just $170 a week--before taxes and Social Security are deducted. The current Federal poverty line for a family of four is about $15,500. Even with the tax credits available to them under current law, and food stamps, a family with one worker at the minimum wage would end up about $900 below the poverty line. But at $5.15 an hour, this same family would--when you factor in the earned income tax credit and a food stamp benefit--be lifted above officially defined poverty levels. This 90-cent increase would literally lift them above the line. For people like 26-year-old Mike Kochevar, a single dad living in Hibbing while he attends the Hibbing Community College, raising the minimum wage even modestly would be a big help. He works two jobs, and is struggling to make it. What would such an increase mean for these workers, in practical terms, in their daily lives? It would mean an extra $1,800 or so in their pocket, for one thing. And that means more than 7 months of groceries, or rent and mortgage payments for a few months, or a full year of health care costs, or a season of heating bills in my State. I know that minimum wage opponents will make the same dire predictions of job loss and damage to the economy that have been made every time the minimum wage has been increased since 1938. But the textbook economic theory that increases in the minimum wage result in large job losses has never had solid empirical support. Recent studies by leading economists who examined the results of the most recent increases in both State and Federal minimum wages have concluded otherwise. I was sent to Washington to be on the side of hardworking Minnesotans who are struggling to make ends meet. That's why I am pushing this so hard, and why I intend to push it until it's enacted into law. Income Equity As I have already noted, in recent years there has been a growing wage gap between senior corporate executives and their employees. What is more remarkable is that the Federal Government helps to subsidize this disparity by allowing corporations to deduct these fantastic salaries. Current law prevents employer deductions for employee salaries over a million dollars, with an exception for performance- based pay. I believe it is unfair for employers to deduct the first million dollars of the huge and growing salaries of corporate executives, while the real wages of workers are declining. This provision is a modest proposal; it is meant to ensure that the United States is not subsidizing gross wage disparities through the Tax Code, by barring employers from writing off that portion of salaries above the ratio set in the bill. Specifically, it would prohibit employers from deducting employee compensation--salaries, wages and bonuses--that are more than 25 times higher than the salary of their lowest paid worker. Protections for Striking Workers This legislation is needed to protect American workers who go out on strike. There are two central principles of American labor law: workers have a right to organize without being retaliated against for exercising that right. And they have a right to negotiate wages, benefits and other items through collective bargaining. Since the 1980's, these rights have been seriously jeopardized, with the use of permanent replacements for striking workers increasing dramatically. Employers often use the permanent replacement of striking workers--or threat of their use--to undermine collective bargaining agreements, and bring in new employees. Mergers and acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, and the rise of a new breed of employers focused solely on short-term profits has created a new climate for labor-management relations, in which workers are considered by some to be expendable, and negotiated agreements subject to arbitrary and one-sided suspension. Under current law, while employers may not fire employees for engaging in a legal economic strike, they may permanently replace striking workers; a distinction only a lawyer could love. This provision would bar the hiring of permanent replacements for striking workers. Recent strikes where employers have hired permanent replacements for striking workers, or have threatened to, underscore the urgent need for this change. Without it, the right to strike is nothing more than a right to be fired. A related provision would require the timely mediation or arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes, to prevent employers from refusing to negotiate first contracts with a duly-elected bargaining unit. Under my legislation, employers would be compelled to negotiate in good faith with a new bargaining unit. This measure would provide that, if within 60 days of bargaining unit certification a first contract is not agreed to, the parties would enter into negotiations with the help of a mediator. If within 30 days the mediator could not bring the two sides to agreement, the contract would go to binding arbitration. Those provisions of this bill that I've outlined go a long way toward protecting people in their current jobs, and bolstering their wages. But we must also address the concerns American workers have about their futures. Lifelong Learning We in Congress have a responsibility to help American workers plan and improve their futures. To prepare our work force for future jobs. And to provide some security while people are in transition between jobs. One of the most important forms of help that we can provide American working people is relevant, effective job training delivered in the most efficient way possible for jobs that really exist, and that pay a decent wage. Lifelong learning has never been more critical, and we must do all we can to give people access to the resources they need to retool their skills. For too long, the Federal job training system has been too cumbersome, with duplicative programs that have not always been effective. And so this legislation includes provisions to streamline and consolidate these programs, and expand job training opportunities for workers. Carol Turner, director of older worker retraining for the Duluth Workforce Center, confirmed for me the other day that in her city, this kind of coordination, coupled with expanded local control, is critical to getting people off welfare and increasing their standard of living. It would streamline the job training process for all Americans, including welfare recipients, by consolidating existing programs, and establishing state and local work force development boards to coordinate programs within each State. It would encourage States to develop one-stop delivery systems for employment services; my State has been one of the leaders in this field. It provides continued funding for summer jobs and other special training programs that have been so successful. And it imposes a cap on the amount of job training funds that can be used by States for economic development activities, to make sure that Federal funds are in fact being used for retraining. The bill retains Job Corps as a national program, with strict national oversight standards, a zero-tolerance drug policy, and other key reforms. Health Insurance Reform One of the most alarming developments for workers has been the growing fear of losing their health insurance. In order to help workers plan for their futures, this legislation will make it easier for individuals and employers to buy and keep health insurance--even when a family member or employee becomes ill. And it will allow people to change jobs without fear of losing their health coverage. For folks like the Edgett family of Duluth, who lost their coverage when they decided to start their own small business, these kinds of efforts to make health care more affordable and more portable would be a big help. And the same goes for millions of other Americans. Despite past State and Federal reform efforts, the lack of portability of health insurance remains a serious concern for many Americans, particularly those with preexisting health conditions. The General Accounting Office estimates that as many as 25 million Americans could benefit from this legislation. This legislation builds upon and strengthens the current private insurance market by guaranteeing that private health insurance coverage will be available, renewable, and portable; by limiting preexisting condition exclusions; and by increasing the purchasing clout of individuals and small employers through incentives to form private, voluntary coalitions to negotiate with providers and health plans. It also provides for parity between mental health and other health care benefits; its adoption would be an historic step forward in our treatment of those with mental health problems in this country. Enactment of the bill would help millions of workers who lose their employer-based coverage and are then turned away by other insurers. It also would make it easier for workers to change jobs or start their own businesses without fear of losing their health insurance. It would accomplish this by prohibiting employers from denying coverage of a preexisting medical condition to an applicant for more than 1 year. After that year, no preexisting condition limits could be imposed on anyone who maintains coverage, even if the person changes jobs or insurance plans. In addition, individuals switching from a group plan to an individual plan could not be denied coverage as long as they maintained continuous coverage. Finally, health plans would not be allowed to drop enrollees who pay their premiums, even if they become chronically ill. The bill also includes provisions to protect retirees, their spouses and dependents from abrupt termination--or substantial reduction--of certain health care benefits. It would require courts to order employers to provide benefits while benefit disputes are litigated, impose upon employers the burden of proof when health care contracts are silent or ambiguous about changes, and require advance warning by employers of their intent to modify retiree benefit packages. While this is by no means comprehensive reform, it is a good first step. Even people with good health insurance coverage cannot count on protection if they lose or change jobs, especially if someone in their family has a preexisting condition. Our current health care system allows insurers to collect premiums for years and then suddenly refuse to renew coverage if individuals or employees get sick. It also allows insurers to routinely deny coverage to different types of businesses from auto dealers to restaurants. Many States, including Minnesota, have already enacted standards for insurance carriers, but because ERISA preemption prevents States from regulating self-funded health plans, only Federal standards can apply to all health plans. More and more employers in Minnesota have been choosing to offer self-funded plans to employees. Such plans now enroll about 1.5 million people, up from 890,000 in 1992, and about 50 percent of all privately insured residents. Current estimates also show that more than 400,000 Minnesotans--including 91,000 children--are uninsured. While I am committed to fighting for comprehensive reforms that would include everyone and enable working families to afford health care coverage as good as Members of Congress have, I recognize that this may not happen this year. At the very least, we should act on reforms that would address some of the most egregious inequities in our current system, as well as those that would allow States to expand access and contain costs. Pension Reform It is clear that this country needs strong, enforceable pension protections. The President has made some recent proposals to strengthen pension security, which we should consider seriously in the coming months. But the new Republican majority is moving in the other direction. They have passed so-called reforms, vetoed once, that would again make it easy for companies to raid ``over-funded'' pension plans. At a minimum we must preserve protections in current law that prohibit companies from raiding the pension plans of their employees. As we have all seen, overfunded plans can quickly become underfunded with a change in interest rates, or changes in the stock markets. For example, if interest rates decline by 2 percent--as they did between November 1994 and December 1995--a plan's funding level can drop from 125 percent to around 90 percent within a matter of weeks. During the 1980's, when pension assets grew with a rising stock market, companies took over $20 billion from over 2,000 pension plans covering 2.5 million workers and retirees. In many cases, these companies took the funds from overfunded plans while allowing significant underfunding in other plans. In 1990, this practice was stopped virtually dead in its tracks by changes in law which made such raids prohibitively expensive by imposing a 50-percent excise tax on companies that did it. Republican proposals to weaken these and related pension rules could allow companies to draw another $15 billion or more out of these plans, potentially effecting another 4 million workers and retirees in 6,000 plans over the next 5 years. Similar efforts to dip into workers' pension plans have been a major problem for workers in my State, including those who worked for many years at Reserve Mining Co. There is a real problem with the low rate of private savings in this country, including for retirement. Comprehensive pension, Social Security, and other retirement security reforms are difficult issues to address adequately. Even so, it is critical that we do so, especially since there are many proposals, some quite radical in their scope, now floating around to do things like privatize the Social Security System and create so-called super-IRA's, allowing people to invest all or part of their Social Security funds in the stock markets, instead of in Government securities--where they would be more secure but perhaps offer slightly lower overall returns. As the baby boomer generation moves toward retirement, these retirement security issues, along with questions about savings rates, portability of pensions, 401(k) plan use, and related matters could become more urgent. To look at the long-term implications of these and other proposed changes to our retirement security policies, I am today calling for the establishment of a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress on how best to reform our retirement security programs in a way that would have the most beneficial impact on the largest number of people, similar to a bill that was introduced recently on the House side. Corporate Accountability The rash of lay-offs, corporate restructurings, and other economic dislocations that have rocked the American economy pose serious problems for American workers, their families, and communities, and have contributed to the widening income gaps in our society. For years, we have seen a growing trend toward an almost exclusive focus on the bottom line in many corporations, with firms caught in a web of leveraged buy-outs, mega-mergers, swiftly changing markets, and other forces. While we are all committed to a free economy, we cannot sustain a prosperity that permits us to be divided between the wealthy few and the worried many. Corporations must keep in mind the interests of all of their stakeholders in making economic decisions, and not just stockholders. Workers, communities, State governments which provide economic incentives, suppliers and contractors, and a host of other stakeholders should all be considered as firms make economic decisions. This bill attempts to create incentives for firms to engage in more responsible, forward-looking, stakeholder-driven decisionmaking. It outlines a proposed set of corporate responsibility principles that businesses would have to observe as a condition to qualify for certain preferential treatment in Federal contracting. These principles include, among others, providing a safe and healthy workplace; ensuring fair employment, including avoiding discrimination in hiring; observing environmental protections; promoting good business practices; maintaining a corporate culture that respects free expression; and encouraging similar behavior by partners, suppliers and subcontractors. This proposal would require that, in its procurement process, the Federal Government give a preference to contractors that adopt and enforce this corporate code of conduct; it would also provide for periodic reviews to ensure compliance with the code. I believe we must encourage responsible citizenship by firms doing business with the Government, and this provision moves us in that direction. I am skeptical of providing additional tax subsidies as some have proposed, and I think this alternative approach deserves consideration. I know that there are a host of other approaches, such as those that have caught fire in my State and elsewhere, which require that a living wage--not just a minimum wage--be paid by companies that receive government benefits. I want to pursue this and other similar ideas which are bubbling up from the grassroots, because I think they too are interesting ways to prompt firms to act more responsibly, and to combat the growing layoffs that have so shaken our economy. Fair Trade Under NAFTA Many Americans today are concerned about losing good jobs in this country when U.S. employers seek cheaper labor abroad. I did not support the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I believed then, and do now, that this particular agreement is not in the best interests of the workers of Mexico, Canada, or the United States. I believe we have an obligation to guarantee that workers and environmental interests are not compromised. And so I have included a title in my omnibus legislation that is an effort to strengthen NAFTA and at the same time protect the interests of all workers. The legislation I am proposing would direct the President to renegotiate portions of the North American Free-Trade Agreement to address the negative effects of the agreement's implementation since January 1994. The renegotiation would seek to achieve the original promises of NAFTA: to improve the standard of living and quality of life for United States citizens, as well as those of Mexico and Canada. A positive, fair NAFTA would open markets in a way that promotes a high-wage, high-skill strategy of growth for the whole continent, promotes environmental and consumer protection, and contributes to real development and democracy. Instead, available evidence indicates NAFTA has failed and has contributed to a substantial U.S. trade deficit, loss of jobs, suppression of wages, and to downward pressure on environmental and health standards and conditions. I am not opposed to free trade. I am in favor of fair trade and fair trade agreements. I believe these changes would take us along the road of building a solid foundation for the future of our workers, our health, and the future of the entire region. Mr. President, I hope this bill, and other measures to bring the issues of economic security for working families back to center stage, will be acted on soon. I intend to continue to press legislation to address these issues here in the Senate--it was what I was elected to do. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation, and to support its key elements as I bring some of them to the Senate floor in the coming months. Mr. President, the Working Families Economic Security Act of 1996 is really an effort on my part as the Senator from Minnesota pulling together a lot of different legislation and a lot of work that I have been doing in the Senate over the years and putting it into one bill. The reason I do so is that I really feel as if Minnesota and the country are kind of leading the way in telling us what we must do, the work that they think is important that connects to their lives. I am a cafe politician, and I try to spend as much time as possible with coffee and pie--probably too much pie--in cafes in Minnesota, just sitting down with people and talk and listen --and listen. What I hear, Mr. President, is, ``Senator, I am retired. I don't want anybody to take my pension away.'' One provision in this legislation makes it crystal clear there can be no skimming of hard-earned pension money. That belongs to the employees. It belongs to nobody else. No large multinational corporation will be allowed to skim pension money from any man or woman retired in Minnesota or anywhere in the country. People say to me in cafes in Minnesota, ``Senator, it is just outrageous to me that if I have a bout with cancer in my 50's, I might see my insurance policy canceled.'' This bill includes the insurance reform provisions that we should pass anyway that make sure that the insurance companies no longer are able to continue with this discrimination. It is just outrageous that an insurance company would not provide coverage to someone because of a bout with an illness, or that somebody cannot transfer from one job to another or start a small business in Minnesota or in Colorado or in New Mexico with this kind of discrimination against them because they have had a bout with cancer or because they are a diabetic. Mr. President, Minnesotans say to me in cafes, ``Senator, I don't know what your colleagues are thinking, but let me tell you, $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour, increasing the minimum wage nationwide is an additional $1,800. For that, I can pay my energy bill; for that, I can purchase health insurance for myself and my children; for that, I can go to a community college; for that, I can put food on the table.'' This includes raising the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. Mr. President, Minnesotans say to me in cafes, ``Senator, I am really worried because I am 50 years old and I read the papers and I know that people are being downsized, restructured out of work. What will happen to me?'' So there is a strong emphasis here on education and job training in this legislation. I think we have to redefine education as a teacher. It is no longer K through 12. It is for longer--K through higher education. It is K through 65. People should not just be spit out of the economy with nowhere to go, people who have worked hard and are skilled. We should give skilled men and women an opportunity, if they lose their job in one company through no fault of their own, to be able to go back to school to have the skills development to find a job, a good job, somewhere else in the economy. There is a strong emphasis on education and job training. Mr. President, this legislation also focuses on, in general, the issue of economic opportunities. People say to me in cafes, ``Senator, our children are in their 20's. They cannot find a job paying a decent wage with decent fringe benefits.'' So, Mr. President, let me just say, I think from pension funds to health care to decent jobs at decent wages, to educational opportunities, to putting an end to this obscene disparity tax, funded disparity between CEO's salaries and wage earners, to some sort of accountability, that we call on large multinational corporations to be accountable. I think this is the direction people want us to go in. These are the bread-and-butter economic issues. I say, by way of conclusion, that I think one of the mistakes--I do not believe in hate; I believe in honest debate. I think much of the mistake that the Gingrich Congress has made in 1994, there was a lot of campaigning on the bread-and-butter economic issues, and now Speaker Gingrich is taking the bread and butter, and working families do not like that. People want to see their kids have economic opportunities. These are the issues that matter: a good job, good education, opportunities to start a small business, having decent health care coverage, making sure that we focus on investing in our kids, making sure we invest in an economy that produces jobs that people can count on. That is what people are talking about in the cafes in Minnesota. That is what people are talking about under the roofs in their homes. That is what people are talking about on their farms. This Working Family's Economic Security Act of 1996 brings that together. I will take pieces of this legislation and bring amendments to the floor and make sure we have votes on this.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for an important provision in the House version of S. 1664, the illegal immigration bill, which I had intended to offer as an amendment to this bill. This House provision, authored by Congressman Vento, would help expedite the naturalization of Hmong patriots recruited by the CIA who served alongside U.S. military forces during the Vietnam war. Earlier this week, I submitted a corresponding amendment in this Chamber. The Wellstone amendment No. 3872, would have relaxed the naturalization requirement for permanent residents who served in these guerrilla units in Laos, and their spouses or widows, by waiving the language requirement and the residency requirement aliens normally must meet. I still believe these steps are necessary to address the unique situation of the Hmong, and I will continue to press for their enactment. Let me describe what has happened over the past few days. I was prepared to offer the amendment, but after discussion with numerous colleagues on and off the committee, it has become clear that a number of Senators had concerns about the reach and scope of the changes being proposed, and thus would likely be unwilling to support my amendment in its current form. While I intend to continue to press hard for these changes, I do not want to endanger the chances for these provisions in the conference committee by pushing this to a premature vote, the outcome of which is in doubt, and so I will not offer the amendment. Instead, I will continue to work with Senator Simpson, Senator Kennedy, the other Senate conferees, and Congressman Vento to craft a provision they will find acceptable. I was surprised and disappointed that there were concerns expressed about this amendment. I had thought it would be noncontroversial. During the Vietnam war, the CIA recruited tens of thousands of Hmong people to serve in special guerrilla forces, to fight against the Communist government in Laos. Between 10,000 and 20,000 of them are estimated to have lost their lives in this struggle, and thousands more were forced to flee to refugee camps or to other nations when the war ended to avoid the persecution that many feared would follow. Many came to the United States, concentrating in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, and several other States. These men and women, many of whom were very young when they served, have sacrificed a great deal in defense of our Nation, and they deserve an improved chance to become citizens. The waivers I have proposed are consistent with our long tradition of recognizing the service of those who come to the aid of the United States during wartime. Normally, under current law, aliens or noncitizen nationals who served in U.S. forces are eligible for naturalization regardless of age, period of residency, or physical presence in the United States. The Hmong patriots, however, fall through the cracks because the units with which they served were not technically U.S. units, despite the fact that in many cases they were recruited, trained, and funded by the intelligence services of the U.S. Government, and coordinated closely with U.S. forces in the region. Many served as scouts for U.S. forces, and there are many stories of their extraordinary heroism in helping to rescue downed U.S. pilots during this period. The most serious obstacle these Hmong patriots face in obtaining citizenship is the language barrier. The Hmong language has not existed in written form until very recently, so it has been enormously difficult, especially for older Hmong, despite their best efforts, to learn to read and write in English. The House bill would waive the residency and language requirements for naturalization. These steps are necessary to address the unique situation of the Hmong. By far the most serious problem facing this community is their difficulty with learning English. While for some current law waiver regulations applying to residency are sufficient, this authority does not cover all of them. Mr. President, there is a long-established precedent for granting waivers to groups who fought bravely on the side of U.S. forces in defense of freedom all over the world. U.S. law has allowed those who fought with us in WWI and II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war to be naturalized, regardless of age, period of residence, or presence in the United States. It has also been allowed for those who served with us, but were not technically part of U.S units. In the 1990 immigration bill, Congress adopted a waiver for Filipino scouts who served in World War II. Many of them have now become full-fledged citizens who participate in the democratic process. No one appreciates the value of the democratic process more than Seng Thao, who fought for 7 years against the Communists in Laos and was wounded twice. When he began his training, he was only 14. Although his military service ended in 1975, he stayed in Laos to defend his family and his village until 1979. It was in 1979 that his family made the voyage to Thailand, where they were sent to a ``re-education'' camp. There they were reportedly physically abused, and coerced to give up everything they had. They were later moved to Ban Vanai Refugee camp. Seng Thao came to the United States in 1980, and now works at Riverview Packaging in Minneapolis. He is a productive member of society, and has earned the right to be called a U.S. citizen. He writes, ``I would like to be a citizen of this great country * * * because this is my home now.'' Another Hmong patriot, Wa Chi Thao, was recruited in 1961 when he was 11 years old. During his 14 years of fighting, he suffered a wound in a bomb explosion, came to the aid of two downed American pilots, and saw his wife die in combat. Before coming to live in St. Paul, MN, Thao and his family spent 10 miserable years in refugee camps. Mr. President, however we feel about the legacy of the Vietnam war, let us recognize the service of these patriots who came to the aid of the United States in a time of war, and honor the memories of those they left behind, with this modest step. It would not open the floodgates for new immigration by creating a new category of immigrants, nor would it make Hmong patriots eligible for veterans benefits. It simply recognizes the service of Seng Thao and other Hmong like him, who served in U.S.-recruited units during the Vietnam war, by granting them a waiver of the English residency requirements and a waiver of the residency requirement. It does not automatically extend them citizenship, but acknowledges their contributions by easing the path to citizenship. As the immigration bill moves to a House-Senate conference committee, I urge my colleagues who will serve on the conference to recede to the House language on this important provision. I am confident that we can work together to provide these critical benefits to Hmong veterans who served or Nation during wartime.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his graciousness. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 1722 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I would like to honor a group of high school students who have embarked on a project that not only enhances their educations but fosters their sense of civic responsibility. Between April 27 and April 29, more than 1,300 students from all over the country were in Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of competition sponsored by a program called We the People, The Citizens, and the Constitution. I'm proud to announce that the class from Hutchinson High School in Hutchinson represented Minnesota in the competition. These young people have undergone a rigorous course of study and worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home State. The accomplished young people representing Minnesota are the following: Adam Brodd, Megan Carls, Eddy Cox, Chris Dahlman, Aaron Douglas, Ben Froemming, Aaron Hall, Eric Holtz, Rana Kasich, Kristen Mann, Aaron May, Mike Peek, Patrick Perrine, Terri Rennick, Chelle Robinson, John Sandberg, Dave Schaefer, Sara Sharstrom, Jill Shun, Kelly Watson, and Michelle Wulkan. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Mike Carls, who deserves some of the credit for the success of the team. The district coordinator, Jerry Benson, and the State coordinator, Robert Wangen, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The We the People program is specifically designed to educate young people about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. An evaluation of this program has shown that students in the program display more political tolerance and feel more politically effective than most adults in America. Students become more interested in politics and they learn how to get politically involved. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which the students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. In short, these students are debating some of the very issues we've been debating on the Senate floor in recent months: the division of power between State and Federal Government, the balance of power among the branches of government, the right to privacy, the role of religion in public life. Through the We the People program, students learn the constitutional values of freedom, equality and justice, the principles that bind our Nation together. These students have taken something that is an historical document and made it a part of their lives. In an era when so much of our public discourse is polarized, when there is so much discussion of ``us'' and ``them,'' these young people learn to value the ``we'' of ``we the people.'' I wish these students the best of luck in the future and look forward to their continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, late last week we finally approved a budget for the fiscal year which started 7 months ago. After long and heated negotiations, Presidential vetoes, and numerous shutdowns of the Federal Government, that budget protected many of the priorities that had been identified by the President and by Democrats here in Congress, including key investments in education, crime prevention, the environment, and other key areas. It also effectively removed many of the policy-related riders that would have done so much damage to our efforts to protect Americans in the workplace, and to protect the environment; major victories for all Americans. The bulk of the funding for key education and job training programs, which I had fought hard to restore through an amendment on the Senate floor, was retained by the conferees. Key Federal investments in the skills, character, and intellect of our children must remain our highest priority. The conferees also preserved funding for the new community policing program called COPS, which has provided funding for over 430 new police in Minnesota, and over 34,000 nationwide. Ultimately, it is scheduled to put 100,000 new police on the streets of our Nation's cities and towns. Chiefs of Police and sheriffs from across the country, from big cities, small towns, rural areas and suburbs, have supported this program because they know that more police make a real difference in combatting crime. This is a victory for communities nationwide who are struggling to bring down crime and combat fear in their streets by strengthening their community policing programs. In addition to these major victories, the measure gained overwhelming approval here in the Senate because many Senators, including myself, believed that we must not allow to continue to go unfunded key Federal agencies and departments which protect the environment, provide funding for schools, protect the health and safety of Americans in their workplaces, provide funding for critical Federal health benefits, or support a host of other Federal activities. While on balance I believe the bill goes a long way toward protecting key priorities, there are some areas where very large budget cuts will still be made by this bill. For example, I am very concerned that the House conferees insisted on slashing advance funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is critical to thousands of Minnesotans who rely on it for heating aid in very cold weather. Despite the battles over LIHEAP funding this past winter, and my amendment urging the Senate conferees not to accede to House demands to scuttle advance funding for this program, passed by a vote of 77 to 23, Senate conferees agreed to drop advance funding for next winter. This is a major and unwise policy change, and makes it doubly important that adequate funding for the entire heating season be provided in the fiscal year 1997 Labor-HHS appropriations bill that will be developed soon by the Appropriations Committee; I will fight to fully restore these funds during that process. There are also substantial cuts in programs for the arts, for legal service programs which ensure that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of even low-income people are secured within our legal process, for Federal Indian education efforts, for job training, for homeless programs, and for a host of other key public investments in our future. While I recognize the need to continue to reduce the deficit, I opposed these cuts, and will be working to restore critical funding in these areas in the coming months. Mr. President, I did not agree with all of the priorities contained in the omnibus appropriations bill. It is not the bill I would have written. My colleagues know I would restructure Federal spending in very different ways, even while securing the same level of savings. But this final agreement allowed us finally to move beyond last year's funding fights, and to turn our attention to this year's appropriations process. That is why I supported it, despite its flaws. I hope we can do better this year; Americans deserve a more orderly and responsible process, with very different priorities, than Congress delivered this year.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Senator Simpson] and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Senator Kennedy] for accepting a bloc of three amendments that I offered to the immigration reform bill and including them in the manager's amendment that was just accepted by voice vote. I have been deeply concerned about provisions in the bill that could have the effect, perhaps unwittingly, of perpetuating violence against immigrant women and children. Two years ago, Congress made a commitment to fight the epidemic of violence against women--all women--when we passed the historic Violence Against Women Act. That commitment should not be forgotten as we debate immigration reform. There are provisions in this immigration bill before the Senate today that could trap many women in abusive relationships. Mr. President, it would be unconscionable for our immigration laws to facilitate an abuser's control over his victim. It would be unconscionable for our immigration laws to abet criminal perpetrators of domestic violence. It would be unconscionable for our immigration laws to perpetuate violence against women and children. Domestic abuse is one of the most serious issues our country faces-- not only for the people who are in danger in their own homes, but for all of us--when that danger, that abusive behavior learned at home, spills out into our streets and schools. Domestic abuse knows no borders. Neither race, gender, geography, nor economic status shields someone from domestic violence. Every 15 seconds a woman is beaten by a husband or boyfriend. Over 4,000 women are killed every year by their abuser. Every 6 minutes, a woman is forcibly raped. Some 70 percent of men who batter women also batter their children. A survey conducted in 1992 found that more than half of the battered women surveyed stayed with their batterer because they did not feel they could support themselves and their families. The Violence Against Women Act was enacted to ensure that women in the United States, living under all different kinds of circumstances, have every chance to create safe lives for themselves and their children. For a battered immigrant woman to be eligible for the protections of the Violence Against Women Act, she must show that she: First, is the spouse of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; second, is eligible for immigrant classification based on that relationship; third, is residing in the United States; fourth, has resided in the United States with the citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse; fifth, has been battered by, or subjected to extreme cruelty by that spouse; sixth, is a person of good moral character; seventh, entered into the marriage in good faith; and eighth, that her deportation would cause extreme hardship to her or her child. Many undocumented women are undocumented because they have been victims of abuse, and in many cases their abusers have interfered with or deceived them about the immigration process. These women, victims of domestic violence who are eligible for lawful permanent residency, but who have not yet attained residency due to the actions or inactions of their abusers, should not be penalized as undocumented immigrants. Their undocumented status is most often not willful, but results from the abusive relationship. I want to explain this carefully. Many of these women come into the country legally, with the sponsorship of their spouse. Once they are here, the abusive partner will use her immigration status as a means of coercing her into submission--for example, ``If you don't do whatever I say, I will call the INS on you and withdraw my petition.'' Often these women will leave the country with their spouse and then the spouse will force them to re-enter illegally. The spouse will sometimes not file the proper paperwork to petition for status, all the while telling his battered wife that he is taking care of the situation, and that her fate in the United States rests in his hands. For example, Dania's case, originating in New Jersey, was recently brought to my attention. Dania is 27 years old. She came to the United States from India. Her husband Mihi, a U.S. citizen, told her that he would file for her to get permanent residence in the United States. Soon after they were married, he did file a petition. The couple resided with Mihi's family, who were verbally abusive to Dania and Mihi himself battered her with his fists, leaving visible marks on her face and body. The police responded to complaints from neighbors about the violence on several occasions. Mihi told Dania that if she did not do whatever he said, he would withdraw the petition he filed and have her deported. Dania left her husband once and fled to a shelter. Soon after, he convinced her to take a ``reconciliation trip'' with him to India. When they got to India, he destroyed all of her documents including her passport. She obtained a passport and returned to the United States to find that Mihi had withdrawn his petition sponsoring her for legal status. Mr. President, to treat Dania and these other VAWA eligible women as undocumented is to punish them for being victims of a crime. Remember, domestic violence is a crime, whether or not the victim has a green card. Under this bill, these undocumented immigrant women would be ineligible for any means tested government assistance programs. The first amendment in this bloc, accepted by the managers of the bill, would allow women who are eligible to file independently for legal residence under the Violence Against Women Act, but have yet to do so, and thus are ineligible for assistance, to receive certain benefits including AFDC and Medicaid, provided that they file for legal, permanent residence within 45 days. Let's say a battered immigrant woman flees her abusive household in the middle of the night and goes to a domestic violence shelter. Prior to going to the shelter, she may not have even known that the Violence Against Women Act existed, and therefore, she has never self-petitioned for residency. The next morning, the first thing she needs to deal with is not her immigration status, but with the more pressing needs of finding a temporary source of food, diapers and medical care for her child. This amendment makes her immediately available for some of the public benefits that lawful permanent residents are eligible for, and then she has 45 days to file her claim for lawful permanent residency. If she fails to file the claim or the claim is denied, the benefits would be terminated. Women fleeing abusive relationships need the transitional assistance that is provided by government public benefits programs. This amendment would allow these women to be eligible for a narrow set of means-tested government assistance programs. This discrete group of programs has been selected because they would provide bare bones support: supplemental security income; aid to families with dependent children; social services block grants; Medicaid; food stamps; and housing assistance. If women who have been battered do not have access to this assistance, they are thrust into the untenable position of acquiescing to abuse or facing deportation when they ask for help. Mr. President, I want to tell another story, because I think the best way to understand about some of these problems--which seem unimaginable to so many of us--is to hear about real people who these amendments would help. Guadalupe is an undocumented woman living in Oregon, who was not a legal resident due to the inaction of her husband and sponsor, a battered woman who could have successfully fled her hideously abusive marriage if she had been able to get some kind of transitional assistance for herself and her children. Guadalupe is from Mexico and is married to Jose. They have had two children together. Jose applied for, and received, his legal residency. Throughout the 11 years of their marriage, he promised on many occasions to file for legal residency on behalf of Guadalupe. He never did. Guadalupe was made to stay in the house and have no contact with anyone. The only time she left the house was on weekly shopping trips to the grocery store. Soon, even the trips to the store were a thing of the past and Guadalupe and her children would go for days with nothing to eat. Jose would belittle, humiliate, rape, and sodomize Guadalupe in front of the children, and he explained to his 3-year-old son that he would be expected to do this as well when he got older in order to ``keep his mother and sister in line.'' When Guadalupe would attempt to defend herself and her children, Jose would pull out his pistol and threaten to kill her. During one particularly bad incident of abuse, a neighbor became aware of what was going on and gave Guadalupe a shelter number. She moved to the shelter. Since neither Guadalupe nor her children have INS documentation, they were ineligible for public assistance and Guadalupe could not work because she doesn't have a green card. They were totally economically dependent on Jose. She moved back in with him out of economic necessity and the abuse continued to escalate. Jose earned $2,000 a month, and yet his children suffer from malnutrition since he doesn't give Guadalupe any money to buy food. Jose repeatedly threatens to have Guadalupe and the children deported. If Guadalupe had been eligible to receive some assistance right away, it might have been possible for her to start a new, safe, and secure life for herself and her children. This amendment would give Guadalupe and other women in similar, desperate circumstances, a chance at breaking free from abusive relationships and starting a safer life. The second amendment accepted by the managers would protect battered women, also in the circumstance of needing some assistance, from being deported for being a ``public charge,'' that is to say, for temporarily relying on public assistance to escape the violence. In order to be granted suspension of deportation under the Violence Against Women Act, battered women must overcome two tests: First, she must prove that she is eligible for suspension of deportation under the Violence Against Women Act. To do so she must prove: That she has been battered or the subject of extreme cruelty in the United States by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse; That she has a valid marriage; That she is of good moral character; and That her deportation would cause extreme hardship. Second, once she has proven this, the judge could still exercise judicial discretion and deport her regardless of her VAWA eligibility because she relied on public benefits in an effort to escape her abuse. Under this bill, any legal immigrant who receives any means-tested Federal or State assistance for an aggregate of 12 months during her first 5 years in the United States is deportable as a public charge. For these purposes, means-tested Federal or State assistance programs include things like, if she got a Pell grant, in order to further her education and make it possible to get a better job to provide for herself and her children. A battered woman could also be deported for being a ``public charge'' if she enrolled a child in Head Start or any similar means-tested program. This standard has the effect of punishing people who are availing themselves of programs that are there to help make them self-sufficient. Realistically, battered women often need to rely on public assistance to escape their violent surroundings. My second amendment, like the House bill, would allow battered women to be eligible for the same discreet set of government assistance programs that require means testing, those that I listed in conjunction with my last amendment, for 4 years without being considered a public charge. A 4- year time period was selected because research has shown that half of women on public assistance are off of assistance within 4 years. This amendment would provide an exception to the provision in the Senate bill that would make such a woman deportable. Keep in mind that the decision to leave an abusive relationship is not an easy one. When a woman leaves she knows that two things will happen immediately--she, and if she is a mother, her children, will become homeless and they will likey lose all of their economic resource. She will immediately enter poverty. For a mother, this would be an enormous step to take. My amendment is necessary under many different circumstances. For example, some shelters, as a safety precaution, condition residence upon a battered woman not returning to her place of employment. Many battered women do no work outside the home because the abuser does not allow it. In other cases the abuser has forbidden the abused woman from getting educational or employment skills that would make her self- sufficient. These are some of the many reasons battered women may rely on transitional public assistance as they flee. Giving battered women a longer time on assistance before they are considered a public charge, and therefore deportable, is another way of giving abused women and their children a better chance at improving their circumstances. The third amendment accepted by the Managers relates to a practice known as deeming, whereby the income of an immigrant's sponsor is attributed to the immigrant for the purposes of determining the immigrant's eligibility for public assistance. For example, an immigrant woman is sponsored by her U.S. citizen husband who signs an affidavit that he will support her. He earns $30,000 a year. That woman is deemed to have access to $30,000 a year, even if he is not supporting her in reality. Deeming amounts to essentially pretending that an abusive sponsor is supporting a victim of domestic abuse and it renders her ineligible for the transitional public assistance that she would need to become independent, and would imprison her and her children in a violent situation. She would be without a means of economic survival and hence forced to return to her abuser. Many times, we see affidavits of support used as a tool by the abuser to prevent the victim from leaving. My third amendment, similar to the House bill language, would eliminate the practice of ``deeming'' for victims of domestic abuse for the first 4 years, and beyond 4 years if there is an ongoing need for the benefits and that need has been caused by the domestic abuse. These 4 years give the battered woman an opportunity to become self- sufficient. Often when a woman leaves an abusive relationship she is desperate and scared. She fears for her life because leaving can be the most dangerous time for her. She has probably lost all of her self- esteem and self-confidence because of the battering. The process of putting her life and the lives of her children back together can be slow. As a community, we need to encourage women and children recovering from an abusive situation to become a strong, healthy, independent family. To set ``one size fits all'' provisions and arbitrary time limits for immigrant women is unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. It shows no understanding of the trauma that a women go through. Just think of Monica Seles, the tennis star who was stabbed while on the tennis court. It took her 2 years to return to tennis due to the post traumatic stress disorder caused by a single attack. Although this was indeed a terrible, terrible trauma, consider the effect of years of battering and abuse some women suffer in their own homes, and think what it must take to recover from that kind of abuse. As we strive to reform our immigration policies in a thoughtful, and not punitive manner, we must be careful that proposed reforms don't eliminate protections that help women and children, particularly vulnerable women and children, escape dangerous, violent homes. Mr. President, all of the amendments I have offered today relating to domestic violence have been offered for the purposes of keeping the landmark legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, the strong protection for abused women and their children that it was intended to be. We have made a lot of progress in the past few years, but there is still a large gap in the public awareness and understanding of domestic violence. It takes community support and assistance for women and children to take the first step to become safe. My fellow Senators and I have a perfect opportunity to set an example to the community today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that I am really proud to have introduced this bill with Senator Feingold, Senator McCain, and Senator Thompson. Now we have Senator Gramm and Senator Kassebaum. I think that is a really good, bipartisan working group. I am also especially proud to be out here with my colleague from Wisconsin from the Midwest. I think both of us see this issue in really the same way. This is all about trust. There was in the Washington Post not too long ago an article about the Harvard-Kaiser Foundation study--really, the erosion of trust that people have in basic institutions of American life. By the way, right there at the top of the Congress is politics. I think it is because of the money choice and the appearance of corruption and gifts. By the way, I am not arguing that there is individual corruption. I do not believe that. But the point is people want to have a political process that they believe in. They yearn for a political process that they believe in. All too often money is too important in campaigns. When I first came here almost 6 years ago, I came to the floor of the Senate. I said that the whole question of the way in which money dominates politics has become the ethical issue of our time. I have given many, many speeches on the floor of the Senate about the need for campaign finance reform. I have introduced many amendments and many bills. I thought at the end of the last Congress we were going to pass a bill. But it was filibustered and blocked at the end. But, Mr. President, let me just say that it just looks awful for the Congress to try to stonewall this issue. I do not think symbolic politics is going to work. On the House side they are talking about some committee or commission and another study. This has an Alice in Wonderland quality to it--appoint another study by another commission followed by the same recommendations, followed by the same inaction, followed by nothing happening. We know what the problems are. The problems are clear. There is too much money in the political process. It is too important in determining the outcome of elections. It gives the appearance of corruption. We should have a more open political process, and we should make every effort possible to try to get a lot of this big money out of politics. Mr. President, I do not have time to go into the features. But trying to get some agreed-upon limits makes all the sense in the world. Trying to have some accountability about where the money comes from makes all the sense in the world. Trying to move toward debates and have a political process more accountable to people makes all the sense in the world. I do not agree with every provision. I think the $250,000 limit on what an individual can spend on his campaign is too high. A lot of us cannot afford that. I also think there is a variable campaign limit that goes up if your opponent does not agree, and I would like to work on improving that. We came together as a bipartisan working group because we decided the time is now. The idea of campaign finance reform is an idea, colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, whose time has come in America. The idea for campaign finance reform for politics, for campaigns and for elections that people can believe in, this is an idea whose time has come in America. This is deja vu to me, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin. We tried to do it on gift ban and lobbying disclosure. We kept getting put off and put off and put off. In all due respect to my colleagues, it just looks to me as if some people are not listening. We are not out here for symbolic reactions. We just announced, all of us together, we will bring this to the floor in May as an amendment if we do not get a time certain for an up-or-down vote on this piece of legislation, and we intend for the Senate to go on record in May. It is important that all of us do it. It is important we do it in a bipartisan way. Let me just say again this is all about trust. We want, Democrats and Republicans alike, people to trust this political process. We want people to trust their Congress. We want people to have trust in their public officials. I am just telling you that this system in which all of us have to operate is fundamentally flawed. It is a core problem. It is badly needing reform. There is enough time that has gone by, and we are not going to let this Congress stonewall it. We are going to make sure that action is taken by this Senate and that action will be taken this May.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, much has happened in the year since this bill left the Senate. Oklahoma City has begun the healing process from the senseless violence it suffered at the hands of a terrorist bomber. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a terrorist. Terrorism in the Middle East, against subway riders in Tokyo and elsewhere have reminded us of the vulnerability of free societies to this kind of senseless violence. The unabomber's reign of terror has apparently been brought to an end by the FBI. And the antiterrorism bill that left this Senate has come back, in some ways, a better bill: It is less invasive of civil liberties when it comes to eavesdropping by Federal agents, and it prevents defendants from being deported based only on evidence they are not allowed to understand. What happened to Rabin shows us all that terrorism is not going away. What may have been a success in stopping the unabomber shows that the Federal Government can fight back. I support this bill because I recognize that terrorism is a threat that puts all our lives at risk, and that we must bolster national antiterrorism efforts, including by providing to law enforcement and the courts new tools to combat cutting edge technologies of violence and increasingly bold villains, in order to stem the tide of destruction. I have made it clear that I do not support everything in this bill. I voted against the Senate bill last year largely because of its broad habeas corpus provisions, which will limit Federal court review in death penalty cases. I am also opposed to this bill's provisions to weaken protections for refugees and asylees fleeing persecution in other countries which has nothing to do with antiterrorism efforts. While I am still profoundly opposed to these provisions, I have concluded that on balance this bill should pass. There is much in this bill that is good, that will address concerns Minnesotans have expressed to me. This bill will make a real difference in the fight against terrorism. It includes many necessary changes to our Federal criminal laws. It will make it a Federal crime to plan or to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. It will make it a Federal crime to plan terrorist attacks in the United States, even if the attacks are carried out overseas. It includes increased penalties for conspiracies involving explosives. It will make it easier to detect plastic explosives, and to track chemicals of which most bombs are composed. It will make it harder for terrorist groups to raise funds in the United States. It provides mandatory restitution for victims of terrorist acts. It will help prevent the sale of arms to terrorist states by third parties. And it expands the authority of government officials to deal with threats posed by chemical, biological, and nuclear technologies, involving deadly nuclear materials. While I did not agree with every aspect of the 1994 crime bill I supported it because I concluded that, on balance, it contained many effective provisions to fight crime and violence. By the same token this is a bill that on balance can make an impact against terrorism. I voted against provisions in this bill that I fiercely opposed, and supported many changes that were not agreed to. The President and Members of both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill have nearly unanimously come together in this statement against destruction and violence. Because this bill successfully addresses a threat that endangers all of us and because a unified effort makes a strong statement and therefore my voice can help make it stronger, I join my colleagues in its support.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I need about 15 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here with my colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, to introduce an amendment on an issue that I feel very strongly about. Our amendment deals with one issue, and we hope that we have our colleagues' vote tonight: equitable health care coverage for mental illness services. Mr. President, let me say it has been a real honor to work with Senator Domenici on this issue. He has been a real leader, as has his wife, Nancy, and I personally appreciate all of their efforts. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, which would require that health plans to provide coverage for mental health services commensurate with what is provided for other physical illnesses. For too long, mental health has been put in parenthesis; we did not want to talk about it, and we did not take it seriously as a country. The stigma of mental illness has kept many in need from seeking help, and it has prevented policymakers from providing it. And for too long, persons in need of mental health services who reach private coverage discriminatory limits have been dumped onto Government-funded programs. Mr. President, I support a universal health coverage plan, and comprehensive benefits for mental health services. While we failed to enact legislation to achieve this during the 103d Congress, we did increase awareness. But now we are talking about parity, and awareness is not enough. Our amendment would require health plans to provide parity in their coverage of physical and mental health. Plans would be prohibited from requiring copays, or deductibles, for mental health benefits, or establishing lifetime limits for mental health benefits, or establishing visit limitations for mental health services unless the same restrictions apply to other health services. All we ask for is equitable treatment. That is all this amendment does. All this amendment does is say, please let us stop this discrimination. Mr. President, many people, or most people's instinctive reaction is to assume that this amendment would be expensive. This is not the case. As a matter of fact, in my State of Minnesota, where we have already passed legislation requiring full parity for mental health and substance abuse services, this was implemented August 1, 1995, and the cost of the parity mandate was estimated to be 26 cents per member provided. Minnesotans who were unable to work full time either because they were too sick or they were forced to impoverish themselves in order to qualify for Medicaid benefits, are now able to work and pay taxes and be productive. Because of this discrimination, all too often people cannot work so that they can receive medical assistance. People are forced to impoverish themselves in order to qualify for the medical assistance they need. Now, in Minnesota--this is what we propose to do for our Nation, because we have parity and we have ended this discrimination--these same Minnesotans are now able to work, to live a life with dignity, and to pay their taxes. Mr. President, we have a tremendous body of evidence, new evidence, proving that, without a doubt, mental health disorders can be diagnosed and treated in a cost-effective manner. In fact, we can show that within a very short period of time it costs less to treat those disorders directly and appropriately than not treat them at all. We can say that this is true based upon studies of every sector of our population--insured and employed, uninsured and unemployed, people who now use the private system and those who now use the public system. Mr. President and colleagues, there are several arguments for requiring parity for mental health services. First, we now have cost- effective treatments for mental illnesses and high rates of success are being achieved across the spectrum of diagnosis. For example, 80 percent of individuals with depression respond to treatment. Second of all, mental illness results in physical illness, inability to work, impaired relationships, and sometimes crime and homelessness. Would it not be better to end the discrimination and have less of the homelessness? Would it not be better to end the discrimination and enable people to work and be productive citizens? And finally, Mr. President, mental health services are already part of health delivery in the United States. Let us have no doubt about it, this amendment leaves all decisions about the delivery of services to the private marketplace. The amendment does not require the provision of mental health services to employees, specify what care should be provided, interfere with the discretion of employers and health plans to negotiate reimbursement rates as they see fit, or mandate the use of any particular kind of delivery of needed care. What this amendment calls for is just parity. Mental illness has touched many of our families and many of our friends. It is for this reason and many others that it is not a partisan issue. Mental illness is a problem affecting all sectors of American society. It shows up in both the rural and urban areas. It affects men and women, teenagers and the elderly, every ethnic group and people in every tax bracket. It can be effectively treated just like heart disease or diabetes. Treatment not only saves lives but it also saves dollars. That is why this amendment is so important. I look forward to the adoption of this amendment and to continuing to work with Senator Domenici to end discrimination against this very vulnerable population and their families. It is only old data and old ideas that keep us from covering mental health, the same way we cover any other real illness, whether it is acute or chronic. I know there has been some agreement on amendments, but I plead and implore my colleagues to please vote for this amendment. Senator Domenici is right. Tonight is just the beginning. If we do not win tonight--and I hope we get a very significant vote, and I hope we do win--then, of course, we will come back. Colleagues, please support us. Please end the discrimination. That is what this amendment is all about. I do not usually do this on the floor of the Senate, but I would like to dedicate my remarks to my brother who has struggled with mental illness almost his whole life. He is doing great now. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I never argue or disagree with the chairman of my committee. I think it is a point well taken. I do hope at the State level we will have in fact that oversight and that accountability. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Maimon Cohen, a fellow on my staff, have the privilege of the floor during the pendency of this legislation.