Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I assume we are no longer in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate resume consideration of amendment 185.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleagues that it is my joy to serve with, I think a lot of these arguments just miss the central point. I want all of my colleagues to be clear on what they are voting on. This is not a sense-of-the-Congress amendment that says we should not pass a balanced budget amendment. They are not voting on that. This is not a sense-of-the-Congress amendment or sense-of-the-Senate amendment that says we should be voting against unfunded mandates at all. In fact, the unfunded mandates legislation says that senators and representatives in our State and local governments are entitled to information, entitled to a right to know before we pass legislation and do not tell them anything about the impact or come up with the money. This amendment is a mandate from Minnesota, strong bipartisan support in a resolution that emphasized deficit reduction. Then it ended up saying: . . . be it Resolved by the legislature of the State of Minnesota, that it urges the Congress of the United States to continue its progress in reducing the annual Federal deficit, and when the Congress proposes the balanced budget amendment, to accompany it with financial information on the impact on the budget of the State of Minnesota. My amendment says if we pass a balanced budget amendment before we send it to the States, which by definition would be after we pass it, we should do an analysis of its financial impact on our States. How can our States then make decisions about whether or not to ratify it unless we are willing to provide them with the information? Mr. President, I am just amazed by some of the arguments that have been made on the floor of the Senate because they do not speak to the central issue. I say to my colleagues that this vote on this amendment is all about accountability. This is all about being direct with people. It is all about responding to our States. It is all about the concern that people have, about where will $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion in cuts take us between now and 2002. What will be its effect on citizens in Minnesota, Idaho, Georgia, Utah, all across the country? Minnesota State legislators, Republicans and Democrats alike, and the Republican Governor, are bipartisan and have sent a resolution here. I translated that into an amendment. It is an eminently reasonable request that I think will come is: If you pass the balanced budget amendment, then before you send it to the States, please do an economic analysis of it so we will know the impact on our States and on our people. Are we going to have to raise taxes at the State level? Is that what we are afraid to tell our colleagues at the State level? Are our local governments going to have to rely more on the property tax? Is this going to become the biggest unfunded mandate of all, where we just transfer costs back to State and local governments? Is that why we are unwilling to pass this amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that we at least, before we send this to the States, have an accompanying financial analysis? I hope that this amendment will attract strong bipartisan support. It is all about the rights of people back in our States to know what we are doing. It is all about accountability. It is all about good government. It is all about being direct and straightforward with people, and this amendment should pass by a huge vote in the U.S. Senate. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have not referenced CBO. I have said it is up to us in our Budget Committee to come up with an analysis.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Ohio, but if I could just respond. First of all, I do not want Senators to be able to vote on the basis of a dodge. This amendment in no way, shape, or form is opposed to the balanced budget amendment. Senators have different views on that. I can assure my colleague from Utah, my good friend, that the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota State Senate passed it by overwhelming votes and it was signed by a Republican Governor there. There is strong support by many of these colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, for a balanced budget amendment. The only thing they have said is, from our perspective in Minnesota, I think from the perspective in Utah and other States, how are we going to know whether or not to ratify this unless we know what the impact is going to be? If we are going to pass something that is so far reaching, it is our right to know. Can you not provide analysis? That is all this amendment says. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield on the time of the Senator from Utah, if I could.

Mr. WELLSTONE. What I just heard the Senator say--and, by the way, it is part of the response to the discussion I had with the Senator from Illinois. What this amendment says, a sense of the Congress, coming right from Minnesota is that if we pass a balanced budget amendment, then before we send it to the States we ought to have for the States a financial analysis of the impact. What I am hearing the Senator say is it is too hard for us to do that. So do you not think, I would say to my colleague from Utah, or my colleague from Idaho, or Ohio, or Georgia, our States have the right to know? Do you not think our States have the right, as Minnesota as a State, to say to us, ``Look. After you pass this, if you pass it, before you send it to us, will you please give us an analysis of its impact on our States?'' And now I hear the Senator from Utah saying it is too hard. We are talking about all sorts of amendments and all sorts of legislation in the unfunded mandates bill making sure that an analysis is done. We did not say it is too hard for that. We are talking about the right to know for our colleagues and for people back at the State and local communities. Now, when it comes to a huge decision we are going to make, we are saying it is too hard, that we cannot, after we pass this, let our States know what the impact of this legislation will be on that. I find that to be an interesting argument. But I certainly hope my colleagues will not be swayed by it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Then we should do the analysis.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take my own time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I may yield on the other side's time?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first of all, it is certainly rare the Senator from Illinois and I are in disagreement on an issue. I am hoping to persuade him to change his mind before the final vote because I want the Senator to know that, No. 1, when he talks about econometric models he is absolutely right; there are a variety of different variables, including factoring in the effect of lower interest rates, that would be included. This is not an amendment against the balanced budget amendment. I mean, many State senators and representatives who signed this resolution, or voted for this resolution, are for it, I say to my colleague from Illinois. The only thing they are saying is, if or when--your choice--you pass a balanced budget amendment, please accompany it with a financial analysis so we can have some sense of what the impact will be on the States. I say to my good colleague, that is where your econometric model would be figured in. We should do that. It is a matter of State and local government officials having the right to know--which is very much within the framework, I might say, of the unfunded mandates legislation. And finally, I have to say this to my colleague, and this is our honest and profound disagreement: My colleague from Illinois is willing to make the difficult choices, which means he is not going to be involved in a bidding war to raise the Pentagon budget. He is not going to be involved in a bidding war for yet more tax cuts. He is not going to take everything off the table. And he is not just going to do deficit reduction according to the path of least resistance, focused on those citizens with the least amount of political clout. But there is every reason in the world to believe that is precisely what we are going to do here and that is what people are worried about back in the States. That is what people in the States are worried about, and they want us to be clear with them. That is all this amendment says. If we pass it, let us accompany it with a financial analysis of its impact on the States. That is from Minnesota, passed unanimously by the State Senate, passed almost unanimously by the House, and passed and signed into law by a Republican Governor. I do not think this is unreasonable. So Senators should understand this is all they are voting on.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield a minute to myself to respond. May I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since the Senator from North Carolina no longer has any time to yield, I might just quickly respond. I will take 2 minutes. Then I will be pleased to reserve the rest of my time. Mr. President, just very briefly, I appreciate what the Senator from North Carolina said. But I do want colleagues to know, who are about to vote on this, that this amendment does not say no to S. 1, to unfunded mandates. This amendment does not say no to a balanced budget amendment. This amendment, as a matter of fact, based upon the Minnesota resolution, memorializes Congress for continuing its work on Federal deficit reduction. The only thing this amendment says--and I do not think the Senator really responded to this amendment--was that if we pass a balanced budget amendment, we ought to accompany this with financial information on its impact on the budget of each of the States. This came from Minnesota. It was passed unanimously by the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike. It was passed almost unanimously in the House. It was signed by the Republican Governor. It focuses on deficit reduction, but it says: Look, Federal Government, in the spirit of unfunded mandates, tell us what the impact is going to be on our States of a balanced budget amendment. That is all this amendment says. So I think the Senator from North Carolina had some interesting comments, but I do not think they spoke directly to this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think the Senator has probably run out of his time so I will not ask him to yield. I will just comment very briefly.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No. But that is not why I asked the question.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from California. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. Mr. President, to me, the operative language in the amendment says that any bill which ``provides for protection of the health of children under 5, pregnant women, or frail elderly would not be subject to S. 1's point of order and other requirements.'' I had a meeting back in Minnesota before the beginning of this session. It was really a very powerful meeting. It was with a large number of people from the disabilities community in Minnesota--Justin Dark came out--and people were really both terrified and I think indignant about what this unfunded mandates bill would mean to them. I think it was very, very important it be made clear that there would be an exemption as it applied to the Americans With Disabilities Act. I really view this amendment in the same framework, and I would say to my colleague from California and the Senator from Washington, with whom I have worked closely as well, that actually, as I have had discussions with people in my office about this piece of legislation, some have been surprised at really what is, by and large, with my strong support, the premise of this bill, but my view is that we should be accountable. I think that when we vote legislation and we are requiring State or local governments to follow through and implement certain policy and there is an expense, and we might decide that we cover the expense or we might decide that it is appropriate for State or county or city government to also be providing some of the funding, we should go on record. In many ways, that is what we do now. Someone can challenge a particular through an amendment and call for 51 votes right now. I like the idea of our being accountable, and in that sense I think the premise of this piece of legislation is extremely important. I have said that to Senator Kempthorne. But I also worry about what Senator Boxer has so ably pointed out on the chart. What I worry about is that we get into a kind of morass where there is the complexity and the multiple veto points which end up leading to a process where we literally cannot move forward with important legislation where there are needs that cry out to us. I would say that those needs cry out from children and from frail elderly and from women expecting children. I know one of the most poignant gatherings I have been involved with here in Washington was when a group of citizens, to make a connection to the environment, came from around the country. They were mainly poor and they came to talk about environmental justice. Their point was that all too often the environmental degradation has a disparate impact on their communities. And they are right. So when it comes to situations where women really cannot eat fish out of lakes or rivers close to where they live, nor can their small children, or when you go into a classroom--this happened to me in Minneapolis--and meet with students--I think there is no alternative to meeting with elementary school kids; it is wonderful how eager they are. It is sort of like the world all of a sudden of magic is before you. But to leave this meeting and then have a teacher say to you afterwards: You know, Senator, these kids are wonderful, but I really worry about the lead they have in their bloodstream--environmental degradation, whether it be in the paint or whether it be in the soil-- there are needs that cry out in this country. I cannot think of an amendment that does more to really strengthen this piece of legislation because by passing this amendment I think what we say in one stroke of public policy is we are committed to being accountable; we are committed to making sure that we do not impose legislation on State and local governments without making an effort to either provide the funding or be clear that they should provide the funding, but we go on record, we are explicit about what we do, but at the same time in the framework of the Americans With Disabilities Act, we understand that there are some compelling needs in this country, there are important populations that, unfortunately, are not so important here, not as important as they should be, that really do need support and protection. We do not want to see some legislative process we have designed that has become so convoluted, so complex, so full of opportunities for people to block to prevent us from moving forward where we really need to take action. I think that is what this amendment does. I think it strengthens the bill, and I am very pleased to support it. I yield the remainder of my time. I thank the Senator from California for her leadership.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator whether I could, in less than 20 seconds just offer two amendments, en bloc. That is all I need to do, given the unanimous consent agreement. Will the Senator consent to that?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment 186.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, sometimes we speak on the floor of the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--not because we have an amendment to offer, not because it is our legislative agenda, but because we just cannot be silent and we feel that it is important as Senators, given the honor of being Senators, to speak about those issues and those peoples that we feel very strongly about. In today's New York Times, there is a picture that tells more than a thousand words: A friend of Sgt. Maya Kopstein, a 19-year-old victim of a suicide bombing, mourned at her grave yesterday and held the flag from her coffin. Mr. President, 19 Israelis were murdered in a Palestinian suicide bombing. All but one of these soldiers were barely old enough to vote. This one young woman over here in this picture, as I talked with a very close friend of mine--we become close with the staff we work with--my legislative director, Mike Epstein, said: ``Just look at her face, this young woman, young girl. It looks as if she's saying, `What kind of a world do I live in?''' Israelis murdered, ``* * * all but one of them soldiers barely old enough to vote.'' I have three children, and my youngest is now 22. These were children who were murdered. I do not know when all this violence will stop, but I want to speak on the floor of the Senate today--and I did have a chance to also talk to the Israeli Ambassador--to convey not only my sadness and sympathy but also my outrage. I believe that this is a sentiment that I express for all Senators, and I send this to the people of Israel. I want them to know that all of us care fiercely about what has happened, that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, condemn murder. And, Mr. President, I today hope and pray--I use those words carefully but I think those words apply--I hope and pray that the Israelis, Palestinians, all of the peoples in the Middle East, find a way, first of all for security and protection, to stop this, and, second of all, a way to move forward--to move forward--with the peace process. There has to come a day when children are not murdering children. There has to come a day when this violence ends. There has to come a day of reconciliation. The sad thing is that the extremists have figured out the most effective way of trying to destroy this process. The extremists have figured out perhaps the most effective way of trying to make sure that there never will be peace. But my hope and my prayer today is for all of the families of all of these young people that have been murdered. My hope and prayer today is for the Israelis and the Palestinians, and for all the people in the Middle East--that there will be reconciliation. And as an American Senator and as an American Jewish Senator, I want to speak on the floor to express these sentiments. I want my country to be as helpful as possible, our Government to be as helpful as possible at this time. I want us to extend our friendship and our support to Israel. I never want any of us to turn our gaze away from this kind of outrageous slaughter of young people, of children. Murder, Mr. President, is never legitimate. Murder by anyone is never legitimate. I yield the floor.