Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague and I thank the Senator from Montana for all of his support, all of his leadership on this amendment that deals with disaster assistance for rural America. Colleagues, the Presiding Officer comes from a State where agriculture is not the No. 1 industry. Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill said all politics is local. I add, all politics is personal. For me, this is probably the biggest priority I have right now, to get help to people. This amendment, which started with Senator Byrd providing assistance for firefighters working on fires in our country, and some Members said, let's do this all together. I come from a State where we have had massive devastation, massive losses from flooding. Others come from States where there is drought. Others come from States where there are fires. And, of course, since I have been in the Senate it has been hurricanes, tornados, you name it. This provides much needed assistance to farmers, whether they be wheatgrowers, soybeans, or livestock producers. In our State, the estimates of the amount of loss of dollars is $300 million plus. The people with the best of crop insurance have lost 30 percent that they do not have covered. The independent producers cannot make it. This is what we have, a situation that is a perfect example of there but the grace of God go I, or we are our brother's keeper or sister's keeper. How true. I have never, since I have been a Senator, voted against disaster assistance for any part of the country. I know that when people are hit by floods or drought or tornadoes or hurricanes or fire, it does not have a thing to do with whether they work hard or do not work hard, are good managers or not good managers. No one asks for this. In the original farm bill, I think we had over $2 billion for disaster assistance for 2001. It was taken out in conference. It was opposed, I guess, by the administration and some of the leadership in the House. We tried to bring this disaster relief bill up, we tried to put it on the supplemental appropriations bill, without much luck. I think the support has built for this legislation. We are going to have a really strong vote, and, frankly, I am not really interested in drawing the line, as in Democrats versus Republicans. I do not think this has much to do with that. I wish the administration would be more supportive, but I think the President will sign this bill. I know he will. I think if we get a strong vote on the Senate side, the House will support it. It is just impossible for any Senator or Representative--it doesn't really matter about party--you just cannot turn your back on people. All these statistics, to me, translate in personal terms. The trips I have taken to northwestern Minnesota have been among the most emotional experiences I have had as a Senator. You can see the damage the floods have caused. FEMA can help with temporary housing, and FEMA can help if there is damage of public infrastructure. FEMA helped us build a new school in Ada, MN. That was so important. But when it comes to farm country, really, if we do not provide the help, it is just not going to be there. FEMA cannot deal with these kinds of crop losses. It is just the absolute sense of discouragement, of just being completely beaten down, of seeing your whole life's work disappear, of just believing there is no future. Then there has been the delay, and the delay, and I think a lot of farmers--and not just farmers, people in northwest Minnesota--have just lost all hope. I make this appeal to all my colleagues to please support this legislation. The truth of the matter is, never in the 12 years I have been here have we hesitated to provide disaster assistance moneys to people. We never have hesitated--never--to take it out of general revenue. We know we are going to have to do it. As I say, if it is the farmers in northwest Minnesota now, it could be people on the coast in Florida who need help tomorrow. God knows, people in Colorado need it. Certainly in Colorado we have drought; South Dakota, North Dakota; Kansas is faced with these struggles--it is all over the country. And then it could be something else next year and the next year. We are talking about natural disasters. This is long overdue. As a Senator from Minnesota, I view this as the most important vote we could have. I appeal to all my colleagues, regardless of the region of the country you are from, regardless of whether you are faced with any of these catastrophes. I again pledge, one more time--I see two more colleagues here in the Chamber, so I am not going to take more than another minute or two. Here is what I say to you, and it is an absolute promise I will keep. If you, as a Senator from New Jersey, or the Senator in the chair, any Senator ever comes to the floor and says, my God, this is what has happened, there is this devastation, there is no way people can build their economic lives without this disaster relief--I know it is not in the State of Minnesota--will you, as a Senator from Minnesota, support this? I will say yes, because we are a national community and we help people. That is what it is about: We help people. This is critically important. I hope we will get a huge vote for this amendment. I make the plea to all my colleagues, regardless of the State they are from, to please support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow Senator Burns.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to give 5 minutes out of our time to the opponents.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, are there other colleagues who want to speak on the Republican side who have not had a chance?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take 1 minute for an observation, if I may. I say to the Senator from Wyoming, this does include livestock producers, and it is extremely important. In our State, we are talking about livestock producers, but we are also talking about wheatgrowers, soybeans, all of the damage to the crops. I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming out here, Republicans and Democrats, West and Midwest, and also Senators from the east coast who have not sustained this kind of damage but are willing to lend their support, knowing full well that if they need help they will get help from the rest of us. This is sort of a definition of community and helping people, and I am so pleased to see the strong bipartisan support. I really believe if we get a huge vote, we have an excellent chance of getting help to people. As a Senator from Minnesota, I am so pleased with the way this discussion is going and I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their support. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Washington Post on September 9 had an editorial titled ``Equity for Mental Illness.'' I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will read the opening paragraph: Last spring President Bush announced the new commitment to improving mental health care for Americans. He cited unfair treatment as one major obstacle to effective care and pledged to seek legislation to require the insurance plans to treat mental illness in the same way they treat other medical ailments. Now time is getting short and the calendar is crowded, but Congress still should approve a parity bill, and Mr. Bush, recalling his pledge, should help make it happen. This isn't the position we took when we last examined the subject. As a coauthor of this legislation with Senator Domenici, I am gratified and moved that the Washington Post has come out with a very strong editorial in favor of parity in mental health coverage. This legislation is called the Mental Health Equity Treatment Act, with, by the way, 67 Senators, two-thirds of the Senate, and 243 Representatives, including authors Marge Roukema and Patrick Kennedy, bipartisan in both the Senate and the House, in support of it. The Washington Post says it is not a be-all or end-all. The Washington Post is absolutely right. But it at least is a huge step toward ending the discrimination. And more or less, I argue, once we have the coverage in the plans, the care will follow the money. And there will be more of an infrastructure of care for people who do not get any help. I don't know what has happened with the negotiations. There is no stronger advocate than my colleague, Senator Domenici. I was excited when the President announced his support. I thought the White House would bring people together and we would have agreement in the House and the Senate and we would pass legislation. Frankly, I have not seen a lot of negotiation take place. It has been a huge disappointment to me. I hope the White House will become fully engaged. It is not too late. The President went on record as saying: I want to see this legislation passed; I want to see this discrimination ended. We need to see those words backed by action. What we call the Mental Health Equity Treatment Act has tremendous support. If the White House would become engaged in this, we can pass this legislation. There are any number of different vehicles we still have this month. I believe we can attach this legislation to one of those vehicles and one of those appropriations bills or other pieces of legislation. This legislation will pass. It will pass for a couple of reasons. It will pass because all of the families that have been affected by this illness--and there is not anybody in the Senate or the House who does not have a member of the family who has not been affected one way or the other--have stepped forward. They have become their own leaders. They have become their own citizen lobby. They basically say it is time to end this discrimination. This is major civil rights legislation. It will pass. Last time, this became part of the Education, Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Both Senator Harkin and Senator Specter were strong advocates of this matter when it went to conference committee. We had near unanimous support in the Senate. Then it was blocked last session by the House Republican leadership and the White House. But there were a number of Republicans who said: We are very uncomfortable voting against this. Several of them, I believe, have their own personal experiences in their own families or with friends with mental illness. Several of them said: Look, if this comes back a year later and nothing has been done, we do not want to vote against this. I come to the floor to include this very important editorial in the Washington Post in the Senate Record to bring this to my colleagues' attention. This is a change of position on the part of the Washington Post. The Washington Post points this out in their editorial. Second, I remind the President that he has made a commitment to helping pass this legislation this session, not to put it off year after year after year. I hope he will back his words with the deed, the good Hebrew word, ``mitzvah.'' Time is not neutral. We do not have a lot of time yet. There is a lot of good will in the Senate, both by Democrats and Republicans. Certainly, one of the key leaders is Senator Domenici. Nobody has done more. I mention Marge Roukema and Patrick Kennedy on the House side. Senator Reid has done so much work. I could go on and on. The White House has been semi-missing in action. We need them to become engaged. I have no doubt we can pass this in the Senate either on its own or as part of this appropriations bill or another bill. I worry there would be an effort to block it. I think the President can do something wonderful. I think he can do something very positive. I think not only would he get a tremendous amount of support in the Senate and the House, but he would get a lot of support from families and people all across the country. For my own part, working with my colleague, Senator Domenici, I am ready to put this amendment on to a bill. I am ready to do that. Certainly, we are going to do that in the Senate. We are going to get this into a conference committee. If we get the support from the President, we will pass this legislation. It would be win-win-win. The insurance industry will not love it. That is true. They will not be in love with it. But it will be a win for the White House for doing something very good for people. It will be a win for both Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Democrats. Most important of all, it will make a positive difference in the lives of many families and many people across this country. Let's get this done. Let's get the support from the White House. Mr. President, you said you were all for this. We need you. We need you to be engaged. We need you to exert leadership. We need your support. If we get your support, we will pass this legislation. As we look toward September 11, and commemorate this tragic day in America's history, we can be proud of the way in which the American people rallied to support those who suffered such unspeakable losses in their lives. Many of us still feel the shock and the fear of that day, and while we can take great pride in the ways in which our country has recovered, we know that for many, the grief and the trauma is still sharp and constant. We know more about how such events can leave scars on the psyche of a country, as well as individuals. We know that many who had suffered from mental illness prior to September 11 may find they need treatment again. We know that many in New York and other parts of our country are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. We show our strength as Americans when we respond not only with our strength and outrage toward the perpetrators of this horror, but also with compassion and support toward the victims. I was pleased to sponsor support for programs that provided emergency mental health care for survivors and emergency workers and their families in the Senate's bioterrorism bill and other legislation. But we know that more is needed to improve the overall infrastructure of mental health care in our country's response to terrorism. People with mental illness are routinely denied decent mental health care. They are required to pay more for their care, and are given less access, simply because their illness is located in the brain, and not in another part of the body. While we can be proud as a country for our ongoing fight to reduce stigma against the mentally ill, we here in Congress should not be so proud. Nor should the President. We have not yet done our job in truly helping those with mental illness by ensuring full mental health parity in insurance coverage. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, which I have sponsored with Senator Pete Domenici, is poised to pass in this congress. This bill is more than ready to move forward and to be signed by the President. S. 543 enjoys the support of two-thirds of the Senate, 67 Senators, the majority of the House, 243 Representatives, and about 250 organizations representing health care, education, law enforcement, disability, religious organizations, and many others. On June 6, more than 2,000 people rallied at the Capitol in 100 degree heat to demand that this legislation move forward. On April 29, President Bush publicly proclaimed his support for full mental health parity and vowed to work with Congress to make sure he signed a full mental health parity bill this year. And today, the Washington Post, which has historically questioned the value of mental health parity, reversed its position in support of full mental health parity. The Post states on its editorial page, ``Now time is getting short and the calendar is crowded, but Congress still should approve a bill, and Mr. Bush, recalling his pledge, should help make it happen.'' Throughout this Congress, I have continued to work with Senator Domenici, and with Senator Kennedy, who, as Chair of the HELP committee, has been so helpful in moving this bill forward. Senator Daschle has stated many times that this legislation is one of the priority issues for the Senate floor. I have worked with White House staff to help clarify the intention of Congress in shaping this legislation--that we expect it to be a comprehensive bill that does not discriminate against people by diagnosis. We have been open and available to discussing issues of concern to other members and the White House. But we are still waiting? Why? Because the opponents of this bill--the insurance industry--continue to try to influence their friends at the White House and on Capitol Hill to either kill this bill, or weaken it so much that it would provide very little help to those who are praying for its passage. Every argument the opponents have tried to put forward--whether it is cost, or science, or treatment effectiveness--every one of these arguments has been fought and won by the supporters of this bill. Opponents have challenged the CBO cost estimate of this bill not once, not twice, but three times, to no avail. The cost of S. 543 is low: the estimated increase in premiums for full mental health parity, covering all diagnoses, is 0.9 percent. The opposition also distorts the purpose and intention of the bill by trying to limit it to only 5 percent of mental illness diagnoses. They know there is no scientific or even economic basis for restricting coverage in this way, but they continue these destructive methods as one more way to try to kill the bill. They resort to ridicule by trivializing the pain and reality of mental illness and the toll it takes on the lives of those with this illness and their families. This is an outrage, and we cannot allow such tactics to destroy the democratic process. We all are very aware of how much work is remaining on our Senate calendar, much of which is so important to our country. But here, in this piece of legislation, we can show true bipartisan support, along with solidarity with the President, for those with mental illness. This bill will help those with chronic mental illnesses, those with acute depression, anxiety, or PTSD resulting from the trauma of September 11, children with autism or eating disorders, and the millions of other Americans with mental illness. Without treatment, mental illness can worsen, and can even lead to death. We cannot as a country allow people with mental illness to be treated as second-class citizens any longer. As the Post said today,``The right response to the gathering health care crisis is to fix the system, not make the mentally ill bear a disproportionate burden.'' When President Bush spoke in support of full mental health parity, we in the Senate had already done our job. We had invested many months in bipartisan meetings to shape a bill that respected the business community, the insurance industry, and the needs of those with mental illness. This is why this bill has the support of the majority of Congress and about 250 organizations who represent millions of Americans. It is time for President Bush to speak again, to publicly support this bipartisan, bicameral bill that clearly has the support of the American people. The House has finally held hearings on this, and I want to thank those committees for doing so. The hearings made it possible for witnesses to expose the arguments of the insurance industry for what they are. The opposition is based on nothing more than discrimination and protecting the corporate bottom line. I want President Bush to be confident that he has my continued support to do everything possible to pass this legislation. But I ask him now to follow through on the promise he made in New Mexico to support full mental health parity. This legislation is ready to move forward. The President asked to sign a full mental health parity bill. There is nothing stopping this bill except the politics of the insurance industry. I ask President Bush to put the needs of those suffering from mental illness first, to help prevent further suffering and deaths, and to ease the pain of those scarred by September 11 by helping to make treatment available to those who need it. I ask him to urge Republican Congressional leaders to support this legislation. I ask him to endorse S. 543/H.R. 4066. Within the constraints of the Senate calendar, this bill may move forward independently, or we may again attach it to an appropriations bill, as we did last year. With the tremendous support for this bill on and off the Hill, we have these options. However, when the bill moved forward on LHHS appropriations in 2001, 10 House members voted to kill this bill, and President Bush wrote a letter to Senator Domenici promising to help pass it this year. I ask the President to follow through on that promise. I ask him to prevent the insurance lobby from killing this bill again. Our country needs this legislation, and the majority of Americans have made it clear that they want it now. I look forward to the day when people with mental illness receive decent, humane, and timely mental health care. It will be a good day for our country. I ask the President to make sure that this day comes soon.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bjorn Sjue, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor during the duration of the debate on this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Kerr, a fellow, be allowed floor privileges during the debate on homeland security.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their fine work. We are now debating an amendment that was laid down by a number of Senators. Senator Daschle took the lead and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. It deals with the question of disaster relief. I have to say, as the Senator from Minnesota, I take this debate in the next hour, hour and a half, or 2 hours as serious as any debate I have ever been involved in because I think literally this is at least an economic life-or-death question for many farmers in Minnesota, specifically northwestern Minnesota. Before I talk about my State, I want to make this appeal to all of my colleagues. There was a front-page story in the Washington Post today-- and I know Senator Nelson and Senator Hagel have spoken about this-- about the drought in Nebraska. It is heartbreaking to read about that. It is just almost unprecedented drought conditions. For these ranchers, cattlemen, and farmers, the time is not neutral. Time moves on. If we don't take any action and get help to them, the farm bill becomes irrelevant because they don't have any crops and they are not going to be able to produce to get a price. They didn't ask for the drought. It is the same thing in South Dakota. Then I read about the fires in Colorado and in Arizona. They didn't ask for that. During the years that I have been here in the Senate, we have also had Senators come to the floor from different States where there have been hurricanes or tornadoes. Certainly, that has happened in Minnesota. It is devastating, these natural disasters. It has nothing to do with whether people work hard or are good managers. As I have said, there but for the grace of God go I. Nobody knows, in our part of the country, when you could be hit by a tornado. In other parts of the country, it could be a hurricane, drought, fire, or flooding. So I think this vote is a test of our goodness. I am not going to bash away at the administration. I hope the administration is changing its view and not working strongly against this amendment. Frankly, I will give all the credit in the world to anybody who helps. It doesn't really matter to me. If the White House is going to show flexibility and support, and we pass this amendment on the floor, and it is kept in conference, I will applaud everybody and give credit to everybody. I hope that is the way it will be because, frankly, I think disaster relief is really--look, people say I have been in a lot of intense debates on the floor and probably will be in one this afternoon about these scoundrel companies that go to Bermuda and set up sham headquarters and don't pay their fair share of taxes. I don't think the whole question of emergency disaster relief has any party label to it. Certainly, the people whose lives are destroyed are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or none of the above. Certainly, this is about our States and the people we represent and doesn't have a lot to do with party identification, period. As I said yesterday--and I will get to the specifics about Minnesota--I know I have never voted against disaster assistance moneys for any part of the country because I think it is an example of there but for the grace of God go I. We are grateful that I can help other parts of the country, and we are grateful it wasn't our homes or farms or that it didn't happen in our State. We are grateful that it didn't happen in our communities. But sometimes it does happen in our State and in our communities, in which case we come to the floor and ask colleagues for support. Really, on the whole question of offsets, we haven't done offsets for disaster relief before. This is just something that happens and we know when it happens that we provide the help. So in the case of Minnesota, we are talking about 17 counties in northwest Minnesota. We are talking about rich farmland and about having been really massively damaged and devastated by the flooding. FEMA does good work. I love the work they do. They have been to Minnesota many times. They are an amazing group of men and women. It is an interesting job they have. They come in crisis situations and help with temporary housing, and the Small Business Administration tries to help with additional funding; and if there is damage of infrastructure, public infrastructure, they have helped us rebuild schools in our State. As my colleague from Montana and all Senators who are from farm country know, they do not provide assistance to the farmers. We need help for these farmers--the wheat growers, corn growers, soybean growers, you name it. Everything that is in the farm bill will be irrelevant. We are lucky if it covers 70 percent of the cost. We would be very lucky. The farmers cannot afford a 30-percent loss. I call on our colleagues for their support. The past is the past, and the present is the present. I am interested in the present. We had in the Senate bill farm money for disaster relief assistance. I wish it had been kept in conference. It was not. That is beside the point. It is in the past. We tried to put it on the emergency supplemental bill, and there was opposition. My hope today is that we will come together, Democrats and Republicans, and we will do it because we know this is what we always do. When people are faced with these kinds of crises--this does not have anything to do with low prices; it does not have anything to do with countercyclical payments or dairy payments; it does not have anything to do with the Conservation Reserve Program. This has to do with weather-related disasters that have literally devastated so many people in farm country in America today and/or in other parts of our country today. I think of the fires again. I come to the Chamber to urge my colleagues, to appeal to my colleagues to please support this amendment. Please support it. This amendment will provide much needed help to many wonderful, hard-working people in northwestern Minnesota and, for that matter, around the country. The vote we are going to have, which will probably be sometime before noon, will be a critically important vote. We will need 60 votes. I hope we get the 60 votes. I say to the Chair, having been to northwest Minnesota several times, these have been some of the toughest meetings I have ever attended. The farmers are at their wits end. It is not like they are asking for help. The Presiding Officer knows some of the people about whom I am speaking. They are not comfortable asking for help. They know they have to have help or there is no tomorrow; they will have no future at all. If they can get the good news today that the Senate said, We are going to provide you with the help, we are going to provide the disaster relief money, it will make all the difference in the world. If we get over 60 votes, I really believe we will have a good chance of keeping it in conference. I think the White House will support us, and we can do this together. As a Senator from Minnesota, having a pretty clear picture about when we talk about $300 million worth or $350 million worth of damage and number of acres, I translate that all into personal terms. I think of all the husbands, wives, children, and families with whom I have met. The farmers are not here, but they are counting on us to represent them well. I say to all Senators, please represent well the people in the country who have been hit with these natural disasters, and please vote for this amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a technical modification to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, that I am very pleased this amendment has been accepted. A good part of this is in a similar amendment passed in the House. This will be part of the law of this homeland defense bill. Maybe I will take up all my time; maybe I should reserve some time to respond. I am interested in what my colleagues, Senators Thompson and Gramm, say about the amendment. Let me explain briefly to other Senators why I have done this. We did this on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. That was only for 1 year. We offered an amendment yesterday that would bar the Secretary of Homeland Security from entering into contracts with U.S. companies that give up their U.S. citizenship to avoid U.S. taxes. I will give an example. It is a small story that I think tells a larger story. This is the story of Tyco. We heard all about Tyco International. They saved $400 million in taxes last year by chartering its base in Bermuda. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago that suggested actually these savings might have helped the company buy CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $19 million home in Boca Raton and a $6,000 shower curtain for his place in Manhattan. They have received $220 million in Government contracts. I guess the question is whether or not any of that was used to pay for the shower curtain. This amendment, and the reason I have been focused on no Federal contracts for expatriates, is all about corporate reform. It is an egregious practice when these companies set up sham headquarters in countries such as Bermuda. They have no staff. They have no operation. Not only do they not end up paying taxes on foreign profits but they can also take the profit in our own country and then cook the books and move it overseas to Bermuda or wherever else. It is not all that patriotic. It means a lot of other businesses, large and small, in my State of Minnesota and the Presiding Officer's State of Rhode Island get the short end of the stick. Most of the large and small businesses in Minnesota, Rhode Island, and around the country would never do this. They would not do it, even if they had the lawyers and the accountants to tell them how, because they would not believe it was the right thing to do if they could do it. A lot of smaller businesses would never have the lawyers and the accountants to tell them how to do it. If these companies are going to renounce their citizenship and engage in this kind of egregious behavior and not pay their fair share of taxes, it seems to me that is fine. Renounce their citizenship and they do not get any more Government contracts. It is that simple. By the way, I do not think the companies that are good corporate citizens, that do not engage in any of this sham activity, should be penalized. Why should they end up being penalized in bidding for the contracts because they are paying their fair share of taxes or even more because other companies are engaged in this tax avoidance? Why should they be penalized for doing the right thing, which is to stay in our country? That is what is going on right now. We have a situation where former U.S. companies that have renounced their citizenship currently hold about $2 billion worth of contracts with the Federal Government. This amendment has now passed the Senate, and it is now in the House bill, so it is going to become a part of law. So they are not going to be able to do that anymore. These Bermuda companies have no staff, have no offices, have no business activity. The only thing they are trying to do is shield income and not pay their fair share of taxes. These are Enron-like schemes involving sham loans and other income transfers that allow these companies to reduce their U.S. taxes on U.S. source income, including income from Government contracts. It is called earnings stripping. I am pleased with this amendment, and I want people to know about this because it has now passed the Senate. If a company reincorporates in a foreign country and 50 percent or more of the shareholders of the new foreign corporation are the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company, then they do not get to contract with the Homeland Security Agency, and if the company does not have any substantial business activity in its foreign home. That is the two-part test. This is actually the two-part test in the Grassley-Baucus tax bill, and I thank them for their superb work. There are many sacrifices people are making today. The only sacrifice this amendment asks of Federal contractors is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else. I say to my colleagues, I know we had a debate last time when I did this on the DOD appropriations bill. About 99 percent of the people in Minnesota in coffee shops would say: Absolutely. If these companies want to do this kind of tax avoidance, then they should not be getting the Government contracts. I think people are tired of this kind of egregious corporate behavior. My second point: I am very proud of the fact that the vast majority of businesses in Minnesota and in our country do not engage in this kind of behavior. I do not want to see them put at any kind of competitive disadvantage because they do the right thing. My third point: I think this is good public policy. I know last time in the debate some of my colleagues said it is a great thing to do, it is a good, populace thing to do, and people are going to be for it--in fact, I think that is why we had a voice vote, because a lot of people do not want to vote against it--but it is not good public policy. There are two Senators in the Chamber who are probably going to say that. They are going to say that in good faith, and they are going to marshal evidence for their point of view. I have watched them both. Both of them are going to be retiring, and, frankly, though I do not always agree with one of them and I never agree with the other one, both of them have made the Senate a much better place. So I am not arguing that there is not a place for honest, intellectual disagreement. From my point of view, it is good public policy. There is no reason in the world that these companies should be able to engage in this kind of egregious behavior. It is a big scam. There is no reason in the world that other businesses and other people should end up having to pay more taxes, and there is certainly no reason in the world that the vast majority of U.S. companies, that play by the rules of the game, stay in our country and do not engage in this kind of tax avoidance, should be at any kind of disadvantage. I am glad the Senate has passed this amendment. I cannot overstate its importance. This is part of maybe the new look in the Senate. The Sarbanes bill was a powerful step forward. It took some jarring events to get that bill out of committee, but all of a sudden people started realizing we have to deal with some of these scandals, we have to deal with some of these abuses. We are going to have a pension bill on the floor soon. That is going to be part of this. I am really glad the Senate has now passed this amendment because I think this is all about dealing with these kinds of corporate abuses. This is all about corporate accountability, and this is all about reform. I am very proud of the fact the Senate has accepted the amendment, and I thank my colleagues for doing so. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Johnson and Senator Harkin as original cosponsors. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could have 2 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take just 2 minutes, and I know the Senator from Tennessee will speak. I assume I have a little bit of time. The fact is, this will become law. It will be in this bill. It will stay in this bill. The House passed a similar provision. I will say a couple things to my colleague from Texas. I appreciate what he said, although I think a lot of it did not describe this amendment. This is not about buy America, or about business moving. It is basically about going after tax cheats. It is about people paying their fair share of taxes. Frankly, as long as we are going to talk about freedom--

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No, I would say to my colleague--I appreciate it and I will finish up--I know I will not change his opinion. I am well aware of that. I will just tell you the Senate Finance Committee did a pretty thorough investigation of this, and we know very well that these companies have engaged in what I think is blatant tax avoidance. We know they set up these sham companies that don't have personnel there or they do not do any business there. We know they avoid paying taxes, including actually transferring some of the money they made in this country to avoid taxes. It is Enron-like schemes. You talked about freedom. I am free, as a United States Senator, to introduce a piece of legislation that says we go after these tax cheats and they should pay their fair share of taxes. I am free, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota, to represent the people of my State and do so, and that is what I have done and this amendment passed and that is a fact. Frankly, when my colleague says: Well, the only reason it passed is because it is just a popular thing to do, so Senators really would not have voted against it, that is quite an indictment of the Senate. I would have thought if the majority of Senators believed this was bad public policy, they would have been out here to oppose it--or at least some of them would have. I have to believe the majority believed it was good public policy. Otherwise I don't think it would have passed. I don't assume Senators are afraid to come and debate and are afraid to express their viewpoint and are afraid to oppose a policy if they don't think it is a good public policy. If that is the case, it is a sad commentary. As my colleague knows, I would have been pleased to debate anybody because I think this is absolutely the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is very gracious of the Senator from Connecticut. I just wanted to say again that I appreciate the remarks of both of my colleagues. I did want to address one point that was made by my colleague from Texas, which is to say this won't become law when almost the identical provision was passed in the House and the Senate has agreed to it. I believe the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is committed to it. I believe there are many people in the House who are as well. I will tell you one other thing. The public is committed to this as well. There are going to be a lot of people looking at the conference committee. The only time I get feisty is when there is an implication: Oh, well, you know we don't want to go on record because we are afraid to oppose it, which I think is unfair implication. I think it is bad public policy. They come out here and say: We will just knock it out in the conference committee; never mind that the vast majority of people think, of course, this is about tax avoidance; of course, we know what we are doing. Don't worry about that because it will be business as usual. We will just go to the conference committee and knock it out. I want to say to my colleagues that I believe there are many Senators and representatives in that conference committee who will make sure that doesn't happen. I sure will be monitoring this. It will become law. It is not going away. We will not be back to the business of helping these corporations with all their egregious behavior and thinking they can get away with it. It doesn't work that way any longer. It is a new world. People do not stand for that kind of egregious behavior. That is the standard of ordinary citizens and good public policy.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes, without losing my place in the debate, as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to a very simple amendment I introduced. I say to my colleagues, this actually was passed in the House in the homeland defense bill. It certainly is relevant that we bar the Secretary of Homeland Security from entering into contracts with U.S. companies that give up U.S. citizenship to avoid U.S. taxes. I need to really summarize this amendment again. This is a very simple amendment that would bar the Secretary of Homeland Security from entering into contracts with U.S. companies that give up U.S. citizenship to avoid U.S. taxes. To about 99.9 percent of people in Minnesota and probably to about 99.9 percent of the people in the country, this is a very reasonable proposition. My colleagues might remember that I had an amendment like this to the Defense appropriations bill which passed here by unanimous vote. Before I get into the specifics of my amendment, let me make a quick comment about the relevancy of the amendment. I gather there is an agreement among the majority leader and the minority leader to move all nonrelevant amendments. That agreement won't affect this amendment because it was drafted to be relevant. It deals with government contracts. It deals with the Department of Homeland Security. The underlying House bill, as I just mentioned, has a similar provision. So the substance of my amendment is fully relevant to this bill. This is the appropriate place to have this debate, as we debate the question of whether we will have a Department of Homeland Security. Former U.S. companies that have renounced their citizenship currently hold at least $2 billion worth of contracts with the Federal Government. I don't think companies that aren't willing to pay their fair share of taxes should be able to hold those contracts. U.S. companies that play by the rules, that pay their fair share of taxes, should not be forced to compete with bad actors who can undercut their bids because of the tax loophole. I had a debate on a similar provision on ``Nightline.'' I said that the vast majority of companies in Minnesota and around the country, if they had the lawyers and the accountants, wouldn't do this because they wouldn't believe it was the right thing to do, or many of the smaller businesses in my State and all around the country don't have the lawyers and the accountants to really get such a loophole. In the last couple of years, a number of prominent U.S. corporations, using creative paperwork, have transformed themselves into Bermuda corporations in order to avoid paying their share of U.S. taxes. These new Bermuda companies are basically shell corporations. They have no staff, no offices, no business activity in Bermuda. This exists for the sole purpose of shielding income from the IRS. That is what this is about. By the way, I am talking about shielding not just profits made abroad but profits made in our country that are just shifted. There is a lot of cooking of the books that goes on. Does that sound familiar to any Senator? U.S. tax law contains many provisions designed to expose such creative accounting and to require U.S. companies that are foreign in name only to pay the same taxes as other domestic corporations. But these bad corporate former citizens exploit a specific loophole in current law so that the country is treated as foreign for tax purposes and, therefore, pays no U.S. taxes on its foreign income--or, for that matter, on all-too-often a good part of its U.S. income. Additionally, these companies can use accounting tricks, as documented by the Senate Finance Committee in their investigations of this issue, to reduce their U.S. income on paper and their U.S. tax on even their U.S. income. By the way, I thank staff on the Senate Finance Committee, majority and minority, for their help in working on this amendment. We have tried to do this in the right way. I will repeat this point. They use these accounting tricks, which have been documented by our Finance Committee, to reduce their U.S. income on paper and reduce U.S. tax even on U.S. income. These are Enron-like schemes involving sham loans and other ``Imclone'' transfers that allow these companies to reduce taxes on a U.S. company, including income from Government contracts. This is called earnings stripping. I have spent the last 2 weeks, or thereabouts, at the Minnesota State Fair. About half the State's population comes. It is quite a happening. It is the essence of grassroots democracy. I will tell you one thing, people are really indignant about a lot of these inside corporate scandals. Some Senators may say: Paul, you are just jumping on the issue. Well, I don't know; this has been my work for years. I will tell you this. Between having some of your savings and putting it in stock and seeing it erode in value, or your savings in a 401(k) eroding, or CEOs telling them they had an independent audit done and everything was great, to invest more of their 401(k), at the same time he dumped his stock and made $230 million in profit--people are tired of this behavior. This is all about corporate accountability. That is what this amendment is all about. What I am saying is that these companies are not paying their fair share. If they want to renounce their citizenship so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes, fine, but don't expect to get Government contracts. Now, the loophole that we want to get rid of gives tens of millions of dollars of tax breaks to major multinational companies, and these are tax cheats. It also puts other companies that are unwilling or unable to use this loophole at a competitive disadvantage. No Minnesota company, or no American company, should be penalized for staying put in our country while others that renounce their U.S. citizenship get a tax break. This is a simple proposition. No company that does the right thing and stays in our country should be penalized for staying put while others renounce their U.S. citizenship just to get a tax break, to not pay their fair share of taxes. The problem is that when these companies don't pay their fair share, the rest of American taxpayers and businesses are stuck with the bill. I think I can safely say that very few of the small businesses I have visited in Detroit Lakes, or Mankato, or Duluth, or Minneapolis, or Northfield, or Faribault, or on the Iron Range, can avail themselves of the Bermuda Triangle. As a matter of fact, they would not view it as a very patriotic thing to do. They cannot afford the big-name tax lawyers and accountants to show them how to do their books Enron style, but they probably would not do it anyway if it meant renouncing their citizenship. So the price they pay for their good citizenship, good corporate citizenship, their good business citizenship, is a higher tax bill. Now, the House passed an amendment similar to this amendment on their homeland security bill. My amendment uses a different mechanism than the House bill to get at the same bad behavior. I have worked with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to conform this amendment with their bill that would close the tax loophole. That is what I ultimately want to do. Here is how my amendment would work. If a U.S. company reincorporated in a foreign country and 50 percent or more of the shareholders of the new foreign corporation were the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company, then that company would be barred from contracting with any homeland security agency if the company did not have substantial business activity in its foreign home. It is that simple. That is a perfect operational definition of a sham operation. In other words, this is a two-part test, and if a company met both tests, it would be barred from contracting with the Department of Homeland Security. First test: Are a majority of the shareholders of the new company the same as the shareholders of the old U.S. company? This test is designed to separate the true purchase of two real companies, which is fine, from a sham transaction done just for tax purposes when the owners change only the home country. Second test: Does the new foreign company have substantial business activity in its new foreign home? If it doesn't, then the new foreign parent company is really just a paper shell designed to take advantage of a tax loophole. A lot of this is self-explanatory. I am not a lawyer, and some of the technical material is hard for me, but this is not too difficult to figure out. This is contained in the Grassley-Baucus tax bill. I believe Congress will close this tax loophole this year. There is growing support for doing so in the House. I have introduced legislation to close 24 loophole, and the Senate Finance Committee has reported a version of this legislation, which I strongly support, that would do so as well. It is not appropriate for the Senate to close the tax loophole on this bill--this is not a tax bill--but it is appropriate for us to say that if a U.S. company wants to bid for a contract for U.S. homeland security work, then it should not renounce its U.S. citizenship for a tax break. We all make sacrifices in a time of war. The only sacrifice this amendment asks of Federal contractors is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else. Mr. President, when I was talking about a Mr. Denis Kozlowski, the reason I mentioned it, this was about Tyco Company, which has taken advantage of this scheme. It is highly lucrative for these corporations. Tyco International saved $400 million last year by chartering its space in Bermuda--$400 million. About a month ago, we learned that those savings may have helped the company buy the CEO a $19 million home in Boca Raton and a $6,000 shower curtain for his place in Manhattan. That was in the Wall Street Journal. Here is Tyco International which saves $400 million, and the CEO gets a lot of help to buy a home and also uses $6,000 to purchase a shower curtain for his place in Manhattan. Was the company using some of the money that they received in Government contracts--$220 million--to pay for that home and apparently a very nice shower curtain? Should we feel sorry for these corporations that have to scrape and pinch to find some tax savings? This is a corporate responsibility issue. I think in the House of Representatives, altogether, there were over 300 votes for a very similar amendment. I know some of my colleagues have an honest-to-goodness philosophical objection to this approach, and I understand that and respect them for it. On this one, maybe it is the populist in me, but to me this is a straightforward proposition. If these companies want to engage in this kind of sham or scam, they want to renounce their citizenship, they are not going to get U.S. contracts from this new homeland defense agency. That is what this amendment says. I will wait for other colleagues to speak. I will say to my colleague from Tennessee that I have been willing to accommodate anybody's schedule--if people want to put off the debate for a while and vote tomorrow, or whatever he wants to do. I wanted to begin and get the discussion going on the amendment, whatever fits in with the schedule, obviously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid and Senator Baucus be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Denk, a fellow on the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of the homeland security bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know others want to speak. I think I speak for the Presiding Officer, given what he has seen in South Dakota. Senator Daschle also talked about the drought. Let me make this appeal to my colleagues. In northwestern Minnesota, there are 17 counties that have been declared Federal disasters. In our case, it is the flooding. I cannot remember more emotional gatherings I have ever been to since I have been in the Senate. We have had a lot of this kind of flooding, and I have been in towns devastated by tornadoes. I make this appeal to my colleagues. Never in the years I have been a Senator--and I will be finishing up my 12th year--have I voted against disaster assistance for any community anywhere in the United States of America, whether it is tornadoes, hurricanes, fire, drought, or whether it is flooding. I believe this is a perfect example of there but for the grace of God go I. The devastation to so much rich farmland in Minnesota and to those farmers and these communities is not because people have been bad managers. Nobody asked for this. As Senator Daschle said, we are not talking about countercyclical income for low prices; we are talking about disaster relief. So I will say to every Senator, Democrat and Republican, we hope we will have your support. This is what we do as a community. This is what we do as a national community. We provide help to people. I know the President has said no to this. I wish he would take another position. But I really believe Senators understand full well that this kind of disaster can happen to any community in any one of our States, and I think this is a time when we really should come together, a time when we become a community to help communities. I am so pleased that this amendment is on the floor. I know we are soon going to go back to the homeland defense bill, but tomorrow we will be back on this amendment. Tomorrow, there will be an up-or-down vote. Tomorrow, I hope Senators will vote for this. Right now, for me, as a Senator from Minnesota, it is a priority to get help to these people. A lot of farmers and a lot of people in northwestern Minnesota really need the help. Please provide that help.