Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 351

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters of support for the Harkin-Wellstone amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I really would like to hear Senator Domenici for a while.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act.'' It is a companion bill to H.R. 936, introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Evans. I am pleased to have the support of the following original cosponsors: Senators Murray, Dayton, Stabenow, Dorgan, Kennedy, Durbin, Landrieu, Daschle, Reid, and Johnson. The legislation is named to recognize and honor the outstanding contributions of Heather French Henry, Miss America 2000. She has helped lead the struggle to end homelessness affecting more than 300,000 of our nation's veterans. For more than a year, she has given her time, talents and energy to call on Americans to do more to free those who have served our country from homelessness. She has traveled from coast-to-coast with the message that we as a nation are duty-bound to assist homeless veterans again to become productive and contributing members of society. I recently met Ms. French Henry. I appreciate her work, as well as her support for this bill. She has called it, ``a comprehensive package of proposals that will lead to ending homelessness among our nation's veterans so that they can once again be proud citizens.'' The bill establishes a national goal of ending homelessness among veterans within a decade. We can and must meet this goal, but achieving it will not be easy. According to the ``Independent Budget'' for Fiscal Year 2002, more than 275,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. The Independent Budget is a highly regarded analysis issued by four respected veterans organizations, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. The Independent Budget also found that, ``one out of three homeless males . . . sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served our nation.'' Finally, it stressed that two-thirds of homeless veterans served our nation for at least three years. The vast majority of homeless veterans fully honored their oath to defend and protect the United States. Unfortunately, we haven't fully honored our obligation to rescue them from the degradation and privations of life on the streets. The causes of homelessness are complex. But the primary reason so many veterans are homeless is simple. We have not done enough. Since 1987, the VA has run some worthwhile and effective programs for homeless veterans, but they are too few, and they are too poorly funded. In FY 2000, the VA spent about $150 million for homeless programs, just $1.31 per homeless veteran per day. According to the Independent Budget, federal funding for homeless veterans serves just one in 10 of those in need. The VA has reported that there were about 345,000 homeless veterans during 1999. That is 34 percent higher than in 1998, a national scandal during a time of prosperity. If we fail to pass this bill, imagine how many more homeless veterans will be sleeping in doorways, in boxes and on grates in the cold? Who will care for these veterans if we have a prolonged economic downturn? Three ideas should be kept in mind regarding the bill. First, it does not give homeless veterans a handout. It gives them a hand-up, a hand- up they need to help restore dignity and self-worth. Second, ending veterans homelessness is first and foremost a moral issue. What kind of nation can fail to use the full arsenal of programs and tools available to end pain and suffering among men and women who have served so much and so well? Finally, homelessness among veterans is often tied to those veterans' military service. It is frequently no less service- connected than the loss of limb in battle. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, can afflict any combat veteran. It not only can cause severe mental health problems, but is also linked to job loss, family breakdown, substance abuse and, of course, homelessness. The VA can't solve the problem of homelessness among veterans by itself. That is why the bill creates a coordinated and cooperative effort among the VA and other federal, state and local agencies, as well as by community-based organizations. The legislation includes both proven programs and innovations. It expands programs that have superior track records in assisting homeless veterans. It will increase to $50 million the annual authorization for the Department of Labor's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (HVRP). HVRP funds state or local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, which run highly effective job training and placement programs. It is an exceptional program that has gone under-funded for years. In FY 1999, HVRP placed almost 2,200 homeless veterans in jobs, with an average cost per placement of only about $1,300. Mental health professionals agree that placement in the community can work, but only with careful monitoring and support of vulnerable populations. The bill therefore also creates incentives for VA to make such services, Mental Health Community Management programs, more widely available. Supportive, therapeutic housing is an essential component of a homeless veteran's recovery from substance abuse. ``Safe havens'' provide an environment that facilitates the transition from homelessness. Under the bill, many more veterans could receive intensive medical and psychological treatment, as well as rehabilitation, in such residential settings. More VA Comprehensive Homeless Centers must be made available in the country's major metropolitan areas. These unique centers provide a continuum of care that includes outreach, medical care, compensated work therapy, job counseling and other social services. Homeless veterans not only can gain access to VA services, but also to services provided by other federal agencies, state and local government entities, and community-based organizations. The centers provide badly needed ``one-stop shopping'' for services to homeless veterans. The legislation will increase availability of residential treatment facilities by requiring the VA to develop new domiciliary programs in the 10 largest metropolitan areas without existing programs. At the same time, it will remove the cap on VA Comprehensive Homeless Centers. Today there are only eight, and the bill will require that centers be available in no fewer than 20 metropolitan areas. Veterans in Washington, D.C., for example, currently have neither a VA domiciliary nor a Comprehensive Homeless Center. Both such facilities are needed here in the Nation's Capital. Community-based organizations play a pivotal role in addressing veterans' homelessness. The bill authorizes additional funding for their work through the VA's Homeless Grant and Per Diem Providers program. That program provides critical support to community-based organizations who furnish transitional services to homeless veterans through grants that supplement local, state and private funding. The bill also requires that the VA provide mental health services wherever it provides primary care. Approximately 45 percent of homeless veterans suffer from mental illness. More than 70 percent suffer from alcohol or other substance abuse problems. It is vital that VA expand access to mental health services. Finally, the bill seeks to help some of the most vulnerable homeless veterans and those most at risk of homelessness. Under the bill, VA and community-based providers will be eligible for a new grant program that addresses the special needs of homeless veterans who are women, substance abusers, 50 years of age or older, persons with PTSD, terminally ill, chronically mentally ill or who have dependents. It will require VA to coordinate a multi-agency outreach plan and a program for veterans at risk of homelessness, particularly veterans being discharged from institutions. This includes people discharged from inpatient psychiatric care, substance abuse treatment programs and penal institutions. It is a familiar principle among veterans of our armed forces not to ``leave our wounded behind.'' Yet, homeless veterans are in a sense our wounded, and we are leaving them behind. It is past time to end this neglect. The bill is supported by the country's major veterans organizations. It is endorsed by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and its hundreds of affiliated organizations throughout the country who daily furnish essential services to homeless veterans. I ask consent that letters of support from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in support of Mr. Smith's amendment to increase funding in the Resolution by $28 billion over fiscal year 2002 through 2004 for the purpose of expanding health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Yesterday's New York Times reported that the President's proposed budget, details of which we will not see until next week, will suggest cuts of nearly 90 percent to programs that increase access to health care for the uninsured. That obviously is moving in exactly the wrong direction. I oppose the administration's reported plan to ``phase out'' the Community Access Program. The program seeks to reduce the number of uninsured through integrated, comprehensive health care delivery systems. I also am troubled that the Administration seems to undervalue one of the most important components of any health care safety net-- quality care. We need to continue to train health professionals to ensure that every patient receives the quality care he or she deserves. Moreover, we need to make sure we have enough health professionals in every part of this country so that no one is denied access to care because of where they live. According to New York Times, however, the White House position is that there is ``an oversupply of doctors.'' The truth is there are great disparities in the distribution of health professionals in this country. The majority of the country's counties experience shortages in health professionals and are medically underserved areas. I support the Smith amendment. This funding will help. But we need to go further. We need quality care for all, which means universal health care coverage. I intend to introduce the Health Security for All Americans Act following this Easter recess. Every American should have quality health care coverage. Meanwhile, the Administration's proposals to cut the Community Access Program, flat-line funding for the care of people living with AIDS and HIV, and cut into funding for the training of our health professionals take us in the wrong direction. This amendment improves the Resolution.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his amendment. I thank him for his passion for children. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if indeed they support this amendment. To cut funding for a program that would help with prevention of child abuse, to cut funding for child care, little children, to cut funding for training for doctors at some of our children's hospitals where you have some of the sickest children is no way to realize the goal of leaving no child behind. This amendment restores funding. There will be a number of Senators fighting for more funding for investment in children, especially prekindergarten, little children. This is a good amendment. I thank my colleague from Connecticut. I am proud to be a supporter.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 269.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Johnson, Bingaman, Dorgan, Murray, Mikulski, Kerry, Feingold, and Landrieu. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin and Daschle be included as original cosponsors as well as Senator Harry Reid.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the problem with the President's budget request and this budget resolution is it provides a $1 billion increase over fiscal year 2001 for all of the VA discretionary programs. That is no way to say thank you to veterans. Secretary Principi, who is a great Secretary, testified before the veterans committee last month. I believe he will be a great advocate for veterans, but he had a tough time with the following question: How does a $1 billion increase over fiscal year 2001 do the job for America's veterans when we are going to see a $900 million increase this year in medical inflation alone? Then if we get beyond the $900 million and add to that our commitment to treating people with hepatitis C, our commitment to emergency medical services for veterans who have no coverage, our commitment to the millennium program for older veterans, our commitment to mental health services for veterans, we get way above $1 billion. Mr. President, there are huge gaps in the veterans health care system. We can do much better. This amendment would increase the veterans health care budget, contained in this budget resolution, by $1.7 billion annually. The independent budget, which was produced by Amvets, VFW, DAV, the Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans, talked about $2.6 billion. This amendment gets us to that level. Here is the point: $1 billion for all discretionary programs for the Veterans' Administration is pathetic. It doesn't come close to meeting the needs. I am joined by Senator Rockefeller, who is the ranking minority member on the veterans committee. He will be speaking in just 1 minute. The arithmetic is compelling, just on veterans health care: $900 million in inflation, emergency room services for veterans who don't have any coverage, hepatitis C coverage we have committed to, the millennium program, which is so important when we are saying to veterans who are 65 years of age and over, we are going to begin to address your long-term care needs. When I am in the medical center in Minneapolis and I am talking to a spouse of a World War II veteran, and this happens over and over and over again, she doesn't have a clue what she is going to do when her husband gets home. Where is going to be the care for her? Where will be the supportive services for him? Not to mention all the long waits of veterans for health care. The county veterans service officers are the best of the best of the best. They do the work down in the trenches. I get my education from them. Even though they are not within the VA system, they talk about the long waits and the gaps. This amendment is all about living up to our commitment to veterans. We need to provide full funding for veterans health care. This amendment should receive Democratic support and Republican support. The amendment offset by transferring $1.7 billion out of these Robin-Hood- in-reverse tax cuts, of which over 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent. We surely can transfer $1.7 billion to veterans health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object for right now. I want to try to understand a little bit further how we are proceeding.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate this week took a historic step toward fairer elections. I was proud to join a solid majority of my colleagues in voting for the McCain-Feingold bill. However, passage of that bill is not the end of the reform debate, but hopefully merely a beginning. It is clear to me that we need to go still further to reform our elections comprehensively, and for that reason I rise today along with Senators Kerry, Clinton and Cantwell to re-introduce ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation. Debates about campaign finance reform should be debates about who is at the table and how to level the playing field. Looking back at the two weeks of debate on McCain-Feingold from this perspective highlights the importance of and also the severe limitations of the bill. I say importance of the bill, because if you believe that reform of our federal elections is essential for the reasons I believe, restoring the centrality of one person, one vote, then you need to get soft money out of the system since it allows too much political power to flow from too few. I say severe limitations of the bill because even if we ban soft money and sham issue ads, we will still have too much money in American politics. And, the wealthy investors will still have an all too prominent role in our elections. Fundamentally, we need to go beyond legislation that merely seeks to patch a badly broken system. The McCain-Feingold legislation seeks to stop a leak here, and block a loophole there. It does not eliminate private, special interest money flowing to candidates and parties. The Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation that I am reintroducing today will fix this problem--it will reduce the costs of campaigns and provide public funds to eliminate the dependence on wealthy investors entirely. Hence the Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation will truly level the playing field for all candidates and ensure fair elections. Now that the Senate will finally go on record in favor of the modest reform that McCain-Feingold represents, I believe the time is right to begin the fight for fundamental reform: public financing of elections. The Clean Money, Clean Elections bill is the ``gold standard'' of true campaign finance reform, against which any more modest legislation ought to be assessed. The conceptual approach it embodies, replacing special interest money in our current system with clean money, is being adopted by state legislatures and in referenda across the country. In Maine, for example, there was broad participation in the Clean Money, Clean Elections program during the last election with 116 out of 352 general election candidates both Republicans and Democrats participating. In Maine, Arizona and Vermont, Clean Money, Clean Elections reduced the influence of special interest money and provided a level playing field by offering qualified candidates a limited and equal amount of public funds. The earliest indications from Maine's first election under the Clean Elections law do inspire hope. Far more candidates than expected stepped forward to seek Clean Elections financing, and all but one succeeded in qualifying. There comments about the process tell us we are on the right track. Some of their comments are for example: ``Without Clean Elections I couldn't even think about running for office. I just couldn't afford it.'' said Shlomit Auciello, democrat challenger; ``The main reason I did it was that this is what people want.'' Chester Chapman, Republican challenger; ``I spent a lot of kitchen table time explaining the system to people. Once they knew what it was they really liked it. They like that it means no soft money and no PAC money will be used. I want to work for the people of Maine and I don't want to be beholden to anyone else.'' Glenn Cummings, Democrat challenger; ``It will definitely change some things. For one thing I will have about half the amount of money I raised last time but much more time to talk with people which is a good thing.'' Gabrielle Carbonear; and ``We have an obligation to put into practice the system that was approved by voters in 1996. Maine is in the lead in this area. It will only work if it is used, and it is important for incumbents to embrace it. Also, the Clean Election Act is making it easier to recruit candidates to run for office.'' Rick Bennet, Republic incumbent, Assistent Senate Minority Leader and a candidate for reelection. When asked, 60 percent of Americans say they think that reforming the way campaigns are financed should be a high priority on our National agenda. There is no question in my mind that these people are right, reforming the way campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high priority. Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the reality of systemic corruption. And we must act. Here in the Senate, we must push forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform. I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that our budget debates are unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? The budget cuts proposed most deeply affect those who are least well off, while the tax cuts proposed mostly go to the wealthy. That is well-documented. The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most affluent as a group, but numerous very narrow wealthy special interests. Does anyone wonder why we retain massive subsidies and tax expenditures for oil and pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? Are they curious why we promote a health care system dominated by insurance companies? Or why we promote a version of ``free trade'' which disregards the need for fair labor and environmental standards, for democracy and human rights, and for lifting the standard of living of American workers, as well as workers in the countries we trade with? How is it that we pass major legislation that directly promotes the concentration of ownership and power in the telecommunications industry, in the agriculture and food business, and in banking and securities? For the American people, how this happens, I think, is no mystery. I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties and to candidates. We must act to change this. We must act to change this because too many people have lost faith in the system. People are turning away from the political process. They are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, their right to be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because they don't believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that cash. The degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility expressed by the American people when asked about the political process overwhelms me. We must act on comprehensive campaign finance reform. We must act to restore Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew their hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the reform debate forward. As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they despair of making any real changes because they figure special interests have the system permanently rigged. Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful elite controls the levers of government through a political process which rewards big donors, a system in which you have to pay to play. Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so- invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here. Too many Americans see our failures: to alleviate the harsh poverty that characterizes the lives of far too many of our inner-city residents; to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor; to combat homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, rising health care costs, and an unequal system of education. And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and more progressive, fashion and energy policy that relies more on conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big- money politics. In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and fair elections. It is hard to argue plausibly that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, and special interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic process. Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite. Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to participate in the process of government. This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles. Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come with their own price tag attached--greater access and special consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform. Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last Congress. We have tightened and strengthened some of the nuts and bolts of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance reform. Money has always played a role in American politics and campaign spending is not a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the national political parties raised $101.6 million dollars in soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 election cycle that figure was up to $224.4 million dollars in soft money. In the 99-2000 election cycle that figure more than doubled to more than $487.5 million. However, we must not forget that nearly 80 percent of the money spent on elections during the last cycle was hard money. All together, over $2.2 billion in hard money was raised by federal candidates and parties during the 2000 elections, a figure that dwarfs party soft money. Unfortunately, under McCain-Feingold, even more hard money will pour into our elections. Of all the money given to Congressional candidates, almost none represented the millions of Americans who are poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small bank depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries, and hospitals. It is clear who is represented under the current system and who is shut out. During the last election, only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans made a contribution greater than $200. Only 232,000 Americans gave contributions of $1000 or more to federal candidates--one ninth of one percent of the voting age population. By raising the hard money limits in McCain-Feingold, the Senate voted to increase the amount of special interest money in politics and entrench candidates' dependence on a narrow, political, elite made up of wealthy individuals. This was step backward and it makes Clean Money reform all the more necessary. The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does all of these things by offering: The strictest curbs on special- interest money and influence. The ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation bans completely the use of ``soft money'' to influence elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non- electoral ``issue ads,'' provides additional funding to clean money candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and most importantly, allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the clean money system of financing. The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides a substantial amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal candidates, this legislation allows candidates to spend far less than ever before on their campaigns. The most competitive and fair election financing. By providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by non-participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field, regardless of their economic status or access to larger contributors. Right now, the system is wired for incumbents because they are connected to the connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to be attracted to incumbents, becuase that is where the power lies. This bill would allow all citizens to compete equally in the Federal election process. And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by limiting the period of time during which candidates receive their funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and disclosure requirements in Federal campaigns. What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew the system through large campaign contributions. Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed principle of one person, one vote. This week the Senate took an excellent, but limited, step forward. A complete overhaul of the financing of elections is required to fully restore the public confidence in our democracy. I believe the Clean Money approach is what is needed to get the job done.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate this week took a historic step toward fairer elections. I was proud to join a solid majority of my colleagues in voting for the McCain-Feingold bill. However, passage of that bill is not the end of the reform debate, but hopefully merely a beginning. It is clear to me that we need to go still further to reform our elections comprehensively, and for that reason I rise today along with Senators Kerry, Clinton and Cantwell to re-introduce ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation. Debates about campaign finance reform should be debates about who is at the table and how to level the playing field. Looking back at the two weeks of debate on McCain-Feingold from this perspective highlights the importance of and also the severe limitations of the bill. I say importance of the bill, because if you believe that reform of our federal elections is essential for the reasons I believe, restoring the centrality of one person, one vote, then you need to get soft money out of the system since it allows too much political power to flow from too few. I say severe limitations of the bill because even if we ban soft money and sham issue ads, we will still have too much money in American politics. And, the wealthy investors will still have an all too prominent role in our elections. Fundamentally, we need to go beyond legislation that merely seeks to patch a badly broken system. The McCain-Feingold legislation seeks to stop a leak here, and block a loophole there. It does not eliminate private, special interest money flowing to candidates and parties. The Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation that I am reintroducing today will fix this problem--it will reduce the costs of campaigns and provide public funds to eliminate the dependence on wealthy investors entirely. Hence the Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation will truly level the playing field for all candidates and ensure fair elections. Now that the Senate will finally go on record in favor of the modest reform that McCain-Feingold represents, I believe the time is right to begin the fight for fundamental reform: public financing of elections. The Clean Money, Clean Elections bill is the ``gold standard'' of true campaign finance reform, against which any more modest legislation ought to be assessed. The conceptual approach it embodies, replacing special interest money in our current system with clean money, is being adopted by state legislatures and in referenda across the country. In Maine, for example, there was broad participation in the Clean Money, Clean Elections program during the last election with 116 out of 352 general election candidates both Republicans and Democrats participating. In Maine, Arizona and Vermont, Clean Money, Clean Elections reduced the influence of special interest money and provided a level playing field by offering qualified candidates a limited and equal amount of public funds. The earliest indications from Maine's first election under the Clean Elections law do inspire hope. Far more candidates than expected stepped forward to seek Clean Elections financing, and all but one succeeded in qualifying. There comments about the process tell us we are on the right track. Some of their comments are for example: ``Without Clean Elections I couldn't even think about running for office. I just couldn't afford it.'' said Shlomit Auciello, democrat challenger; ``The main reason I did it was that this is what people want.'' Chester Chapman, Republican challenger; ``I spent a lot of kitchen table time explaining the system to people. Once they knew what it was they really liked it. They like that it means no soft money and no PAC money will be used. I want to work for the people of Maine and I don't want to be beholden to anyone else.'' Glenn Cummings, Democrat challenger; ``It will definitely change some things. For one thing I will have about half the amount of money I raised last time but much more time to talk with people which is a good thing.'' Gabrielle Carbonear; and ``We have an obligation to put into practice the system that was approved by voters in 1996. Maine is in the lead in this area. It will only work if it is used, and it is important for incumbents to embrace it. Also, the Clean Election Act is making it easier to recruit candidates to run for office.'' Rick Bennet, Republic incumbent, Assistent Senate Minority Leader and a candidate for reelection. When asked, 60 percent of Americans say they think that reforming the way campaigns are financed should be a high priority on our National agenda. There is no question in my mind that these people are right, reforming the way campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high priority. Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the reality of systemic corruption. And we must act. Here in the Senate, we must push forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform. I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that our budget debates are unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? The budget cuts proposed most deeply affect those who are least well off, while the tax cuts proposed mostly go to the wealthy. That is well-documented. The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most affluent as a group, but numerous very narrow wealthy special interests. Does anyone wonder why we retain massive subsidies and tax expenditures for oil and pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? Are they curious why we promote a health care system dominated by insurance companies? Or why we promote a version of ``free trade'' which disregards the need for fair labor and environmental standards, for democracy and human rights, and for lifting the standard of living of American workers, as well as workers in the countries we trade with? How is it that we pass major legislation that directly promotes the concentration of ownership and power in the telecommunications industry, in the agriculture and food business, and in banking and securities? For the American people, how this happens, I think, is no mystery. I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties and to candidates. We must act to change this. We must act to change this because too many people have lost faith in the system. People are turning away from the political process. They are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, their right to be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because they don't believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that cash. The degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility expressed by the American people when asked about the political process overwhelms me. We must act on comprehensive campaign finance reform. We must act to restore Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew their hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the reform debate forward. As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they despair of making any real changes because they figure special interests have the system permanently rigged. Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful elite controls the levers of government through a political process which rewards big donors, a system in which you have to pay to play. Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so- invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here. Too many Americans see our failures: to alleviate the harsh poverty that characterizes the lives of far too many of our inner-city residents; to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor; to combat homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, rising health care costs, and an unequal system of education. And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and more progressive, fashion and energy policy that relies more on conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big- money politics. In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and fair elections. It is hard to argue plausibly that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, and special interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic process. Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite. Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to participate in the process of government. This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles. Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come with their own price tag attached--greater access and special consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform. Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last Congress. We have tightened and strengthened some of the nuts and bolts of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance reform. Money has always played a role in American politics and campaign spending is not a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the national political parties raised $101.6 million dollars in soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 election cycle that figure was up to $224.4 million dollars in soft money. In the 99-2000 election cycle that figure more than doubled to more than $487.5 million. However, we must not forget that nearly 80 percent of the money spent on elections during the last cycle was hard money. All together, over $2.2 billion in hard money was raised by federal candidates and parties during the 2000 elections, a figure that dwarfs party soft money. Unfortunately, under McCain-Feingold, even more hard money will pour into our elections. Of all the money given to Congressional candidates, almost none represented the millions of Americans who are poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small bank depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries, and hospitals. It is clear who is represented under the current system and who is shut out. During the last election, only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans made a contribution greater than $200. Only 232,000 Americans gave contributions of $1000 or more to federal candidates--one ninth of one percent of the voting age population. By raising the hard money limits in McCain-Feingold, the Senate voted to increase the amount of special interest money in politics and entrench candidates' dependence on a narrow, political, elite made up of wealthy individuals. This was step backward and it makes Clean Money reform all the more necessary. The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does all of these things by offering: The strictest curbs on special- interest money and influence. The ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation bans completely the use of ``soft money'' to influence elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non- electoral ``issue ads,'' provides additional funding to clean money candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and most importantly, allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the clean money system of financing. The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides a substantial amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal candidates, this legislation allows candidates to spend far less than ever before on their campaigns. The most competitive and fair election financing. By providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by non-participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field, regardless of their economic status or access to larger contributors. Right now, the system is wired for incumbents because they are connected to the connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to be attracted to incumbents, becuase that is where the power lies. This bill would allow all citizens to compete equally in the Federal election process. And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by limiting the period of time during which candidates receive their funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and disclosure requirements in Federal campaigns. What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew the system through large campaign contributions. Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed principle of one person, one vote. This week the Senate took an excellent, but limited, step forward. A complete overhaul of the financing of elections is required to fully restore the public confidence in our democracy. I believe the Clean Money approach is what is needed to get the job done.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator Johnson's amendment. This amendment includes $9 billion for emergency farm assistance in Fiscal Year 2001, and $88 billion in additional agricultural assistance above the Congressional Budget Office baseline over Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011. Of this amount $58 billion is provided over Fiscal Year 2003-2007, which will likely be the first five years of a new Farm Bill, and also the period when the need for additional assistance will be greatest. Additionally this increase includes a minimum of $9.4 billion for farm conservation programs. This is approximately a 50 percent increase over baseline funding for current conservation spending. First, this amendment includes $9 billion in emergency economic assistance for this crop year. This is the second year we have been forced to include emergency farm assistance in the budget resolution. The reason is failed federal farm policy. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Bill, which I call the Freedom to Fail Bill, promised to bring the ``free market'' to agriculture, by reducing government assistance to producers over the life of the legislation. Unfortunately that legislation has failed to provide an adequate safety net during years of low commodity prices and weather related disasters. Over the last three years Congress has spent over $25 billion in emergency payments. The very largest farming operations have received a majority of these payments, while smaller family farms actually received less under Freedom to Farm. Freedom to Farm did not get the Government out of agriculture, but it sure has been successful in getting family farmers out of agriculture. Unfortunately, economic forecasts for agriculture remain bleak for the 2001 growing season. According to USDA, net farm income is forecast to decline approx 20 percent again this year, in the absence of additional assistance. While commodity prices continue to be depressed, input costs, most notably fuel and fertilizer, are skyrocketing. It is my hope that we will not squander the opportunity this amendment presents, as Congress did last year, to deal with the current price crisis, and write a new farm bill that works for family farmers, rural communities and the environment. In order to ensure that family farmers remain a part of this country's landscape, a new farm bill must be enacted this year. We simply cannot wait until re-authorization in 2002 for Congress to act. Congress should act now to address the impact of plummeting farm incomes and the ripple effect it is having throughout rural communities and their economic base. We must develop a farm bill which will address the immediate price crisis situation, we need a bill that provides a reliable targeted, counter-cyclical safety net to family farmers. For my part, I believe lifting the loan rate would provide relief to farmers who need it and increase stability over the long term. Additionally I believe we must also make a strong commitment to rural development initiatives this year. We must focus on ways to bring the economic boom of the last decade to rural communities who have been left behind. Finally a new farm bill must work for the environment. We must work to include conservation incentives to reward farmers who carry out conservation measures on their land. This amendment is about priorities. The Senate will go on record. Do we favor a large tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers, and fails to address the key priorities of the nation? Or do we provide a level of funding adequate for Congress to write a new Farm Bill this year that meets the needs of farmers and ensures the future of our rural communities. If we cherish the values of family farming and rural communities, we must pass the Johnson amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy. I appreciate it. The Senator from Iowa has laid out some figures. I am going to try to do this a different way. This is called the leave-no-child-behind amendment. I had a chance to visit with some students from St. Cloud, MN. Right now there are not many Senators in the Chamber, so we are just laying out the amendment. There will be plenty of debate about this because there comes a point in time where you have to back up your words with the resources. I say to the Senator from Iowa, I am very proud to introduce this amendment with him and to be a chief cosponsor of this amendment. For me, this is what this debate is all about. This is a values question. I have said it on the floor before, and I am going to say it one more time. When the Senator from Iowa talked about Head Start, making sure that children are kindergarten ready, he made the point that kids who are kindergarten ready are less likely to be behind and less likely to fall behind in school and are also less likely to get in trouble. I enjoy saying this. The truth is we should help these little kids-- not just because if we help them when they are little, they are more likely to do well in school or less likely to be in trouble or more likely to go on to college--we should help these little kids at the Head Start level because they are all under 4 feet tall and they are all beautiful and we should be nice to them. Nothing else needs to be said. My God, what are we going to do? Are we going to put our resources into Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts? Paul Krugman had a piece today in the New York Times where he said, actually, when you figure this out, over 50 percent of these tax cut benefits are going to go to the top 1 percent of the population. Senators, do you want to vote for a tax cut heavily weighted to the top 1 percent of the population or do you want to vote for this amendment which really is about making sure we leave no child behind? What do we do? We are talking about $200 billion that goes to debt reduction and $250 billion that goes to education, as we look over the next 10 years, which means what? It means we get to the point of fully funding the IDEA program for kids with special needs. At every school I visit in Minnesota, everybody I meet tells me: Listen, if you would just provide the funding for the IDEA program, it would help us out so much in our own finances. I offered an amendment with Senator Harkin last year to fully fund the IDEA program. We got 40 votes. Now is the time to step up to the plate. Make sure the kids are kindergarten ready, fully fund the Head Start Program--although, I say to my colleagues, really in the best of all worlds I would like for us to consider not just the 3- and 4-year- olds; I would like for us to consider the 1-year-olds and the 2-year- olds and the Early Head Start Program. We are talking about afterschool programs. We are talking about teacher training. We are talking about how to recruit the best people into teaching. We are talking about how to make sure higher education is more affordable. We are talking about dramatically expanding the funding for the Pell Grant Program. Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, I think in this budget debate this is going to be the litmus test vote. I said it before. I will say it again on the floor. When President Bush, in his inaugural speech, talked about leaving no child behind, I was moved. This is my passion: children, young people, education. I thought those were beautiful words. The fact is, look at these tax cuts. Let me repeat this one more time. One-third of the children in America live in homes that do not get one penny from these tax cuts; one-half of African American children live in homes that do not get one cent from these tax cuts; and 57 percent of Hispanic children live in homes that will not receive one cent from these tax cuts. When are we going to make the investment in education? In children? When are we going to make sure we live up to our words? I am looking at this budget in a broad outline. Next week we are going to see the specifics. When we see the specifics, let me tell you people in Minnesota and people around the country are going to hold all of us accountable. We already know this much. We now know that there are going to be cuts--cuts in child care programs, the CCDBG program, when only 12 percent of low-income families, much less middle-income families, can afford child care and get any assistance. There are going to be cuts in programs for prevention of child abuse. There are going to be cuts in the training for doctors in our children's hospitals where there are some of the most sick and vulnerable children. I ask you, President of the United States of America, President Bush: How do you realize the goal of leaving no child behind when you cut these programs? You cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin-cup education budget: $23 billion versus $250 billion that Senator Harkin and I have brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to make another point because I think this is the vote. This is the vote when it comes to what our priorities are. As we do the speaking on the floor of the Senate, as we do the talking, there are entirely too many children who are not able to get the help they need when they are little and they come to kindergarten way behind. There are many college students I meet in Minnesota who are struggling. Many of them are at the community colleges. Many of them are in their forties and fifties. They have gone back to school. Many of them are women. They have children. They have jobs, and they are going to school. Do you want to know something? We are not going to be expanding the Pell Grant Program anywhere near enough to make sure they can get higher education. That is the best bang for the buck. But instead we are giving tax cuts to the top 1 percent of the population. As we speak on the floor of the Senate, and as we debate this amendment, there are entirely too many teachers who are working under really difficult circumstances who do not have up-to-date textbooks, do not have the technology we need, are underpaid; and without the resources, many men and women aren't going into teaching any longer. When are we going to get real? I like this amendment because this leave-no-child-behind amendment defines education, not K through 12, but prekindergarten all the way through age 65. Right now, the report on most of the kids who are in child care is that it is inadequate and too dangerous. We are talking about a real investment here. We have had all of these studies, all of these books, and all of these conferences about the development of the brain. When are we going to get serious about investing in early childhood development? The taconite workers on the iron range, and a whole lot of other people from farm country in Minnesota where we have a price crisis, and family farmers who don't get a decent price--many of them are being driven off their farms. Many of them will have to go back to work. Many of them will not go back to work but are going to have to go back to school. Many of them are going to go to our community colleges. Where is the Pell grant assistance? Can't we expand the Pell Grant Program? Can't we expand the Head Start Program? Can't we make the commitment to school modernization? Can't we try to reduce class size? Can't we do better for teacher training? Any day of the year, I say to my good friend, including the Senator from New Mexico, I want to say to people in Minnesota in any coffee shop anywhere, that I would far prefer to put much more money into children and education--the IDEA program, title I, the afterschool program, Head Start--than Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts where everyone here knows that the vast percentage of the benefits go to the very top 1 percent, the wealthiest and highest income citizens. This is all a matter of priorities and values. It is time to step up to the plate, and it is time to cast a vote. This amendment Senator Harkin has brought to the floor and on which other Senators will be speaking--and if I had to be a primary cosponsor of one amendment in this budget debate, this would be the amendment. Basically, it says it is time to get beyond symbolic politics, it is time to get beyond the speeches, and if we say that we all love the children, and we are all for education, and young people are our future, then we ought to be making the investment in their skills, in their intellect, and in their health and character. That is what this leave-no-child-behind amendment is all about. With all due respect, one more time, you cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin-cup budget. Our amendment which calls for an investment of $250 billion is one-third of what goes in these tax cuts to the top 1 percent of the population. Our amendment, which calls for a dramatic investment in the health, skills, character, and education of children--of young people, and, for that matter, older people--who are going back to school, is one-third of the tax cuts of the Bush plan that go to the top 1 percent of the population. In the President's plan, it is $23 billion. In this plan, it is $250 billion. I say on the floor of the Senate directly to the people of Minnesota that I am up for reelection, and to me this is what the election is all about. This is what the election is all about. I am for tax cuts that leave some standard of tax fairness. I am for making sure that working people and that low- and moderate-income people get some assistance and benefits. I am for making sure they get that. They will spend it, and it will serve as an economic stimulus. Lots of families will also benefit if you make the tax cut refundable. But I also believe that far more important than Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with most all of them going to the top 1 percent of the population, would be to make this investment in children and make this investment in education. It is a question of priorities. I come down on the side of education. I come down on the side of children. I come down on the side of hard- working people who are going back to school and trying to rebuild their lives. I come down on the side of taconite workers on the iron range. I come down on the side of family farmers. I come down on the side of ordinary people. I come down on the side of people who believe that education is the foundation of opportunity in America. I come down on the side of this amendment. We should get 100 votes. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Did the Senator describe the title I program? Did he talk about what title I was? I know he talked about IDEA.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator pointed out that right now that program is funded about 30 percent. That is about it. Is that correct? He talked about Head Start, but he is also talking about kids who are economically disadvantaged getting that additional help for reading or afterschool through the title I program. We find that it is funded at about a 30-percent level, but now we are going to double it with this proposal. Is that right?

Mr. WELLSTONE. In many of our schools in the State of Minnesota--St. Paul, for example--where 65 percent or less of the kids in the free and reduced priced lunch program, do not get a cent from Title I. The state runs out of money. Again, whether it is about poor children or kids with special needs, or reducing class size, this is the vote in terms of our values.