Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for one other question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. There was one comment the Senator made that I think is critically important. I want to make sure I understand it well and that people understand it. When we marked up the bill dealing with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the HELP Committee, I think all of us went on record saying we were absolutely committed to accountability and holding students to really high standards. But the Democrats on the committee, did we not also say that we have to make sure the students, the children, and the teachers of the schools have the tools; in other words, that we make the investment so that they will have, indeed, the same chance to achieve and do well on these tests? Don't the two go together?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment includes provisions that I believe, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee's Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, are an essential part of fulfilling promises we have made to the American people. As part of changes we made to the welfare laws, we said to families who were on welfare that if they went out to look for a job, we'd make funds available for training and counseling to help them reach that goal. We have said to workers who have lost their jobs through economic dislocation and down turns that we would make funds available for training and counseling to help them find a new job or start a new career. We have said to the young people in our communities that we'll make funding available to help them reach their full potential and become productive members of their communities. This was our promise, training, counseling, and other services to help families move out of poverty, move off of welfare and into good paying jobs. And we funded that promise, last year in the amount of $6.1 billion. Now, however, although it is somewhat difficult to tell because we have not seen the President's budget, it appears that this Administration wants to cut these funds by nearly $1 billion. That is totally unacceptable. We need an increase in funding for these important workforce training programs--not a decrease. We need to fully fund our promise to working families. We need to tell the working men and women of this country, and the young people seeking to better their lives, that we believe in them, that we will support them. That's what this amendment does. It fully funds our promise to the working families of this country. In particular, it 1. restores the nearly $1 billion that we believe may be cut from workforce training programs in this resolution and in the President's proposed budget, and 2. adds an additional $900 million a year for ten years to fund adult, youth, and dislocated worker training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. These Workforce Investment Act programs that we're trying to protect, and expand funding for, make a huge difference in people's lives. Let me give you just a few examples. Judy Lundquist from the Minnesota Workforce Center in Grand Rapids shared this story with me: For less than $1,000 we were able to train Bridget as a Nursing Assistant, she had been a seasonal cabin cleaner earning less than $2,000 a year, living in housing without electricity or running water. Her husband had injured himself while working for an employer that did not carry worker's compensation and was unable to work in the logging industry as he had been prior to his injury. On the day she passed her Nursing Assistant Certification Test she obtained full-time work. I saw her just before Christmas at Wal-Mart with a shopping cart full of low cost Christmas Presents. They have moved to housing that is more appropriate and actually has running water. Once they moved and were able to afford a telephone, Bridget's husband was also able to find appropriate work.. We have more than recovered the cost of her training in taxes on her earnings. We also trained someone to help fill the urgent need in our community for qualified Nursing Assistants. And from Hennepin County's Training and Employment Assistance office comes this account: Timothy, a 41 year old unemployed factory worker, applied for WIA services hoping to obtain any type of work quickly. He had left his assembly job after ten years because he was very discouraged about continuing this type of work. Timothy had been unemployed for four months and was despondent about his situation. Through WIA counseling and assessment, it was determined that Timothy had skills and aptitudes for a new career. Timothy had obtained a degree in Divinity 17 years earlier, but had never attained a position related to this degree. He had, however, been active as a church member in many service activities. Timothy established a job goal of human service counselor. His WIA counselor assisted him in revising his resume and conducting a job search using the career resource room, job opening information and internet job search engines. After three months of participation in job search workshops and interviewing, Timothy was hired as an admissions counselor for an education institution. And from Workforce Solutions in Ramsey County, we hear this about assistance to dislocated workers: Our federal dislocated worker program is funded to serve, in this current program year, 277 individuals. One of those individuals, Steven E. came to us having been laid off by a health care institution. He originally worked in the nursing field. When he reached our counseling staff, not only was he suffering from nearly 12 months of unemployment but chemical dependency and the impact of a recent divorce. Our staff, through intensive and support services, managed to get him into chemical dependency treatment and worked to upgrade his nursing certificate and licensure. He also participated in grief and stress support groups to address his personal life issues. Because of the WIA funding, he successfully completed his nursing licensure upgrade, and the chemical dependency treatment. Four months ago, he was hired by the American Red Cross working for their blood collection and distribution program. And finally, from Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Service in Monticello, I hear this about the need for funding of youth training programs: [A] decrease in funding to the youth programs has a significant effect on the number of youth that are able to be served and the amount of services that are provided under the WIA program. Offering long term services, meeting performance standards, offering at a minimum of 12 month follow-up and retention services, and incorporating all of the new WIA youth elements, has increased the amount of staff time per participant and has limited the number youth to be served compared to past practices. All of the new initiatives are necessary to meet the needs of the youth and long term services is beneficial to their success. Without additional funds, there will be a limited amount of new participants being enrolled into the program in the coming years. The funds will be used to work with youth already enrolled in the program for many years and to offer comprehensive follow-up and retention services. The State of Minnesota included the need to increase funding for Workforce Investment Act activities in their ``Federal Priorities for 2001.'' These programs are vital to meeting our promises to the American people, promises to move families out of poverty, off of welfare, and into good paying jobs where they can earn a living wage. We must honor those promises by supporting this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to improve the delivery of mental health services through the Medicare health care system. This improvement and modernization of mental health services in the Medicare system is long overdue. It has remained virtually unchanged since it was enacted by Congress in 1965. In the 36 years since then, the scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of mental illnesses and the vast improvements in medications and other effective treatments have dramatically changed our understanding and treatment of mental illness. Yet, the health care systems, both public and private, lag behind in the treatment of this potentially life-threatening disease. As we work to improve health care for all Americans, in all health care systems, the ever-growing population of older Americans make it all the more urgent that we bring the Medicare system into the 21st century, and bring mental health care to those in need. Though often undetected and untreated, mental health problems among the elderly are widespread and life-threatening. Americans aged 65 years and older have the highest rate of suicide of any population in the United States. Sadly, these suicide rates increase with age. While this age group accounts for just 13 percent of the U.S. population, Americans 65 and older account for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. All too often, depression among the elderly is ignored or inappropriately treated. This disease, and other illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, anxiety and late-life schizophrenia, can lead to severe impairment or death. Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older people, with between 8 and 20 percent of older people in community-based studies showing symptoms of depression. Studies of patients in primary care settings show that up to 37 percent report such symptoms, although they often go untreated. Depression is not a ``normal'' part of aging, but a serious, debilitating disease. Almost 20 percent of individuals age 55 and older experience a serious mental disorder. What is most alarming is that most elderly suicide victims, 70 percent, have visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to their completed suicide. It is critical that the mental health expertise be provided within the Medicare system, and that screening, diagnosis, and treatment be provided in a timely manner. Despite this need, Medicare coverage for mental health services is much more expensive for elderly patients than coverage for other outpatient services. In order to receive mental health care, seniors must pay, out of their own pockets, 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, an extremely unfair burden to place on the elderly, who are so often facing other health or life difficulties as well. For all other health care services, the copayment for Medicare participants is 20 percent, not 50 percent. We know that substance abuse, particularly of alcohol and prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the fastest growing health problems in the United States. With seventeen percent of this age group suffers from addiction or substance abuse. While addiction often goes undetected and untreated among older adults, aging and disability only makes the body more vulnerable to the effects of these drugs, further exacerbating underlying health problems, and creating a serious need for treatment that recognizes these vulnerabilities. Medicare also provides health care coverage for non-elderly individuals who are disabled, through Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. According to the Health Care Financing Agency, HCFA, Medicare is the primary health care coverage for the 5 million non- elderly, disabled people on SSDI. More than 20 percent of these individuals have a diagnosis of mental illness and/or addiction, and also face severe discrimination in their mental health coverage. What will this bill do? The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act has several important components. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health care to 20 percent, which makes the copayment equal to every other outpatient service in Medicare. This is straightforward, fair, and the right thing to do. By doing so, this provision will increase access to mental health care overall, especially for those who currently forego seeking treatment and find themselves suffering from worsening mental health conditions. Second, the bill adds intensive residential services to the Medicare mental health benefit package. This provision will give people suffering from diseases such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer's disease an alternative to going to nursing homes. Instead, they will be able to be cared for in their homes or in more appropriate residential settings. I also ask the Secretary for Health and Human Services to conduct a study of the current Medicare coverage criteria to determine the extent to which people with these forms of illnesses are receiving the appropriate care that is needed. Finally, my bill expands the number of mental health professionals eligible to provide services through Medicare to include clinical social workers and licensed professional mental health counselors. Provision of adequate mental health services provided through Medicare requires more trained and experienced providers for the aging and growing population and should include those who are appropriately licensed and qualified to deliver such care. These changes are needed now. The bill enjoys the strong support of many mental health groups including, among others, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health Association, theAmerican Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services, the American Counseling Association, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, the Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Health, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, the Association for the Advancement of Psychology, the National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors, the Tourette Syndrome Association, the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders, the Suicide Prevention and Advocacy Network, the Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education organization, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Association of Suicidology, the Kristin Brooks Hope Center, the The National Hopeline Network 1-800-SUICIDE, the Suicide Prevention Services of Illinois, and the National Resource Center for Suicide Prevention and Aftercare. I commend these organizations and the American Psychiatric Association for their leadership role in fighting for improved mental health care coverage for seniors under Medicare. U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher recognized the urgency of the problems with Medicare in his recent reports on mental health: ``Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' and ``The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''. Dr. Satcher stated, ``Disability due to mental illness in individuals over 65 years old will become a major public health problem in the near future because of demographic changes. In particular, dementia, depression and schizophrenia, among other conditions, will all present special problems for this age group.'' Dr. Satcher also underscored the life-threatening nature of this problem. He noted that the rate of major clinical depression and the incidence of suicide among senior citizens is alarmingly high. This report cites that about one-half of patients relocated to nursing homes from the community are at greater risk for depression. At the same time, the Surgeon General emphasizes that depression ``is not well- recognized or treated in primary care settings,'' and calls attention to the alarming fact that older people have the highest rates of suicide in the U.S. population. Contrary to what is widely believed, suicide rates actually increase with age, and, as the Surgeon General points out, ``depression is a foremost risk factor for suicide in older adults.'' Clearly, our nation must take steps to ensure that mental health care is easily and readily available under the Medicare program. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2001 takes an important first step in that direction. It is time to take this potential fatal illness seriously. I believe we must do everything we can to make effective treatments available in a timely manner for older adults and others covered by Medicare, and help prevent relapse and recurrence once mental illness is diagnosed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as we begin our work in this new century. It is time to treat the elderly in our society, particularly those with serious, debilitating diseases, with the care, respect and fairness they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to improve the delivery of mental health services through the Medicare health care system. This improvement and modernization of mental health services in the Medicare system is long overdue. It has remained virtually unchanged since it was enacted by Congress in 1965. In the 36 years since then, the scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of mental illnesses and the vast improvements in medications and other effective treatments have dramatically changed our understanding and treatment of mental illness. Yet, the health care systems, both public and private, lag behind in the treatment of this potentially life-threatening disease. As we work to improve health care for all Americans, in all health care systems, the ever-growing population of older Americans make it all the more urgent that we bring the Medicare system into the 21st century, and bring mental health care to those in need. Though often undetected and untreated, mental health problems among the elderly are widespread and life-threatening. Americans aged 65 years and older have the highest rate of suicide of any population in the United States. Sadly, these suicide rates increase with age. While this age group accounts for just 13 percent of the U.S. population, Americans 65 and older account for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. All too often, depression among the elderly is ignored or inappropriately treated. This disease, and other illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, anxiety and late-life schizophrenia, can lead to severe impairment or death. Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older people, with between 8 and 20 percent of older people in community-based studies showing symptoms of depression. Studies of patients in primary care settings show that up to 37 percent report such symptoms, although they often go untreated. Depression is not a ``normal'' part of aging, but a serious, debilitating disease. Almost 20 percent of individuals age 55 and older experience a serious mental disorder. What is most alarming is that most elderly suicide victims, 70 percent, have visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to their completed suicide. It is critical that the mental health expertise be provided within the Medicare system, and that screening, diagnosis, and treatment be provided in a timely manner. Despite this need, Medicare coverage for mental health services is much more expensive for elderly patients than coverage for other outpatient services. In order to receive mental health care, seniors must pay, out of their own pockets, 50 percent of the cost of a visit to their mental health specialist, an extremely unfair burden to place on the elderly, who are so often facing other health or life difficulties as well. For all other health care services, the copayment for Medicare participants is 20 percent, not 50 percent. We know that substance abuse, particularly of alcohol and prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the fastest growing health problems in the United States. With seventeen percent of this age group suffers from addiction or substance abuse. While addiction often goes undetected and untreated among older adults, aging and disability only makes the body more vulnerable to the effects of these drugs, further exacerbating underlying health problems, and creating a serious need for treatment that recognizes these vulnerabilities. Medicare also provides health care coverage for non-elderly individuals who are disabled, through Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. According to the Health Care Financing Agency, HCFA, Medicare is the primary health care coverage for the 5 million non- elderly, disabled people on SSDI. More than 20 percent of these individuals have a diagnosis of mental illness and/or addiction, and also face severe discrimination in their mental health coverage. What will this bill do? The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act has several important components. First, the bill reduces the 50 percent copayment for mental health care to 20 percent, which makes the copayment equal to every other outpatient service in Medicare. This is straightforward, fair, and the right thing to do. By doing so, this provision will increase access to mental health care overall, especially for those who currently forego seeking treatment and find themselves suffering from worsening mental health conditions. Second, the bill adds intensive residential services to the Medicare mental health benefit package. This provision will give people suffering from diseases such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer's disease an alternative to going to nursing homes. Instead, they will be able to be cared for in their homes or in more appropriate residential settings. I also ask the Secretary for Health and Human Services to conduct a study of the current Medicare coverage criteria to determine the extent to which people with these forms of illnesses are receiving the appropriate care that is needed. Finally, my bill expands the number of mental health professionals eligible to provide services through Medicare to include clinical social workers and licensed professional mental health counselors. Provision of adequate mental health services provided through Medicare requires more trained and experienced providers for the aging and growing population and should include those who are appropriately licensed and qualified to deliver such care. These changes are needed now. The bill enjoys the strong support of many mental health groups including, among others, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health Association, theAmerican Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services, the American Counseling Association, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, the Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Health, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, the Association for the Advancement of Psychology, the National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors, the Tourette Syndrome Association, the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders, the Suicide Prevention and Advocacy Network, the Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education organization, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Association of Suicidology, the Kristin Brooks Hope Center, the The National Hopeline Network 1-800-SUICIDE, the Suicide Prevention Services of Illinois, and the National Resource Center for Suicide Prevention and Aftercare. I commend these organizations and the American Psychiatric Association for their leadership role in fighting for improved mental health care coverage for seniors under Medicare. U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher recognized the urgency of the problems with Medicare in his recent reports on mental health: ``Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' and ``The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''. Dr. Satcher stated, ``Disability due to mental illness in individuals over 65 years old will become a major public health problem in the near future because of demographic changes. In particular, dementia, depression and schizophrenia, among other conditions, will all present special problems for this age group.'' Dr. Satcher also underscored the life-threatening nature of this problem. He noted that the rate of major clinical depression and the incidence of suicide among senior citizens is alarmingly high. This report cites that about one-half of patients relocated to nursing homes from the community are at greater risk for depression. At the same time, the Surgeon General emphasizes that depression ``is not well- recognized or treated in primary care settings,'' and calls attention to the alarming fact that older people have the highest rates of suicide in the U.S. population. Contrary to what is widely believed, suicide rates actually increase with age, and, as the Surgeon General points out, ``depression is a foremost risk factor for suicide in older adults.'' Clearly, our nation must take steps to ensure that mental health care is easily and readily available under the Medicare program. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2001 takes an important first step in that direction. It is time to take this potential fatal illness seriously. I believe we must do everything we can to make effective treatments available in a timely manner for older adults and others covered by Medicare, and help prevent relapse and recurrence once mental illness is diagnosed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as we begin our work in this new century. It is time to treat the elderly in our society, particularly those with serious, debilitating diseases, with the care, respect and fairness they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this important legislation to modernize the investment policies of the Railroad Retirement System. This legislation reflects an historic agreement reached between rail labor and rail management. it is good for workers, good for retirees, good for widows and widowers, good for rail employers, and good for the rail industry as a whole. This reform legislation is the product of two and a half years of negotiations and has had the grassroots support of nearly one million employees and beneficiaries who will benefit from its provisions. We came very close to enacting this measure into law at the end of the last Congress. I hope my colleagues will join me in moving the bill as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this important legislation to modernize the investment policies of the Railroad Retirement System. This legislation reflects an historic agreement reached between rail labor and rail management. it is good for workers, good for retirees, good for widows and widowers, good for rail employers, and good for the rail industry as a whole. This reform legislation is the product of two and a half years of negotiations and has had the grassroots support of nearly one million employees and beneficiaries who will benefit from its provisions. We came very close to enacting this measure into law at the end of the last Congress. I hope my colleagues will join me in moving the bill as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I am actually speaking on the amendment. I can do this in under 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, later on I will have a chance to come out here, with my colleague, Senator Harkin, with an amendment that deals with funding for education and children. That is the heart and soul to me. I guess if there is any one issue that I am more emotionally connected to than any other, it would be anything and everything that deals with children and education. But I have listened carefully to this debate. I want to say this: We have all the numbers. The Republicans have $153 billion. I think we have $311 billion or thereabouts. I want to get away from the numbers and just simply say this about this debate. For a good period of time that I have been a Senator, we were running deficits. The goal was deficit reduction. Then I had hoped that when the economy began to do better, and we began to see surpluses--I hope we will continue to do so; who knows what will happen over the next few years--but I had this hope that now, with an economy that was doing better, and with some surpluses, that finally--finally--as a Senator from Minnesota, I would be able to do really well for people. It would not just be stopping the worst, it would be doing the better. I mentioned children and education, but I want to mention elderly people and prescription drug coverage. I can tell you, in the State of Minnesota, 65 percent of the elderly people, senior citizens, have no prescription drug coverage whatsoever. They have no coverage at all. I can also tell you all of the stories about people who cut the pills in half--and you have heard them all--or the stories about people during the cold winter where it is either they are going to be able to afford a prescription drug or have heat because if they get their prescription drug, they can't afford their heating bill and they go cold. I want to do this a different way. I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I had two parents with Parkinson's disease--two parents. That is rare. Both of them took the drug selegiline. It is not an inexpensive proposition. When I think about my own parents, and my mother Mencha Daneshevsky, who was a cafeteria worker, she didn't make much money. My parents did not make much money. I think they made something over $20,000 a year. I don't know what their income was; they didn't really tell me. But believe me, it was a moderate income. What we have out here is a choice. Either you are in favor of Robin- Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with maybe 40-plus percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, or you are in favor of making an investment above and beyond reducing the debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare that everybody is talking about on our side of the aisle--and I say good--and you are also for making some investments in people, you are for making sure that senior citizens--our parents and our grandparents, who built this country on their backs--are able to afford prescription drugs. The benefit offered by the other side would not have helped my parents much, and it does not help most of the people in Minnesota who are senior citizens. I do not know why we can't do this. Any day of the year, I am comfortable saying to people in Minnesota I did not go for the $2.5 trillion in tax cuts. I wanted to go for some tax cuts. I wanted to go for tax cuts that would be a stimulus. I wanted to go for tax cuts that would in the main help working families, but I did not go for the $2.5 trillion. Too much of it was Robin Hood in reverse. Most important of all, I did not go for it because I felt if we had a surplus, we could live up to our commitment to making sure that we could afford prescription drugs. I don't know why we can't do that. I don't know why we can't get real. And I don't know why we can't spend the amount of money that we need to spend to make sure that people in our States--elderly people, senior citizens--can afford prescription drugs. I just don't understand that. So we will have a vote. I think the vote is on a basic value question. It is a matter of priorities. I want to come out on the floor and indicate my strong support for this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the Fair Pay Act. I hope that this is the Congress that will see this important piece of legislation enacted. I fear the consequences if we do not. For thirty-eight years, since enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, we have been striving to close the pay gap between men and women. We have made some progress, but not nearly enough. Today, despite all efforts, women on average earn only 77 cents for each dollar that men earn. That's simply not acceptable. As Susan Dailey, U.S. President of the National Business and Professional Women said, ``Is it acceptable then for women to leave at 1:48 on Thursday afternoon because that's three quarters of a work week?'' No, these differentials are simply not acceptable. Due to the wage gap, it is estimated that the average 25-year-old woman will lose approximately $500,000 over her working lifetime. That's unfair, it's unjust. And for that reason alone, we need to support legislation that will address the root causes of this pay inequity. But not only is it unjust to women, it's unfair to the whole family. It is estimated that the wage gap annually costs America's working families $200 billion. Over ten years that's $2 trillion in lost income to families as a result of wage disparities. That's more than the entire tax cut the Bush Administration is anxious to give back to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population! This bill can lift families out of poverty. If married women were paid the same as men, their families' rate of poverty would fall by more than 60 percent. If single working mothers earned as much as their male counterparts, their poverty rates would be cut in half. That's what this bill is about, paying everyone a decent wage, the wage they deserve, so that they can support their families with dignity. I'm proud that my home state of Minnesota is a leader on this issue. Our state comparable worth law is one of the strongest on the books and serves as a model for other states. In Minnesota, under our law, both state and municipal employees get the benefits of this important protection. I hope we can follow suit on the federal level. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly on this important measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the Fair Pay Act. I hope that this is the Congress that will see this important piece of legislation enacted. I fear the consequences if we do not. For thirty-eight years, since enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, we have been striving to close the pay gap between men and women. We have made some progress, but not nearly enough. Today, despite all efforts, women on average earn only 77 cents for each dollar that men earn. That's simply not acceptable. As Susan Dailey, U.S. President of the National Business and Professional Women said, ``Is it acceptable then for women to leave at 1:48 on Thursday afternoon because that's three quarters of a work week?'' No, these differentials are simply not acceptable. Due to the wage gap, it is estimated that the average 25-year-old woman will lose approximately $500,000 over her working lifetime. That's unfair, it's unjust. And for that reason alone, we need to support legislation that will address the root causes of this pay inequity. But not only is it unjust to women, it's unfair to the whole family. It is estimated that the wage gap annually costs America's working families $200 billion. Over ten years that's $2 trillion in lost income to families as a result of wage disparities. That's more than the entire tax cut the Bush Administration is anxious to give back to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population! This bill can lift families out of poverty. If married women were paid the same as men, their families' rate of poverty would fall by more than 60 percent. If single working mothers earned as much as their male counterparts, their poverty rates would be cut in half. That's what this bill is about, paying everyone a decent wage, the wage they deserve, so that they can support their families with dignity. I'm proud that my home state of Minnesota is a leader on this issue. Our state comparable worth law is one of the strongest on the books and serves as a model for other states. In Minnesota, under our law, both state and municipal employees get the benefits of this important protection. I hope we can follow suit on the federal level. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly on this important measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate today takes a historic step toward fairer elections, and I rise to join many of my colleagues in urging a vote for final passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation. The bill that will be passed by the Senate is in some ways better, and in other ways weaker, than the legislation we started the debate on two weeks ago. In two instances I believe the Senate took a step backward. Still, on balance, this is a positive reform bill and I support it. Debates about campaign finance reform should be debates about who is at the table. Looking back at the last two weeks from this perspective highlights not only the importance of the bill that we will vote on today, but also it's severe limitations. I say importance, 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 because it allows too much political power to flow from too few. But I also say sever limitations because even if we ban soft money, even if we ban sham issue ads, we will still have too much money in politics in America. The investors, the heavy hitters, the players will still have an all too prominent role in our elections. It is unfortunate that the Senate voted to raise the hard-money contribution limits. Nearly 80 percent of the money in our elections is hard money, more and more of which is being raised in checks of $1000. 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, 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. That is not reform. The Senate also adopted an amendment to allow candidates facing self- financing opponents to raise even more big money. Again, this is a step backward and is blatant incumbent protection. I am pleased that the Senate twice voted to include, the second time overwhelmingly, a reform amendment I offered, which significantly strengthens the McCain-Feingold bill. The amendment ensures that the sham issue ads run by nonprofit special interest groups fall under the same rules and prohibitions that the legislation rightly imposed on corporate and union soft money sham issue ads. Previous versions of McCain-Feingold had covered such ads as did the Shays-Meehan bill passed by the House. Limiting the ban only to corporate and union soft money practically invited a shift in spending to private special interest groups in future elections, suggesting that in future years, even with enactment of this bill, Congress will be predestined to revisit sham issue ad regulation to close yet another loophole in federal election law. These often virtually unaccountable groups engage regularly in electioneering communications. Make no mistake, we are not talking about ads that are legitimately trying to influence policy debates. This amendment targets those ads that we all know are trying to skew elections but till now have been able to skirt the law. At the same time, this amendment does not prohibit these groups from running electioneering ads. It merely requires that they comply with the same rules that unions and corporations must comply with under the bill. Groups covered by my amendment can set up PACs, solicit contributions and run electioneering ads. This amendment simply prevents them from using their regular treasury money to run such ads in a secret and unaccountable way. Spending on genuine issue ads is completely unaffected, as it should be. The amendment directly addresses constitutional concerns. A February 20, 1998 letter signed by 20 constitutional scholars, including a former legislative director of the ACLU, which analyzed underlying bill's sham issue ad provision, argued that even though that provision was written to exempt certain organizations from the ban on electioneering communication, such omission was not constitutionally necessary. In other words, the restrictions on corporations and unions need not have been limited to corporations and unions. In any case, the amendment is severable. If courts find it to be unconstitutional, it will not jeopardize the rest of this bill. This is what was at stake in the last two weeks: a government where the people are the priority, not the powerful. The anti-reform crowd has tried to cast this debate in terms of regulating political speech and limiting political freedom. I reject the argument that freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to participate in the election of one's government is served by the current system or that it is undermined by efforts to reform that system. On the contrary, freedom is on the side of reform, and indeed the more comprehensive the campaign finance reform we enact, the more we empower every American to capture control of his or her own destiny. While I will vote in favor of McCain-Feingold, I do so with my eyes open. Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to patch a badly broken system, one that is likely past saving through minor repair, and stops far short of the complete overhaul of the financing of elections that are required. Ultimately, an approach that seeks to stop a leak here, and block a loophole there but does not meaningfully remove the demand for private, special interest money form candidates and parties--either through reducing costs to campaigns, providing public sources of funds, or a combination of the two--will be doomed to failure. It is for this reason that I am a supporter of comprehensive public financing of federal campaigns, what is known as the Clean Money, Clean Elections approach. The McCain-Feingold bill includes important reforms. It would get some of the money out of politics. Not all of the money, but the under-the-table money, the largest contributions, the grossest examples of favor currying and access buying. With my amendment, it will ban most sham issue ads. Such unregulated funds have made a mockery of the current campaign finance reform system. However, there is no question that we should go much further, that most Americans would like to see us go further and that it is not truly comprehensive campaign finance reform. During debate on this bill, 36 senators supported an amendment I offered which would have allowed states to establish voluntary spending limits in exchange for full or partial public financing for federal candidates. I am hopeful that the numbers here in the Senate in favor of public financing of federal elections will increase. 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. This week I will reintroduce, my Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation. This legislation attacks the root cause of a system founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this new phase. Again, passage of this bill is not the end of the reform debate but merely the beginning. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an editorial in last Friday's Boston Globe be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't agree with my colleague from Kentucky, though I have great respect for him. I think our parties will be stronger not dependent on soft money, to get away from the obscene money chase, and we will be more connected to the people. I also think the provisions on the sham issue ads across the board will make a huge difference, with less poison politics and bringing people back. I hated the increase in the hard money limits. I think it is a mistake. But this bill is a step forward. I am proud to vote for it. This is all about representative democracy. This will be a great vote, and I hope it whets the appetite of people in the country for even more. I thank Senators McCain, Feingold, Dodd, Daschle, and a lot of other Senators as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of a wonderful victory by the 2001 NCAA Wrestling Champions, The University of Minnesota. Because this is the Golden Gophers' first national championship in wrestling, this team victory is worthy of special note. As colleagues may know, I follow college wrestling closely. Having seen a good deal of wrestling in my life, I can say that the performance by this year's Golden Gopher team was nothing short of spectacular. Throughout this season, members of the team showed a level of determination and skill that became the pride of the people of my state and captured the respect of college wrestling fans across the country. In gaining the national championship on March 19, the team scored 138.5 points and earned an NCAA-record 10 All-Americans. College wrestling is a consummate American sport. It centers around matches in which individuals face off and are recognized for their strength, speed, and versatility, just as we celebrate individual achievement in other aspects of American life. However, wrestling championships are not won by individuals, they are won by teams. Just as this country thrives based on the contributions of all its citizens, college wrestling teams rely upon teammates of all weights for points if they are to gain a championship. I do want to take this opportunity to make the point to my colleagues that we should be concerned about recent problems of amateur wrestling in the United States. According to a recent report from the Government Accounting Office, 40 percent of the nation's college wrestling programs have disappeared in the past two decades. As someone who was given the opportunity to develop personally through the challenge of wrestling and as a former student-athlete who gained access to a first- rate education thanks to a wrestling scholarship, I am concerned about those who, increasingly, are not able to pursue wrestling during their college years. It is important to many Americans that the United States be competitive in all Olympic sports such as wrestling. Furthermore, amateur athletics has provided a way up and a way out for many young Americans. We have a responsibility to do what we can to revitalize a wonderful sport at the college level. That can be a discussion for a later day, Mr. President. Today is a day to celebrate the accomplishment of a superb team, The University of Minnesota Golden Gopher wrestlers.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 40 seconds to respond to my colleague, if he would be so gracious.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Chair if I don't use the 40 seconds to give me 5 more.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Ready, go. This is not about a constitutional question. There are lots of groups and organizations--left, right, and center--that want to put soft money into these sham ads. Any group or organization can run any ad they want. They just have to finance it out of hard money. We don't want there to be a big loophole for soft money. Not constitutional? The League of Women Voters says it is. Common Cause says it is constitutional. The former legislative director of ACLU says it is constitutional. The House of Representatives passed Shays-Meehan, which includes Snowe-Jeffords-Wellstone, that says it is constitutional. In all due respect, there are many who think this is constitutional. This is all about spending groups and organizations that want to be able to use this as a loophole to run sham issue ads. Thank you.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I may not need 15 minutes. The Senator from North Dakota is here, as are others. First, I say to my colleague from Iowa and other Senators, I do want to talk about the amount of money we spend. I am very honored to be a cosponsor of this amendment with the Senator from Iowa. I think this is a great amendment. This amendment could very well pass in the Senate because it makes a lot of sense. It is just common sense. My colleague from Iowa has described what this amendment is about. I do not know that I need to do that again. We are talking about voluntary limits. Then what we are saying is, if you agree to that voluntary limit but the opponent doesn't, then you get a 2-to-1 match for however many dollars your opponent goes over this limit. This amendment makes the McCain-Feingold bill, which deals with the soft money part, quite a strong reform measure. I say to my colleague from Iowa, I believe so strongly in this amendment for a couple of different reasons. First of all, here is something else we have not talked about, and we need to, as incumbents. In all too many ways the system is wired for incumbents. This amendment probably comes as close as you can come to creating a more level playing field. It really does. Many more people would have an opportunity to run with this amendment part of the law. They really would. I think there is quite a bit of pressure on people. It seems to me, if this is the law of the land and candidates step forward and say, absolutely we will agree to this limit because we do not want to be involved in this obscene money chase, we will agree with this limit because we want there to be more debate and fewer of these poison ads and all the rest, we will agree because we know people in Iowa and Connecticut and North Dakota and Minnesota do not like to see all this money spent, I think it is going to be much more difficult for another candidate to say, no, I won't agree with this limit; I want to buy this election. Then you have the additional disincentive of the 2-to-1 match. This is a perfect marriage. In one stroke, it dramatically reduces the amount of money spent, dramatically reduces the power of special interest groups, dramatically reduces the cynicism and disillusionment people have about politics in the country, and dramatically increases the chances of a lot of citizens thinking they can run for the Senate, that they might be able to do this, they might be able to raise this amount of money and they would not lose because someone could just carpet bomb them with all sorts of ads and all sorts of resources. This is a great reform amendment. I also make another point. I just finished saying the system is wired for incumbents but that I think all of us are going to want to support this amendment. The truth is, in one way it is wired--but it is so degrading. Who wants to have to constantly be on the phone asking for money? Who wants to be traveling all around the country constantly having to raise money? Who wants, every day of the week during your reelection cycle when you want to be out on the floor debating issues and doing work for people on your State, to have to be on the phone for whatever time, every single day, making these calls? None of it is right. This amendment is just a commonsense amendment, such a modest amendment, yet it has such major, major ramifications, all in the positive and all in the good for how we finance campaigns. This is really one of the great amendments. I thank Senator Harkin for his work on it, and I am very proud to be a part of this effort. I am going to finish by making two other quick points. I say this being a little facetious, but I do not think it is a bad point to make. I say to Senator Harkin and Senator Dorgan, this should be called the good food amendment. The reason I think it should be called the good food amendment is when you no longer have to go to these hotels for the $1,000--oh, I forgot, now it is $2,000, actually $4,000--when you no longer have to go to these hotels for these $2,000 and $4,000 contributions and eat the rubber chicken meals, now you get to campaign in the neighborhoods. I get to eat Thai food and Vietnamese food and Somalian food and Ethiopian food and Latina and Latino food. You get to be at real restaurants with real people out in the neighborhoods, out in the communities. You get to stump speak. You get to debate. This is the good food amendment. We will all be healthier if we support this amendment. I am trying to get to my colleagues through their stomachs, I guess. This is the last point I want to make because I want to end on a very serious note. The voluntary spending limit for Minnesota would be $2,604,158. Could I campaign and have a chance to ``get my message out'' on $2.6 million if we would have both candidates agree? Absolutely. Do I, today on the floor of the Senate, want to make a commitment that if this amendment is agreed to and becomes the law of the land that I will abide by this voluntary spending limit if my opponent would do so or--I am sorry, it doesn't matter. The answer is: Yes, I am ready to do this. This would be a gift from Heaven, from my point of view, because I am tired of all of the fundraising. And I haven't even started. I am not even doing what I am supposed to do. I am tired of it. So I am ready to say right now, if this amendment becomes the law of the land, I am going to abide by it. I want to be one of the first Senators to step forward and say I agree. I think a lot of Senators will. I think it will be a lot better for us, whether we are Democrats or Republicans. It will be a lot better for the people we represent. It will be a lot better for Iowa and Minnesota. It will be a lot better for representative democracy. It will be a lot better for our country. This is a great amendment. I hope it gets overwhelming support. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. It would bring us closer to the people we represent and bring the people closer to us, all of us, in whatever State.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I follow Senator Schumer.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will do it in 3 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Although I don't like doing it in 3 minutes. Mr. President, I think that some of what other Senators have said about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is, in part, true. But I think the soft money ban, which is at the heart of the McCain-Feingold bill, is important enough that we want to protect it. Second of all, I frankly don't know what the supremely political Court will do. You can argue different ways, but I would hate to see the supremely political Court render a decision taking on one part of the legislation and having the whole bill fall. Third, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the amendment I introduced that was passed as a part of this legislation now was based upon the idea of severability. That was an amendment to improve this bill, not to jeopardize this legislation. And so, consistent with my commitment to severability, I will vote against nonseverability. And then, finally, may I say this? How ironic it is that the amendment I introduced the other night is not even covered by this amendment that my colleagues introduced on the other side; that the amendment I introduced the other night that deals with these sham issue ads and the potential of all the soft money shifting here is still severable. It is so ironic. But I say, no self-righteousness intended, consistent with the principle of improving this bill, not in any way, shape, or form trying to jeopardize this bill, I don't even know how I am going to vote on final passage. But I certainly am opposed to this nonseverability. You see why I wanted to have more time than 3 minutes? I have a lot to say.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I did.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Because of you, I tried to run all the way up to Connecticut Avenue, and I got wet on the way. I want to ask the majority leader--I am sorry; Mike Epstein, who used to work with me, is no longer here or I would have asked him this--but on technical amendments, is the definition of that that there would not be an up-or-down vote automatically?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I would object to a technical amendment unless there is an understanding to this effect: If this affected the work of any one Senator, that we would be consulted before an agreement.