Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will build on the comments of my colleague from Wisconsin. I heard the Senator from Kentucky talk about the fact that Brad Smith--and I said yesterday he is somebody I like and enjoy being with--has been critical of the Federal election laws. It is not just being critical. He has called the Federal Elections Campaign Act unconstitutional and undemocratic. That is more than just being critical. I cannot remember a time when this body confirmed a nominee for any executive position whose own views were so completely at odds with the law he was meant to uphold. Let me repeat that. That is what this debate is about. I cannot remember a time when this body confirmed a nominee for any executive position whose own views were so completely at odds with the law he was meant to uphold. He believes the Federal election law is unconstitutional and undemocratic. I do not have the time today to summarize a complete position. I had a chance yesterday to speak about this nominee. I say to my colleagues, this vote is not just about Brad Smith; it is about whether or not the Senate is committed to reform. I do not think we give people in the country much confidence that we are committed to reform, that we are committed to passing legislation which will get some of this big money out of politics and which will lead to some authentic democracy as opposed to just democracy for the few, when we then turn around and confirm someone to the Federal Election Commission who does not even believe in any of this campaign finance reform. The Senate would be sending a terrible message to the country if we vote for this nominee. I appreciate Brad Smith's right to express his views in writing and in person. He is articulate, he is intelligent, but we have a situation where we have a nominee who basically has said the Federal election laws are undemocratic, that they are unconstitutional, basically antithetical to all the values he holds dear about government and democracy. Why in the world would we then want to confirm such a nominee and put him in a position of enforcing the very laws with which he is so at odds? To me it is a huge mistake. This is a vote about reform. This is a vote about Brad Smith. More importantly, it is a vote about whether or not we are serious about reform and getting some of the money out of politics and getting people back into politics. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Feingold, and strongly oppose the nomination of Bradley A. Smith to the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Smith has no confidence in federal election law, indeed he believes it to be ``undemocratic'' and ``unconstitutional.'' As a member of the FEC he will have the opportunity to put those views into practice and actually shape election law through rulemaking. But worst of all, Mr. Smith doesn't just disagree with the law, he disagrees with the express purpose of the law--limiting the corrupting influence of money in politic. An FEC nominee who's own personal beliefs and philosophies are so at odds with the purposes and authority of the Federal Election Campaign Act should be rejected by a pro-reform Congress. I oppose the Smith nomination not only because his philosophies are antithetical to present law, but because I believe they are antithetical to broad political participation, to lowering the price of access to the legislative process, restoring Americans faith in our system, and they are antithetical to everything that is necessary for a functioning democracy. But before I make my case that the Senate should reject this nomination, let me say this. I have met Mr. Smith and found him to be an earnest and learned advocate of his point of view. I have no reason to question Mr. Smith's honor or his intentions and even his harshest critics do not make the claim that Mr. Smith does not have a strong technical understanding of the law. He seems to be a good guy, so this is not personal and I hope that he does not take my criticisms personally. But I do feel that given Mr. Smith's views, he is a poor fit for this job. Mr. Smith is a very vocal and articulate critic of current election law--to say nothing of the various reform proposals introduced by members of this body. In fact, Mr. Smith is widely regarded as one of the foremost critics of the current campaign finance system. He has written numerous articles on the subject, he has frequently appeared before Congressional Committees, sat on panels and has appeared on television. Throughout the body of his writings and public appearances he has been consistent: He believes the Federal Election Campaign Act is unworkable, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Mr Smith takes the argument one step further: he is an aggressive proponent of near complete deregulation of the campaign finance system and believes that nearly any attempts to regulate the relationship between money and elections is folly. For example, in a 1997 Georgetown Law review article Mr. Smith states quote: I have previously argued at length that campaign finance regulation generally makes for bad public policy. Campaign finance regulation tends to reduce the flow of information to the public, to favor select elites, to hinder grass roots political activity, to favor special interests, to promote influence peddling, and to entrench incumbents in office. I don't want to belabor this point. Other colleagues are speaking to this issue and in all honesty it's the least of my objections to the nomination. But in all I would simply say this to my colleagues: I cannot remember a time when this body confirmed a nominee--for any executive position--who's own views were so completely at odds with the law he was meant to uphold. Mr. Smith claims that his own strong opinions notwithstanding he can and will enforce the law. Still, I don't see how he can be true to both the law and his convictions. He will be responsible for administering a law that in his view that pose a threat to ``political liberty.'' He will be appointed to perpetuate a system that he feels was made ``more corrupt and unequal'' by the Federal Elections Campaign Act. Speaking for myself, I would not want to be charged with enforcing a law that is antithetical to everything I know about politics, democracy, and good government--as Smith feels about current law. But the Senate is being asked to confirm a nominee with just that perspective. If the FEC were simply an empty vessel, mindlessly executing the will of the Congress as stated in the Federal Election Campaign Act, Mr. Smith's extreme views would be trouble enough. But that isn't how the system works. And, in fact, the FEC has considerable leeway in interpreting FECA when it issues rules. The following are three examples of how a person with Smith's attitudes about the law could do a lot of damage to the integrity of the system of regulations that govern election spending: No. 1. Redefining ``coordination''--Under current law, contributions to candidates are limited, but independent spending is unlimited. In order to avoid evasion of the contribution limits, the law specifies that any spending that is done in coordination with a candidate counts as a contribution to the campaign. However, the FEC currently is considering a proposed rulemaking that would define ``coordination'' so narrowly as to make it meaningless. Under the proposed rule, there would be no coordination unless the FEC could prove that a candidate specifically requested an expenditure, actually exercised control over the expenditure, or reached an actual agreement with the candidate concerning the expenditure. This rulemaking, if approved, would open a massive loophole that would enable a spender to maintain high level contacts with a campaign and still claim to be acting independently. This is a prime example of how a Commissioner can eviscerate the law while claiming to enforce it. No. 2. Neglecting to close the ``soft money'' loophole--Soft money-- which the Senate has spent years trying to ban--was basically ``created'' by an FEC interpretation of the law. Recently, a complaint filed by five members of Congress and a separate complaint filed by President Clinton have urged the FEC to close the ``soft money'' loophole administratively. The FEC's Office of General Counsel has submitted a notice of proposed rulemaking which outlines the steps that the Commission can take to close the ``soft money'' loophole if it so chooses. Brad Smith's view that it is unconstitutional to prohibit ``soft money'' makes it likely that he would reject a recommendation from the General Counsel to close the ``soft money'' loophole. No. 3. Regulation of election-related activity over the internet--The FEC is currently considering the whole range of issues raised by the use of the internet to conduct political activity. This is a largely uncharted area, and the current and future FEC Commissioners will play an important role in determining how internet communications will be treated under the law. Brad Smith's view that the federal government should scrap all of its campaign finance reform efforts can be expected to strongly color his policy judgment about what regulations the FEC ultimately should issue in this area of the law. I want my colleagues to be clear on this point: This nominee is no empty vessel. He will have the opportunity to actually shape election law through rulemaking--colleagues shouldn't kid themselves that FEC commissioners can just ``follow the law'' and that their personal biases don't matter. An anti-campaign finance law Commission, can promote anti-campaign finance law rules. Mr. President, I do want to take some time to get to the heart of my objection to the Smith nomination: He doesn't just disagree with the law, he disagrees with the express purpose of the law. The express purpose of the Federal Election Campaign Act is to limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections; regulate spending in campaigns for federal office; and deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances. Mr. Smith doesn't just quibble with how the law achieves those goals, he disagrees with those goals completely! Mr. Smith believes that money--regardless of how much or where it comes from--has no corrupting or disenfranchising influence on elections. For example lets look at what Smith wrote on the effect of money on how the Congress conducts its business, on what gets considered and what doesn't, on who has power and who does not. This is from ``The Sirens' Song: Campaign Finance Regulation and the First Amendment.'' Smith argues: If campaign contributions have any meaningful effect on legislative voting behavior, it appears to be on a limited number of votes that are generally related to technical issues arousing little public interest. On such issues, prior contributions may provide the contributor with access to the legislator of legislative staff. The contributor may then be able to shape legislation to the extent that such efforts are not incompatible with the dominant legislative motives of ideology, party affiliation and agenda, and constituent views. Whether the influence of campaign contributions on these limited issues is good or bad depends on one's views of the legislation. The exclusion of knowledgeable contributors from the legislative process can just as easily lead to poor legislation with unintended consequences as their inclusion. But in any case, it must be stressed that such votes are few. Let me explain what I find so chilling about this statement. It would be one thing if Mr. Smith argued that money had no effect on policy. That regardless of the endless anecdotes and personal testimonials of members of Congress past and present, that having lots of money on your side buys you no extra influence in Congress. Some members of this body take that position. I think it's wrong, I think it's naive, I think the American people see through it. In other words, it would be bad enough if that was Smith's view. But isn't. He asserts that money plays a role but only on ``technical issues that arouse little public interest''-- but worse, doesn't seem to be concerned about it! It does not appear to matter to Brad Smith that money affects the process on those issues that outside of the public attention! Well with all due respect, most of what we do takes place below the surface here! We pass bills with scores of obscure provisions, hundred of pages long. No one knows what they all do, we can't know. We vote on them without knowing. It is there that the system is most ripe for abuse, where the greatest potential exists for those with the money, the clout, the access to game the system, but Mr. Smith isn't much worried about it. I agree with Smith that it is the small, stealth provisions which are most likely to appear or disappear because of money. But where I strongly disagree with Smith is that I believe that this is a problem. It should be aberrational, not typical. I think it's outrageous that because a person is in a position to donate $200,000 to the NRSC or the DSCC that person is in a position to dictate policy--regardless of how obscure. I think it's wrong that a line in a bill can be bought and paid for with a campaign contribution. I think it's wrong that a patent extension or favorable tariff treatment is up for sale. Because the matters are obscure, they are even more ripe for abuse. I won't speak for my colleagues, but I'd like the Commissioners on the FEC to be concerned with these abuses. For example, I point my colleagues to an excellent article in the February 7 issue of Time magazine entitled ``How to Become a Top Banana'' by Donald Barlett and James Steele. This article details how it came to pass that the U.S. government imposed 100% tariffs on obscure European imports in an ongoing attempt to force the European Union to allow market access for Chiquita Bananas. As the article notes, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed tariff rates on products essential to the economic health of several U.S. small businesses to promote the interests of a firm who does not even grow its bananas in the United States. As it turns out, campaign contributions may have played a big role. The article concludes: So what does the battlefield look like as the Great Banana War's tariffs approach their first anniversary? Well, the operators of some small businesses, like Reinert, are limping along from month to month. Other small-business people are filing fraudulent Customs documents to escape payment. Other businesses are doing just fine because their suppliers in Europe agreed to pick up the tariff or it applies to just a small percentage of the goods they sell. In Europe as in America, small businesses have been harmed by the U.S. tariffs. Larger companies have been mostly unaffected. And the European Union has kept in place its system of quotas and licenses to limit Chiquita bananas. Who, then, is the winner in this war? That's easy. It's the President, many members of Congress and the Democratic and Republican parties--all of whom have milked the war for millions of dollars in campaign contributions--along with the lobbyists who abetted the process. A final note. While Lindner (owner of Chiquita banana) had many areas of political interest beyond his battle with the European Union, a partial accounting of the flow of his dollars during the Great Banana War--as measured by contributions of $1,000 or more--as well as lobbying expenditures on the war, shows: Republicans--$4.2 million, Democrats--$1.4 million Washington lobbyists--$1.5 million. Just look at the bankruptcy bills passed by the House and the Senate. I'm told Committee staff refer to the provisions based on which industry ``paid'' for them. This provision is for the credit card companies, this one for the real estate industry, and so on it goes. As the Wall Street Journal noted on April 20 in an article entitled ``Bankruptcy Reform Pits Industries Against Each Other'': Lawmakers like to portray the battle over bankruptcy reform as a clash of principles: stopping debtors from shirking their obligations or creditors from fleecing the needy. But in the back rooms of Capital Hill, the nature of the fight changes. Industry lobbyists, many ostensibly allied in favor of bankruptcy overhaul legislation, vie to carve out as many favors for their clients as possible at the expense other business groups. These contests pit auto companies against credit card issuers, retailers against Realtors and the Delaware bar against lawyers from the rest of the U.S. Again, the major political parties seem to be the major winners in all of this (well, aside from the lenders)--and certainly not low and moderate income debtors. Contributions from the lending industry to both parties since 1997 tops $20 million. But that doesn't much concern Mr. Smith, the man who would be in charge of enforcing our campaign finance laws. Smith even argues even more explicitly that tying legislation to campaign contributions is not necessarily a bad thing. Or at least that being attentive to campaign contribution will make politicians more attentive to the public. He argues in ``A Most Uncommon Cause'': What reformers mean by corruption is that legislators react to the wishes of certain constituents, or what, in other circumstances, might be called `responsiveness.' The reformist position is that legislators shape their votes and other activities based on campaign contributions. They call this corruption. Money dominates the policy making process, they argue, unfairly frustrating the popular will. . . . For one this, it is proper, to some extent, for a legislator to vote in ways that will please constituents, which may, from the legislators viewpoint, have the beneficial effect of making those constituents more likely to donate to the legislators re-election campaign.'' But who does it make them more attentive to? The wealthy, the heavier hitters, the tiny proportion of the population who can make substantial contributions to candidates. Again, the fact that Smith admits this is the case is not surprising. Many critics of private money in politics draw the same conclusion. What colleagues should find outrageous is that Smith, again, sees nothing wrong with this relationship. It is the money in politics which has stripped away from many Americans the capacity to have one's vote weigh as much as the person in the next polling booth, to have a vote in the South Central, LA to be worth as much as a vote in Beverly Hills. The vote is undermined by the dollar. The vote may be equally distributed, but dollars are not. As long as elections are privately financed, those who can afford to give more will always have a leg up--in supporting candidates, in running for office themselves, and in gaining access and influence with those who get elected. We all know this is the way it works. And the American people know it, too. Bizarrely, though, Smith argues that wealth, and therefore the ability to affect elections is distributed equitably enough through out our society that the inordinate influence of money is not inordinately concentrated among a small subset of the population. In a 1997 piece entitled ``Money Talks: Speech, Equality, and Campaign Finance'' Smith states: Very few citizens have the talent, physical and personal attributes, luck of time and place, or wealth to influence political affairs substantially. Thus a relatively small number of individuals will always have political influence far exceeding that of their neighbors. However, to the extent that wealth (however that might be defined) than there are citizens capable of running a political campaign, producing quality political advertising, writing newspaper editorials, coaching voice, and so on. In other words, it may be true that more people are ``good looking'' than rich, it may be true that more people are ``educated'' than rich. However, the number of people capable of meaningful nonmonetary contributions to a political campaign--that is the type of contribution that will give the individual some extra say in policy-making--is much smaller than the group of monied people. I frankly think this argument is ridiculous and insulting. It suggests that if you're not a $500 an hour consultant telling the candidate to wear earth tones, if you're not a big name pollster you can't make a meaningful nonmonetary contribution to a political campaign. No one who has actually run for office would hold this view. Taken to a logical extreme its effect would be to limit participation by those other than the monied elite--the hundred of folks who volunteer at a phone bank, put up yard signs, or write letters to the editor. My point is that almost everyone has something to offer regardless of how wealthy they are. But there is a larger point here; the fact that Brad Smith believes that there are more people in America capable of donating $1000 than there are people who can take a few afternoons to lick envelopes. I'm not sure where Smith comes by this view but it obviously falls on its face. Of course, it does explain where Smith is coming from. I mean, if you believe that money is speech and that campaign contributions profoundly impacts the legislative process, you are one of two things: You are either a defender of a political oligarchy of the wealthy and well- heeled or you believe that this money, this power, is distributed equally throughout society. To be fair to Smith, he genuinely seems to hold the latter view. But while this might be a less cynical reason to be comfortable with money influencing politics, he's still flat out wrong. In fact, he has it completely backward. The picture of those who contribute the vast majority of money to candidates under the current contribution limits does not look like America, it is overwhelmingly white, male, and wealthy. A study conducted of donors in the `96 election found the following characteristics of such donors: 95 percent were white, 80 percent were male, 50 percent were over 60 years of age and 81 percent had annual incomes of over $100,000. The population at large in the United States had the following characteristics at that time: 17 percent was non- white, 51 percent were women, 12.8 percent were over 60, and only 4.8 percent had incomes over $100,000. For example, the organization Public Campaign found that during the 1996 elections, just one zip code--10021, in New York City--contributed $9.3 million. There are only 107,000 people in that exclusive slice of Manhattan real estate and the vast majority (91 percent) are white. On the other side of the lop-sided equation are 9.5 million residents of the 483 U.S. communities that are more than 90 percent people of color. They gave $5.5 million. Are these groups equal before the law? Additionally, Only a spectacularly small portion of U.S. citizens contribute more than $200 to political campaigns. In the first half of 1999: Only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans (.037%) has made a contribution greater than $200. As of June 30, 1999 only .022% of all Americans had given $1000 to a presidential candidate. In the `98 election, .06% of all Americans gave $1000, or 1 in 5000. So again, Smith has the argument precisely backward, because so few can effectively participate through campaign contributions it is inherently unequal means of political participation. The fact that a few actors--big corporations, Unions, the truly wealthy--have nearly limitless funds to pour into races exacerbates the disparity between the average citizen and the monied citizen. But other means of political participation are inherently limited--no matter who you are, there are still no more than 24 hours in a day or seven days in a week--do no one has that much of an advantage. But Smith goes further than simply arguing that campaign contributions can buy legislative favors, he argues in ``Money Talks'' that money is speech--not in the sense that it buys speech or allows for getting out the candidates message--but in the sense that making a campaign contribution is an act of symbolic, political speech in of itself. This argument, I should point out to colleagues, goes way beyond the Supreme Court's linkage between speech and money in Buckley. Smith argues: The Court's rationale that contribution limits only ``marginally'' burden First amendment rights is suspect on its own and at odds with the traditional First Amendment right of association. The Court was correct that the size of a contribution does not express the underlying basis of support, but wrong when it held that it involved ``little direct restraint on political communication.'' Is not a substantially different message communicated when a local merchant pledges $10,000 to one charity (or political campaign) and just $25 to another? In such an instance, is it not the size of the donation, rather than the act of donating, that sends the strongest message to the community? It is true that the basis of support for the cause (or candidate) remains vague, yet the message in each gift is substantially different. Combined with the fact that only a tiny percentage of voting citizens are making large hard money contributions (much less truly massive soft money contributions) Smith is advocating for a system where much political speech is effectively closed to most Americans because they can't muster the means to make a send a loud ``message.'' If money equals speech, we can clearly see who we are letting do all the talking--or at least those are the folks that we're listening to. The hopes, dreams, concerns, and problems of the vast majority of the American people are going unheard because the bullhorn of the $1,000 contribution drowns them out. Why would be want to make that bullhorn bigger and louder? Why would we want to give greater access and more control to those who already have it locked up? But that is the direction that this FEC nominee would see us go in. Like Smith, I too am a critic of our mechanism for financing of elections. 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. But unlike Smith, I support reforms that would expand political participation. Unlike Smith I have no illusions that inequities in wealth--in a system where wealth rules--do not result in a distorted product. In 1966 in the case of Harper versus Virginia State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court struck down a poll tax of $1.50 in Virginia state elections. The Court stated in its decision that, quote, the ``State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.'' In 1972 in Bullock versus Carter, the Court again faced the issue of wealth in the electoral process and again stated that such a barrier was unconstitutional. This time, the question concerned a system of high filing fees that the state of Texas required candidates to pay, in order to appear on the primary ballot. The fees ranged from $150 to $8,900. The Court invalidated the system on Equal Protection grounds. It found that, with the high filing fees, quote: ``potential office seekers lacking both personal wealth and affluent backers are in every practical sense precluded from seeking the nomination of their chosen party, no matter how qualified they might be and no matter how enthusiastic their popular support.'' The ``exclusionary character'' of the system also violated the constitutional rights of non-affluent voters. ``We would ignore reality,'' the Court stated, ``were we not to find that this system falls with unequal weight on voters, as well as candidates, according to their economic status.'' unquote. These cases may have no literal legal implications for our system, where deep pockets--either one's own or one's political friends--are a prerequisite for success. But they do have a moral implication. I do believe that in America's elections today we have a wealth primary, a barrier to participation to those who are not themselves wealthy or who refuse to buy in to monied interests. Is it an absolute barrier? No. Does it mean that every candidate for federal office is corrupt? No. However, the price we pay is what the economists would call the ``opportunity cost.'' It is a cost represented by lost opportunities, by settling for those who are most electable rather than those who are the best representatives of the American people. And I do not believe that in a system where money equals power, inequality of wealth can be reconciled with equality of participation. That, I say to my colleagues, is why I cannot support Mr. Smith's nomination. And it isn't that he is a critic of the present system. Indeed I agree with Smith that fixing the system is not fundamentally an issue 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. 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. I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that the way we are moving toward a balanced federal budget is unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? The cuts we are imposing most deeply affect those who are least well off. 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. For this reason, I support public financing of elections. It is a matter of common sense, not to mention plain observation, that to whatever extent campaigns are financed with private money, people with more of it have an advantage and people with less of it are disadvantaged. 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, but a vote for Smith is to move the FEC, and the debate over campaign finance reform, in the opposite direction. Despite his obvious command of the law, Brad Smith has shown himself through his writings to be completely insensitive to the realities of political participation in America. He is smart enough to know better. The Senate should send a message that it is smart enough to know better too. I urge a no vote. Recently, a complaint was filed by five Members of Congress and a separate complaint filed by President Clinton which urged the FEC to close the soft money loophole. Brad Smith's view that it is unconstitutional to prohibit soft money makes it likely he will reject any recommendation from general counsel to close the soft money loophole. Regulation of election-related activity on the Internet--the FEC is looking at a whole range of issues that are based upon or deal with the use of the Internet to conduct political activities. Again, I do not know the potential for all the abuses and the ways in which people can attack and people can raise money for the attack and what they can do on the Internet. I do know Brad Smith's view that the Federal Government should scrap all of its campaign finance reform efforts can be expected to strongly color his policy judgment about what regulations the FEC ultimately should issue in this area of law. For other colleagues who are thinking of coming to the floor, I will not take a lot more time. I will reserve the remainder of my time. I want to put forth a couple of points. First of all, Senator Feingold and I have been in opposition. We were part of an agreement this nomination would come to the floor, but that has to do also with the ability to get a number of judges considered. We certainly need to start voting on judges. I do not believe, I say to my colleagues, that these votes are independent of one another. I do not think colleagues ought to be voting for Brad Smith, the argument being that only if he is so confirmed will judges pass. I do not believe that is part of any formal agreement, and it should not be a part of any informal agreement. We ought to vote on these candidates on the basis of their qualifications. We ought to be voting on them on the basis of what it is we ask them to do in Government. While I respect Brad Smith's intellectual ability and while I like him as a person--and I am not just saying that--I believe it would be a terrible mistake for the Senate to confirm him. It sends a terrible message of our viewpoint of the mix of money in politics and whether or not we are serious about any reform. In many ways, this is the core problem--the mix of money in politics. I believe we have moved dangerously close to a system of democracy for the few. Money has hijacked politics in this country. It is no wonder we see a decline in the participation of people in public life and politics. Most people believe money dominates politics, and it does. I am in disagreement with Brad Smith. Money--other Senators can come to the floor and disagree and debate--determines all too often who gets to run. All too often it determines who wins the election or who loses the election. All too often it determines what issues we even put on the table and consider. All too often it determines the outcome of specific votes on amendments or bills. All too often on a lot of the details of legislation, special interests are able to get their way. All too often it is on the basis of some people, some organizations, some groups having way too much wealth and power and the majority of the people left out. It is incredible to me. We have all become so used to this system that we have forgotten the ways in which it can be so corrupting, not in terms of individual Senators doing wrong because someone offers them a contribution and, therefore, a Senator votes this way or that way. I do not think that happens. I hope it does not happen. I pray it does not happen. I will say this. We have the worst kind of corruption of all. It is systemic, and it is an imbalance between those people who have all the financial resources and the majority of people in the country who do not. It is when too few of those people have way too much of the power and the majority of the people feel left out. When that happens, there is such an imbalance of access, influence, say, and power in the country that the basic standard in a democracy that each person should count as one, and no more than one, is seriously violated. It is interesting, I point out for colleagues, in the first half of 1999, just looking at the contributions, only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans, .03 percent, made a contribution greater than $200. As of June 30, 1999, .022 percent of all Americans had given $1,000 to a Presidential candidate. In the 1998 election, .06 percent of all Americans gave $1,000, and that was 1 in 5,000. This does not even take into account all the soft money contributions. This does not take into account the $500,000 and the $1 million contributions. What happens is that the vast majority of people in the country--I am sorry, not just poor people who do not have financial resources--the vast majority of people in the United States of America believe their concerns--for themselves, their families, and their communities--are of little concern in the corridors of power in Washington, DC, where they see a political system and a politics dominated by big money and, therefore, really believe they are shut out. We have given them entirely too much justification for that point of view. I do not see how in the world we can vote for Brad Smith, given how clear he is in his opposition to reform. Given the positions he has taken which go in the exact opposite direction of believing that money in any way, shape, or form can be corrupting of this political system and corrupting of democracy, we send a terrible message to people in this country if we vote for this nominee. Again, I am not all that excited about coming here and making these arguments, especially when it is about an individual person. I am not talking about Brad Smith; I am talking about his viewpoint. I think he is wrong. I would love to be in a debate with him. I probably would have a tough time in a debate with him. He has a tremendous amount of ability. It would be a fun debate. I would enjoy it. The point is, you can respect someone; you can say you would love to debate somebody; you appreciate their writing; you appreciate the speech they have given; you appreciate the lecture they have given--I was a college professor--but to see them on the Federal Election Commission is a different story when he is asked to implement the very laws he says he does not believe in, when he is asked to be there to make decisions--FEC is not an empty vessel, and he certainly is not an empty vessel--where key decisions are going to be made about coordination, soft money, and a whole set of issues that are dramatically important to whether we have a democracy or not. I cannot vote for him. I believe Senators should oppose this nomination. I do not know what the final vote will be. Maybe there will be a majority vote for him, maybe there will not. His nomination is put forth at precisely the wrong time in the history of American politics in the country. I say that because I believe people in this country yearn for change. Senator McCain is on the floor. He will be speaking later. His campaign certainly tapped into that. His campaign brought that out in people. That is but one powerful example. People would love to have a Government they believe is their Government. They would love to have a Senate and a House of Representatives they believe belong to them. People right now--I have said it before in the Senate--believe that if you pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you don't play. Above and beyond this debate, I want us to get to the point where we make some significant change. What is at stake on this whole reform question is basically whether or not we will continue to have a vibrant representative democracy. If your standard is that each person should count for no more than one, we have moved so far away from that standard, it is frightening. This may be a terrible thing to say on the floor of the Senate because I love being a Senator. I will thank Minnesota for the rest of my life for giving me this chance. In many ways I think we have a pseudodemocracy, a minidemocracy. We have participation, we have government of, by and for maybe about 20 percent or less of the people. There are many things that need to be done which can lead to democratic renewal. One of them is to get serious about the ways in which money has come to dominate politics, the ways in which we now have the most severe imbalance of power we could imagine, which is dangerous to the very idea of representative democracy. I want to see us move to a clean money-clean election. I love what Massachusetts has done; I love what Arizona has done; I love what Maine has done; and I love what Vermont has done. I know other States want to do it. If I ever get the chance, I am going to offer a bill or an amendment that will say that every State should apply clean money-clean election campaigns not only to their State races but to Federal races, give the right to the States as to whether or not they want to have essentially a fund people can draw from--maybe everybody contributes a few dollars a year--which enables people to say: By God, these are our elections; our voice counts; no one person and no one interest is dominant. There will be the McCain-Feingold bill. I will be pushing hard for the clean money-clean election effort. There are other people who have had ideas. I want us to come out here and get serious about passing reform legislation. We are not there yet; I know that. I think the mode of power for change is going to have to come from a citizen politics; a citizen politics will have to be the money politics. You will have to have an engaged, energized, excited, empowered, determined citizen politics that is going to force us to pass this reform legislation. In the meantime, I urge colleagues not to vote for Brad Smith's nomination--not because he isn't a good person; he is--because of the basic philosophy he holds, the basic viewpoint he holds which is so antithetical to reform. I think this is a test case as to whether or not we are serious about the business of reform. I hope we vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague and my neighbor from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. I have a very strong feeling and belief that this speech, which has been given at 5 o'clock this Thursday afternoon, will end up being one of the more memorable speeches given on the floor of the Senate. I think the speech was eloquent and powerful. It went way beyond political party. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I won't be--I can't be--as eloquent, but I actually thought I would come to the floor and try to basically speak to what I think are some important questions for the Senate. This is, in part, the discussion we had yesterday; and especially with the majority leader not on the floor, I will make sure that what I say, I say in such a way that if he wants to respond later, he can. In any case, I intend to say it at least in the best possible way I can. I know the majority leader today, in a couple of interviews--it has come my way from several journalists--has said that yesterday he sort of believed that I was responsible for this exchange that we had on the floor--in getting it started. I believe he also mentioned Senator Durbin. I want to say that, actually, if that is the case, I would be proud to accept the blame. I think it is a discussion we needed to have, albeit what I hope is that something positive will come out of it. That is to say--and this is what Senator Feingold was trying to say--I came here to do my very best to represent the people in Minnesota. I think when you are a Senator, and also when you pass amendments or bills, it can have implications for people all across the country. What I have always loved about the Senate in the time I have been here is that individual Senators can matter and can make a difference. We are really much more of an amendment body. I think the Senate is at its best when bills come to the floor and Senators bring amendments out and we start early in the morning and--we don't need to go until midnight; that is not good for families. But we can go until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. We are about the work of democracy. That is what we are doing. We have votes up or down, and we are all held accountable; we are able to come out here and introduce amendments that speak to the concerns and circumstances, in our view, of the people we represent. That is why I came here. Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, in response to some of what the majority leader said--I will make sure I do not make the response personal--I said I felt that we have had a pattern here--and Senator Feingold has spoken about this--over and over and over again where bills are considered and the majority leader and others make it clear that only certain amendments are acceptable--not very many--for debate. If there is no agreement on the minority side, then the majority leader files cloture and usually doesn't get it. The bill is pulled and no legislation is passed. This has been happening over and over and over again. From my point of view, a point of order challenge for the first time in 16 years, or thereabouts, which prevented Senators from introducing even sense-of-the-Senate resolutions to appropriations bills--the argument that was made was, well, hey, we have to do business and we have to get going. You know what. Every year we have appropriations bills--last year and the year before that and the year before that. Never before--at least in the last 16 or 17 years--has this been done. My view was that all of this added up to an effort to basically run the Senate like the House of Representatives. That is what I have said, and that is what I believe. I have said it many times. I think that is detrimental to the Senate. I think it takes away the vitality that we have and robs us of some of the capacity for debate, for deliberation, for honest differences of opinion, which need to be expressed out here on the floor of the Senate, and for individual Senators to be able to speak to their priorities. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side may want to talk about tax cuts or about this or that and the other. I may want to talk about the poverty of children and the need to have affordable child care and the need to make sure we have food and nutrition programs so children don't go hungry. We all have things about which we care the most. Nobody is better than anybody else. But do you know what. I want the right to be able to do that. What I was trying to say yesterday--and I will say it, given what the majority leader said to several journalists--was I actually didn't intend to be silenced. So I will continue to issue challenges and speak out. I think that Senator Daschle spoke probably for every single Democrat yesterday. I think it is going to be important for us to move forward, and I hope we will. Sometimes what happens on the floor of the Senate is that people speak with some indignation because that is what they feel, and they may feel very strongly. So the words are uttered in that way, and some of the discussion takes place that way. Do you know what? I think there comes a time when that is necessary. Frankly, I think it is important that the minority party makes sure we maintain our rights. It is important that the minority maintains its voice. It is important that Senators have opportunities to bring amendments out here and do their very best to legislate for people back home, to introduce amendments, have debate, to win or to lose, but to be at the work of democracy. I just think that the Senate doesn't do the work of democracy when we basically go through bills that are laid out, and then cloture is filed and the bills are pulled, and that is about it. And we really aren't about doing the work I think we ought to be doing. That is my own view. Again, in responding to some of what has been said today, listen, if the majority leader feels that I am the blame for getting this debate started yesterday, I am proud to accept that. I think we needed to have the debate. But the most important thing is that we all figure out a way we can move forward from it. I will tell you that I feel very strongly that we have to get back to some debate out here on the floor of the Senate. We have to get back to the deliberation. I would be interested in the Senator's response, frankly, if he can help me a moment. To me, the work of democracy is when Senators come out here with amendments. As I said earlier, we should start early in the morning, go to 8 or 9 at night, and have at it. We would have good deliberations and good debate, and we would vote amendments up or down. Senators would be able to raise the kinds of questions they want to raise and speak to the kinds of issues they think are so important to the people they represent; we are all accountable. But it is substantive. It is real. It is about issues, and nobody is gagged; nobody is blocked. That is the Senate and the vitality of the Senate. I wonder what my colleague thinks about that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wasn't trying to apologize.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will ask my colleague another question. It is interesting that he mentioned Senator Gramm from Texas because I remember that several years ago, we were in the majority. We were in the office because I know it was July 21. It was my birthday, and we had the cake and candles. Somebody said: Senator Gramm is out there with an amendment on legal services that you don't agree with. You have to go out there and debate him. I didn't know he was going to bring that amendment up. I had to end the birthday party, get the notes, and run down here. There was a 2- or 3-hour debate on it. But that is what I love about being a Senator. It is not a game. He was serious about what he was doing, and I was serious in opposition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin another question. This has not been brought up. I think the Senator gave a speech that, as I said, will be memorable for many years to come. This is a little bit away from the framework. The Senator can respond in any way, of course, that is appropriate from the Senator's point of view. One of the things that I think in part caused me to raise these questions with the majority leader yesterday was that I was little worried. Back home, people meet with you, and they believe because of the chance of meeting with you that something positive can happen, that it will make a difference in lives, that it will help them. I get worried that if you can't offer amendments and you are shut out, you are not able to respond to people. For example, take agriculture and dairy farmers in Wisconsin and in Minnesota, much less other farmers. For them, time is not mutual. They really believe when I meet with them that I can do something right now about the abysmally low prices, whether it is the livestock producers, or whether it is the corn growers. You meet with people. With what is going on in farm country with crops, people are in such pain. They still come out to meetings because they still believe you are their Senator, and by meeting with you and talking about what is happening to them, somehow since you are their Senator you can do something to help. But I can't do anything to help right now.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder what the response of the Senator from Wisconsin would be. I even found myself saying to people-- I can think of different meetings, but I will stay with agriculture. I want to talk about some of the other issues where I literally sometimes slip into, if you will, I guess, what I call ``Washington language,'' and say to people I don't know if there will be a vehicle. People are thinking: Wait a minute; we are losing our farms. They do not know what you are talking about. They have no health care coverage, and can't there be more support for child care, teachers talk about what will make a difference in the schools--pick your issue. And you are at a meeting with people, you are moved by people, and you want to do something to help. Other Senators might have a very different viewpoint, in which case we can have the debate. I find myself saying I just hope there will be a vehicle. People do not know what you are talking about. What do you mean, there is no vehicle? Don't you have an opportunity as a Senator to try to legislate and to be out there representing people and fighting for people? That is what I am worried about. That is what yesterday was about.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I asked the Senator from Wisconsin whether or not he has been in a similar experience. I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator should speak for himself.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would say to my colleague from Wisconsin that I have two answers. The first answer is part of what I have been trying to say, which is I am really in a debate with the majority leader. I think other Democrats are with me. I hope some Republicans are. It is not a debate for the sake of debate because what I worry about the most is to go back home all the time and to have people meet with you to talk about their lives and have the hope that you as a Senator can make a difference, and you can't make a difference. If there is this effort basically to silence you and if there is this effort basically to block amendments and block debate, Senator Feingold is right. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. But you have to have that opportunity to be out here advocating and legislating and fighting for people. That is important to me. Second, this didn't come up in yesterday's debate. I ask my colleague in the form of a question, part of what is going on I think is whether or not the Senate becomes just a nondecisionmaking body. Whether that is good or bad very much depends on one's view about government. If one thinks there is no positive role that government or public policy can play in the lives of people and in improving the lives of people, it would not bother Members that Senators cannot introduce amendments and that we don't debate these issues. I ask my colleague whether or not he thinks that is in part what is going on. If one believes there is nothing the government can or should do to respond to dairy farmers, family farmers, by way of making health care more affordable, or improving educational opportunities for children, then denying Senators the opportunity to debate and offer amendments and moving forward is not a problem. If one believes there is a role for government to be doing this, I think it is a problem. I ask my colleague whether he thinks there is a philosophical debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. I am a political scientist and taught American politics classes, but I think the Senator from Wisconsin is my teacher. I talked about it from the point of view we ought to be about the business of legislating and deciding, not about the business of not deciding and not moving forward. I think what my colleague from Wisconsin is saying is, but also, Senator Wellstone, the other critical role of the Senate is by definition, two Senators from every State, regardless of population of State. It is not straight majority or majoritarian principles. The Senate is there to defend the rights of minorities, sometimes to represent unpopular causes, and sometimes to make sure that if there is a rush to pass a piece of legislation which has cataclysmic consequences in people's lives, such as the bankruptcy bill, there is an opportunity for Senator or Senators to say: Wait a minute; I insist this not move through. I will be out here fighting, even if it is an unpopular cause. I want the public and the country to know. Sometimes there is much to be said for deliberation. Sometimes there is much to be said for the Senate as a deliberative body, and therefore there is much to be said for a Senator's rights or a group of Senators' rights to represent this viewpoint. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his comments, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have gone back and forth on this question. Let me start by making a couple of quick points. First of all, I would be more than pleased to test this question about whether or not we should have a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. I would be more than pleased to have an up-or-down vote on the Kosovo peacekeeping operation today or this week. Frankly, I think that is the way we should do it. That would be a true test of accountability. I have a high doctrine of War Powers and have always insisted on appropriate congressional authorization of the use of troops in situations where they might face hostilities or imminent hostilities. I think that is required by our Constitution and by our system of checks and balances. But I think there is a subtle difference here between that kind of situation and this peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. Kosovo is a peacekeeping and peace enforcement effort. Our troops are playing a security role there, but they are not now, nor do I expect them to be, involved in combat with organized hostile Serb or other forces in Kosovo. If that changes, of course, we in Congress would likely reconsider the role of these peacekeepers in light of the risks, what is at stake, and make a judgment then. But in the current situation, these peacekeepers deserve a chance to stay and to do their jobs as they have been asked to do, without the prospect of their funding from the United States getting cut off if our European allies do not meet the somewhat arbitrary standards set out in this bill, some of which many in the administration say may not be able to be met in terms of the current timetable. Mr. President, it is with some regret that I oppose this provision to effectively impose a deadline for Kosovo peacekeeping efforts, and to support efforts by Senator Levin to strike it from the bill. While I support many of the foreign policy goals which Senators Byrd and Warner have identified in this debate, I believe the amendment itself would likely put at serious practical risk the peacekeeping operation in Kosovo which, while not without its flaws, is one which I support. I regret that I am not able to support this effort not only because of the respect and admiration I have for these two men, but also because I do share some of their concerns, most especially about ensuring our appropriate and constitutionally-mandated congressional role in decisions regarding war and peace. But while it is clear that we need to intensify the dialogue between the Administration and Congress on the larger questions about the circumstances under which we enter into peacekeeping commitments, and the criteria by which we decide that issue, this set of complex foreign policy questions should not be decided in this way, on this bill, in a way which potentially undercuts our peacekeeping efforts on the ground in Kosovo. I support what I believe are the key underlying goals of the amendment: prompting a comprehensive debate on the Kosovo peacekeeping operation, its successes and failures; ensuring fair burden-sharing by our European allies, including on civilian police; and intensifying executive-congressional consultation on future decisions made regarding peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations in the region. Of course we in Congress must continue to keep a close watch on the situation there, and intervene--forcefully and directly, if necessary, through the power of the purse or otherwise--if we believe the administration is going in the wrong direction. And I know that both Senator Warner and Senator Byrd have pressed the administration on the burdensharing issue for many months, and have had some real success in helping to ensure a fairer proportion of U.S. to European assistance. The fact is that we have about 5,900 of the approximately 39,000 troops in the region now; overall we are providing, according to the Administration, only about 15 percent of the troops and reconstruction aid for this effort. While it is important to continue to press to make sure the Europeans follow through on their commitments of resources and police personnel, I do not think fifteen percent is too much for us to bear to help our allies keep the peace in this troubled region. International peacekeeping must be a joint effort, with shared burdens, shared responsibilities and shared risks. That is why I think it would be in a way more honest, more responsible, for those who wish to test the question, to simply prompt a debate by calling for a vote up or down on the Kosovo peacekeeping operation. If there are those who want to press that question, that would be a test of true accountability. We could vote on that this week. But I think most of us suspect that if the question were posed that starkly, many who might end up supporting this resolution, with its elaborate formula and framework for a potential withdrawal, would not vote to pull out our troops. They would not want to so grossly and suddenly undercut our troops, our allies, and those in Kosovo, Albania, and elsewhere in the region whom we have labored so mightily to protect in the past two years. On the whole, our peacekeepers, and those of our allies, have done a remarkable job of enforcing, in a difficult and tense environment, an uncertain peace. Their presence has clearly helped to avoid a return to the horrendous violence that we all witnessed in Kosovo, and that NATO fought so hard to stem. Let's not forget that the ethnic cleansing that prompted our presence in the first place has been stopped, and that a return to the fighting has been prevented by the peacekeeping forces on the ground. Given the fragility of the current peace, it seems to me a likely result of our withdrawal would be a withdrawal by our allies, followed by a return to such fighting. I share some of the frustration expressed about the Kosovo operation. While it is clear that some functions of this force could have been handled better, and that all parties involved could strengthen efforts--by the administration, by civilian police on the ground, by the UN bureaucracy, by those nations who have sent sometimes inadequate aid, or who have failed to live up completely and a timely way to their commitments--the peacekeeping forces have done a good job, under harrowing circumstances, and we should not undercut them, directly or indirectly, by passing this amendment. The fact that there has been less long-term progress than had been hoped for toward the development of a multi-ethnic state in Kosovo is not the fault of these peacekeepers. I have a high doctrine of War Powers, and have always insisted on appropriate congressional authorization of the use of troops in situations where they might face hostilities or imminent hostilities. I think that's required by our Constitution, by our system of checks and balances. But I think there is a subtle difference here between that kind of situation of imminent or real hostilities and the current peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. Kosovo is a peacekeeping and peace enforcement effort; our troops are playing a security role there, but they are not now, nor do I expect them to be, involved in combat with organized hostile Serb or other forces in Kosovo. If that changes, of course we in Congress would likely reconsider the role of these peacekeepers in light of the risks, what's at stake, and make a judgment then. But in the current situation, these peacekeepers deserve a chance to stay, and to do their jobs as they've been asked to do, without the prospect of their funding from the U.S. getting cut if our European allies don't meet the somewhat arbitrary standards set out in this bill, some of which the Administration says aren't likely to be met under this particular timetable. Some oppose the Kosovo peacekeeping operation outright, and would simply turn it over completely to the Europeans. That's a legitimate view, but not one I share. We cannot send a signal to our allies that we will help out in difficult and complex situations like this, but only if they bear all the risks of peacekeeping. Others have raised the issue of the U.S. looking irresolute to our allies within NATO, and to Milosevic. Or the concern that Milosevic might, if he knows there's an almost certain date set for our withdrawal, he'll likely instruct his troops to simply wait us out--or worse, instruct his radical Serb allies to foment violence to influence Western opinion, and even future votes in Congress, on whether to keep the peacekeepers there. These are legitimate concerns, but I think a more fundamental question is posed. Will we shoulder our responsibilities, along with our NATO allies, to continue to help bolster and build a stable peace in Kosovo, to give them a chance at reconstruction, or will we start to scale back our effort now, and then pull out down the road, even after all the blood and treasure that's been spent to secure that peace, signaling to our allies and adversaries in the region alike that we're not firmly committed to seeing through the job that we started? I hope not. And I hope that we'll not start down that road by voting for a year of questions and uncertainty about our commitment in Kosovo. That is not to say the administration must not push harder our European allies to accelerate their assistance to the reconstruction effort. It is not to say the President should not intensify his consultations with Congress on his plans and intentions regarding the peacekeeping force. He absolutely must do those things. But I do not think that this amendment is the way to ensure those results. And so I will vote for Senator Levin's amendment to strike this language from the bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to support our peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo, and against this provision which, in its current form, could do that effort real harm. Mr. President, again, I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of this question. I would be pleased to have an up-or-down vote on the peacekeeping operation. I would be pleased to be held accountable. I would love for the Senate to deal with this question right now and vote up or down on the peacekeeping operation. To me, that is checks and balances. I would vote for the peacekeeping operation, and that is why I will support Senator Levin's initiative. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Hatch, Senator Feingold and Senator Kohl for their work in passing the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act through the Judiciary Committee today. I am proud to be its sponsor in the Senate. In particular, I would like to commend Rep. Bruce Vento for his efforts on this legislation and his extraordinary courage and selfless devotion to the important cause of the Hmong veterans. I would like to affirm my colleagues' remarks and thank the Lao Veterans of America, the nation's largest Hmong veterans organization, for its leadership in helping to bring long-overdue national recognition to the Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army, as well as pushing for the passage of this legislation in the House and Senate. Lao Veterans of America is the nation's first non-profit veterans organization representing Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army. These veterans and their families served with U.S. military and clandestine forces in Laos during the Vietnam War. Starting in 1990, the group established and began maintaining the nation's largest repository of records relating to the Hmong and Lao veterans who served with U.S. clandestine and military forces. Mr. President, the Lao Veterans of America's second largest chapter is headquartered in Minnesota. I have heard from hundreds of Hmong Americans in support of this bill over the years. I want to thank them, as well as all the Hmong people from Minnesota and around the country who made the passage of this bill possible.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take a moment to thank my colleagues for passing S. 890, the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act. Frankly, this bill is long overdue. As the Senator from Minnesota, I am proud to represent the largest Hmong population in America. There are nearly 70,000 Hmong people living in the twin cities. My experience as a Senator has become so much greater as a result of coming to know the nobel history and rich culture of the Hmong people in Minnesota. I am in awe of their sacrifice for the American people. Hmong soldiers died at ten times the rate of American soldiers in the Vietnam War. As many as 20,000 Hmong fell on the mountains in Laos. Hmong soldiers were paid $3 a month and often lived off of rice alone. Where American pilots were sent home after a year or after their one hundredth mission, Hmong soldiers never stopped fighting. ``Fly till you die'' was what the Hmong soldiers said. And, as adults died, children as young as twelve were called up to take their place. In exchange for their service, the Hmong were given a promise of protection by the United States Government. Yet the promise made on the battlefield was abandoned. When the United States military fled South East Asia, the Hmong Geurillas were left to fight alone. A trail of 100,000 refugees were left to fend for themselves. Many were slaughtered as they waited for evacuation planes that never came. Because America's war effort in Laos was covert, perhaps the largest covert action in our history, the sacrifices and service of the Hmong and Lao veterans is still largely untold. As a result, many of these brave people are still suffering from poverty, discrimination, and persecution. The legislation we passed today is a tribute to this sacrifice. It is a small but meaningful step in honoring and fulfilling our promise to the Hmong people. This legislation will simply waive the literacy requirement to all Hmong Veterans and their spouses to become citizens of the United States--a nation for which so many of them spilled their blood and a nation that has long ignored their unique struggle. The need for this legislation is acute because the Hmong had no written language until recently, and because so many Hmong children were fighting for America when they should have been in school. I want to thank my colleagues for their support. In particular, I also want to take a moment to thank and honor Congressman Bruce Vento. He, more than anyone in the Congress, has dedicated himself to ensure that Hmong and Lao veterans receive the honor and respect that has been so long deserved and too long delayed. I also want to thank Chairman Hatch, for guiding this bill through the Judiciary Committee and Senator Russ Feingold who, with Senator Herb Kohl, has worked so hard to see that this bill is passed. Mostly, I thank the Hmong people. You gave us your lives and your families. You are American heroes.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, pursuing this a bit further, we always have appropriations bills. We did last year. I know some of my Republican colleagues had sense-of-the-Senate amendments. We always have the business of the Senate before us. I don't think the majority leader answered my question. Why, for the first time in 16 years, has the point of order been raised?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank some of my colleagues I have heard out here on the floor. I had a chance last night to listen. I had to go back home. I have a ruptured disc in my back. I was lying in bed listening to Senator Boxer. I thought she was brilliant. And when Senator Kennedy speaks on this matter, I think he speaks with great moral authority. I say to Senator Boxer that I use the word ``brilliant'' carefully. It is not to try to get her to like me; we are already good friends. I just think she spoke with a lot of eloquence and a lot of feeling. I am not going to actually go through all of the provisions we have been talking about because people who follow this debate have heard that already. I want this juvenile justice bill out of conference committee, although there are other parts of the bill to which I really object. I think it is unconscionable that it has been blocked. I think these sensible gun control measures must be passed by the Congress--the House and the Senate. Instead, what I want to do is talk about this Million Mom March and how it affected me and how it has affected my wife Sheila. We came back from, actually, Wisconsin where I went to support Tammy Baldwin and came back to D.C. to take part in that march. We did that because we wanted to join in with a lot of mothers from Minnesota. Second of all-- actually, I had a discussion with Senator Boxer about this--I thought, this is really historic; I should be there. I don't really know how many mothers were there. I don't know whether it was 750,000 or 650,000, but it was very powerful. I really believe there were two messages to that march. One has been much discussed. The other has been less discussed. The first message was that you had mothers basically saying to the Nation--much less to the Congress-- there is too much violence; there are too many of our children being killed; we can do much better as a nation. We are all for doing everything possible on prevention. We are all for making sure the existing laws are enforced. We are all for making sure we figure out how to help children with troubled lives--some of the children who committed these crimes or a murder. But we want our Congress--if it is our Congress--to pass legislation that will make sure some of these children and other citizens who should not have these guns don't get these guns in their hands--make sure we deal with the loopholes, and make sure people with a history of violence don't have these guns. Surely, we can do better. Nobody can ever get it 100- percent right. Nobody can be sure those citizens who should not have access to guns don't get access to guns. Nobody can stand here on the floor of the Senate and say if we pass these measures, we won't have a repeat of a Columbine or what happened in many other schools. But we can certainly do everything that is humanly possible to try to reduce the violence and try to reduce the number of children that are murdered. It is reasonable. I come from a State where Minnesotans love to hunt. They do not want their long guns taken away. They do not want their rifle hunt taken away. This has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with the basic constitutional rights. It is not written anywhere in the Constitution that anybody who wants to own a gun--even if they have a history of violence, are convicted of a violent crime, even if they have used guns before--should be allowed to have a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that. That is what this is all about. That is what these amendments are all about. I think the first message on the part of mothers--I do not know. We will see. The proof will be in the pudding. We will see how history writes about this later depending upon the followup of this march. But I see that march as the beginning of a very important citizens lobby in the country. You had a lot of women who came. I know that in Minnesota we have a lot of Democrats; we have a lot of Republicans; and we have a lot of women who really do not care about either party, to tell you the truth. They do not really care. But they care fiercely about this issue. I think they came here with a lot of courage. I think they came here with a lot of hope. That is good. That is all about representative democracy. They are not afraid to take on powerful special interests. They are not afraid to hold all of us accountable. They are not afraid to speak out for their children and their grandchildren. They are not afraid to work hard, to speak up, to lobby, to write letters, to advocate for sensible legislation that would reduce some of this violence and save lives. They are not afraid to do that. I think there was a lot of determination and a lot of indignation. I say to colleagues that I personally think indignation can be good. I would much rather women, men, and all citizens who believe we ought to do something to reduce this violence, and to get some of these guns out of the hands of children and other people who shouldn't have these guns--I think it is good that there is indignation. I think it is good that these women are saying to Senators and Representatives that we are not going to march here and have this big rally, and when the smoke clears away, you will never hear from us again. That is not going to happen. I think that makes our country work better. That is the second message. I think what happened on Sunday was inspiring. I think the mothers provoked the hopes and aspirations of other women and men in the country that, yes, we can change legislation; yes, ordinary citizens matter; that we have a right as citizens to make demands of the Congress and to be as bold and as courageous as we can be as citizens in a democracy. I think that was a message of this march. That is a wonderful message. That is an empowering message. Finally, there was another message, and if was a different one. The next day we had a panel discussion. There were a number of women crossing all income lines and all racial lines who lost children. I made the comment during this discussion when some of the mothers were speaking that people kept trying to get the mikes closer. But I think one of the reasons their voices were so quiet was because there is so much pain. I pray for our family. We have children and grandchildren. I pray that we never have to ever go through that. I pray no mother, no father, no grandparent, no brother, no sister, no wife, no husband ever, ever has to go through the living hell that these women have gone through having lost a child to this violence. At that discussion I think there was a lot of personal pain and a lot of agony. God knows, I don't know how these women have done it. I really do not. I do not know that I could have done it. They have somehow been able to muster up the courage to try to do everything they can to save the lives of other children. To honor them is the least we can do. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I think Senator Levin is on the floor now. I ask the majority leader this. It is my understanding that this is the first time in 16 years such a point of order has been raised on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions to amendments to appropriations bills. I ask the majority leader why this is the case.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is my last question. Last year, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, who had every right to do so, had a sense-of-the-Senate bill expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Census Bureau has willingly decided not to include marital status on census questionnaires, and so on and so forth. That passed by a 94-0 vote. I think this was on the Transportation appropriations bill. This is the first time in 16 years that this has happened. I think the majority leader wants to run the Senate as the House of Representatives. I think it is a big mistake for this institution to be run that way. I think it is very difficult for us to be out here raising questions that are important to people's lives that we represent in our different States given the continuing challenges of raising these points of order by the majority leader. This is happening over and over again. I think the Senate is losing its capacity to have the discussions, to have debate, and to have its vitality. I don't think I am going to object, but I would like to go on Record in strong opposition to what the majority leader has done. I think it is a terrible precedent for the Senate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to object. I think the reason I will not is I want to have a vote on these two amendments because we have been trying to do it. But I hate this precedent. I am going to try to figure out, along with other colleagues, I hope, a challenge.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time remains?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy and some of my other colleagues on the floor here today to talk about the so-called bankruptcy reform bill. I spoke for about twenty minutes yesterday on the same topic and my intent then is the same as that of my colleagues today: which is to shine a line on this bankruptcy bill, and focus the attention of the Senate on what Congress is poised to do to harshly punish working families overwhelmed by debt. Yesterday I mentioned the Bartlett and Steel article from Time magazine of last week entitled ``Soaked by Congress.'' I commend it to my colleagues' attention. And yesterday I also read some excerpts from that article to give colleagues an idea of what a typical family actually looks like who files for bankruptcy. In all honesty, I think many in the House and Senate were hoodwinked last year by a very clever media campaign on the part of the big banks and the credit card industry. I mean, it shouldn't be too surprising that the bill passed with the overwhelming margin that it did if you assumed that colleagues focused on the media campaign, the ad campaign, the legions of Gucci loafer wearing lobbyist that descended on the Hill. Because, frankly, I don't believe that many of my colleagues who did vote for the bill would have done so had they known then what they should know now, now that there has been some balance to the debate. Now the House and Senate leadership have staff burning the midnight oil trying to finish this bill so that they can stick it in an unrelated conference report. But while they do that, we have 40 million Americans without health insurance who we aren't rushing emergency legislation to safeguard. The Patients' Bill of Rights is MIA in conference for almost a year. We are crawling along--actually not even crawling anymore it appears--on Education--though schools are crumbling and kids can't learn because we aren't investing what we should into their education. I mean these are real emergencies facing millions of Americans. And yet it is so-called bankruptcy reform that the House and Senate are falling all over themselves to pass. This morning I want to focus on the reasons why this bill is being moved at light speed--the false reasons as well as the real reasons. Bankruptcy does not occur in vacuum. We know that in the vast majority of cases it is a drastic step taken by families in desperate financial circumstances and overburdened by debt. The main income earner may have lost his or her job. There may be sudden illness or a terrible accident requiring medical care. Certainly most Americans have faced a time in their lives where they weren't sure where the next mortgage payment or credit card payment was going to come from, but somehow they scrape by month to month. Still, such families are on the edge of a precipice and any new expense--a severely sick child, a car repair bill--could send a family into financial ruin. Despite the current economic expansion there are far too many working families in this situation. That is the true story behind the high number of bankruptcy filings in recent years and I want to make clear to my colleagues that the evidence shows that the very banks and credit card companies who are pushing this bill have a lot to do with why working families are in this predicament today. The bankruptcy system is supposed to allow a person to climb back up after they've hit bottom, to have a ``fresh start.'' There is no point to continue to punish a person and a family once their resources are over matched by debt. The bankruptcy system allows families to regroup, to focus resources on essentials like their home, transportation and meeting the needs of dependents. Sometimes the only way this can occur is to allow the debtor to be forgiven of some debt, and in most cases this is debt that would never be repaid because of the debtor's financial circumstances. In fact, in over 95% of bankruptcy cases creditors receive no distributions from the filer's assets--not because folks are able to beat the system--but because in the vast majority of cases the debtor simply has no assets left. The sponsors of this measure and the megabanks and credit card companies behind this bill don't like to focus on those situations. They paint a picture of profligate abuse of the bankruptcy system by irresponsible debtors who could pay their debt but simply choose not to. Such people do take advantage of the system, there is no question. But this bill casts a wider net and catches more than just the bankruptcy ``abusers.'' ``Soaked by Congress'' does an excellent job of setting the record straight. It notes that a study last year by the American Bankruptcy Institute found that only 3 percent of debtors who file under Chapter 7--where debtors liquidate assets to repay some debt while the rest of the debtor's unsecured debt is forgiven--would actually have been able to pay more of their debt than they are required to under Chapter 7. Even the U.S. Justice Department found that the number of abusive claims was somewhere between 3 percent and 13 percent. This means that the number of people filing abusive bankruptcy claims is astonishingly low. But this legislation seeks to channel many more debtors into chapter 13 bankruptcy--where the debtor enters a 3-5 year repayment plan and very little debt is forgiven. Yet in the pursuit of the few, this bill imposes onerous conditions, and ridiculous standards on all bankrupts alike. Additionally, under current law, 67 percent of the debtors in chapter 13 fail to complete their repayment plan often because they did not get enough relief from loans, and because economic difficulties continued. So this legislation would take individuals, the majority of whom desperately need a true ``fresh start'', and force them into a bankruptcy process which \2/3\ of debtors already fail to complete successfully. And my colleagues call this reform? Furthermore, the consumer credit industry would like this to be a debate about financial responsibility. But what is apparently not obvious to many of my colleagues is that debt involves both a borrower and a lender. Yes, a person should be responsible for repaying money lent to them on fair terms. But is it not in the lender's interest to not over lend? Should not the banks, and the credit card companies, and the retailers bear some responsibility for the so-called bankruptcy crisis? As high cost debt, credit cards, retail charge cards, and financing plans for consumer goods have skyrocketed in recent years, so have the number of bankruptcy filings. As the consumer credit industry has begun to aggressively court the poor and the vulnerable, bankruptcies have risen. Credit card companies brazenly dangle literally billions of card offers to high debt families every year. They encourage card holders to make low payments toward their card balances, guaranteeing that a few hundred dollars in clothing or food will take years to pay off. The lengths that companies go to keep their customers in debt is ridiculous. So any thinking person would ask at this point. Why is the House and Senate calling out the stops to pass this bill? What's driving this bill? Well as ``Soaked by Congress'' notes, the big banks spent $5 million last year specifically on bankruptcy lobbyists and another $50 million on firms that lobbied on bankruptcy as well as other matters. I wonder how much money working families overburdened with medical bills paid to influence Congress last year? Is that why we weren't listening? That makes this a reform issue, a basic question of good government. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, this is terrible legislating. I don't think that the 100 members of the Senate or the 435 members of the House came to Congress to be dictated to by secret committees formed by the leadership. This week we are debating education in the Senate. Can you imagine trying to explain to a 9th grade civics class what the House and Senate leadership are trying to do? They would learn how minority rights are protected in the Senate, about how there are regular procedures--high bars--for the majority to overcome to force something to passage over the objections of a determined minority. All of that goes out the window for the 4th branch of government--the conference committee. We don't have time for debate, we don't have time for legislative battles in this Congress. We don't have time for the hallowed traditions of the Senate. Just form a secret committee and stick in an unrelated conference report in the dead of night. What is so essential about this bill that the leadership must make such a mockery of the legislative process? The most expedient means is the best means according to this logic. But at what cost? Only a handful of power brokers are at the table. Working families aren't represented. Seniors aren't at that table. Minorities aren't in the loop. Women and children, and single parent families weren't invited. So I would say to my colleagues in closing, folks can make the claim that big money doesn't buy results in Congress but they won't use this bill as the poster boy for that argument. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to go to their leadership. It isn't too late to ask them to reconsider this course. We come to the floor today as Senators to shine a light on the bankruptcy bill. I spoke about this bill for some 20 or 30 minutes yesterday. I thank two fine journalists, Bartlett and Steele, for their fine work, ``Soaked by Congress.'' I sent this article out to every Senator. I hope my colleagues will read this article. It is about how the House and Senate were hoodwinked last year by a clever media campaign on the part of big banks and the credit card industry. I point out not to my colleagues but, frankly, to people in the country that some of the House and Senate leadership, with the majority party taking the lead, have been burning the midnight oil trying to finish this bankruptcy bill so they can stick it into an unrelated conference report. While they do that, we have 40 million people who don't have any health insurance at all. That is not an emergency? While they do that, the patient protection bill of rights is barely moving at all. It may be crawling; it may not even be crawling. While they do that, we don't pass any kind of education measure. While they do that, there is no response to 700,000-plus mothers--Sheila and I were proud to join them this past Sunday--who came to Washington, DC. They said: We are a citizens' lobby. We will take on special interests. We will be here for our children. We will be here to reduce violence. We will be here for sensible gun control. But there has been no response to that. That is not considered to be an emergency? But boy, oh boy, when it comes to this bankruptcy bill, some of my colleagues, some of the leadership on the other side, can't wait to stick this into an unrelated conference report. I think there is a reason for that. In the piece that Bartlett and Steele wrote called ``Soaked by Congress,'' they do an excellent job of getting the record straight. As opposed to the media campaign by these banks and credit card companies about all of this abuse, it turns out that the American Bankruptcy Institute found only 3 percent of debtors under chapter 7 could have done any better. Now, all in the name of a few people who abuse this system, we have families my colleague, Senator Kennedy, talked about, with 40 percent of them in bankruptcy because of medical bills, and the vast majority of the remaining are because someone lost their job or because there has been a divorce and now they are a single parent. What in the world is going on here? In this piece, ``Soaked by Congress,'' Barlett and Steele point out that big banks spent $5 million last year specifically on bankruptcy lobbyists and another $50 million on firms that lobbied on bankruptcy as well as other matters. I say to my colleague Senator Feingold, and my colleague Senator Harkin, and I would say it to my colleague Senator Kennedy if he were on the floor, this is the ultimate reform issue. We are talking about people, mainly women, mainly senior citizens, mainly working-income, maybe low-income people, people without much clout who are completely rolled by this bill. Now we find out all about the pension grab. Now we find out about all sorts of other provisions that are egregious, that I do not have time to summarize, that I summarized yesterday. Now we find out that, given where this bill is going in conference, it is going to be even more harsh toward the most vulnerable citizens in this country. But that will not see the light of day; it will get tucked into an unrelated conference report. I say to my colleagues, we do intend to speak out on this issue. I hope the President will make it clear he will veto this bill. It is too harsh, there are too many egregious provisions, and right now we are not conducting our business the way we ought to as the Senate. I yield the floor.