Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of myself and Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, today for myself and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts today to introduce legislation that will go a long way to help parents become more involved in their children's education. We all know that families are crucial to the improvement of our nation's schools. To ensure that schools and students meet challenging educational goals, families must be involved. Parents must insist that their children get the best education. They must understand, shape and support the reforms in their schools; and, they must work with schools to help all children meet their goals. We know that when families are fully engaged in the educational process, students have: higher grades and test scores; better attendance and more homework done; fewer placements in special education; more positive attitudes and behavior; higher graduation rates; and, greater enrollment in postsecondary education. For school reforms to help all children, we must move to ensure that all parents are involved in their children's education. For many parents, this is not an easy task. Parents, particularly those who have limited English proficiency, or those who have a troubled history with the school system, often need outside help to get the information, support, and training they need to help their children navigate the school system. Current provisions in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide for excellent and important ways for parents to get involved in their children's education. However, in some cases, parent involvement of the type envisioned by Title I remains a distant goal. Many Title I schools (though not all) have failed to fully bring parents into the development of parent involvement policies, school- parent compacts, and into planning and improvement for the school as provided for in Title I. It is thus essential for families to have an independent source of information and support that they understand and trust so that they can participate in an informed and effective manner and help move the schools toward the goal of full parental participation. To achieve this critical end, this legislation would provide competitive grants to community based organizations to establish Local Family Information Centers. These centers, made up of community members as well as professionals from the Title I schools in the area, should have a track record of effective outreach and work with low income communities. They, in consultation with the school district, would develop a plan to provide parents with the full support that they need to be partners in their children's education. For example, they would help parents understand standards, assessments, and accountability systems; support activities that are likely to improve student achievement in Title I schools; understand and analyze data that schools, districts, and states must provide under reporting requirements of ESEA and other laws; understand and participate in the implementation of parent involvement requirements of ESEA, including; and, communicate effectively with school personnel. This legislation is essential because it would reach and assist parents most isolated from participation by poverty, race, limited English proficiency and other factors. It is essential because of what we know about how children learn--that children that are the farthest behind make the greatest gains when their parents are part of their school life. Many schools do a very good job of involving parents in education reform. This bill does nothing but ensure that parents have the option of an independent voice in districts where schools do not do such a good job. If we are to educate our children, we must also educate their parents. This legislation provides one necessary means to do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of myself and Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, today for myself and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts today to introduce legislation that will go a long way to help parents become more involved in their children's education. We all know that families are crucial to the improvement of our nation's schools. To ensure that schools and students meet challenging educational goals, families must be involved. Parents must insist that their children get the best education. They must understand, shape and support the reforms in their schools; and, they must work with schools to help all children meet their goals. We know that when families are fully engaged in the educational process, students have: higher grades and test scores; better attendance and more homework done; fewer placements in special education; more positive attitudes and behavior; higher graduation rates; and, greater enrollment in postsecondary education. For school reforms to help all children, we must move to ensure that all parents are involved in their children's education. For many parents, this is not an easy task. Parents, particularly those who have limited English proficiency, or those who have a troubled history with the school system, often need outside help to get the information, support, and training they need to help their children navigate the school system. Current provisions in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide for excellent and important ways for parents to get involved in their children's education. However, in some cases, parent involvement of the type envisioned by Title I remains a distant goal. Many Title I schools (though not all) have failed to fully bring parents into the development of parent involvement policies, school- parent compacts, and into planning and improvement for the school as provided for in Title I. It is thus essential for families to have an independent source of information and support that they understand and trust so that they can participate in an informed and effective manner and help move the schools toward the goal of full parental participation. To achieve this critical end, this legislation would provide competitive grants to community based organizations to establish Local Family Information Centers. These centers, made up of community members as well as professionals from the Title I schools in the area, should have a track record of effective outreach and work with low income communities. They, in consultation with the school district, would develop a plan to provide parents with the full support that they need to be partners in their children's education. For example, they would help parents understand standards, assessments, and accountability systems; support activities that are likely to improve student achievement in Title I schools; understand and analyze data that schools, districts, and states must provide under reporting requirements of ESEA and other laws; understand and participate in the implementation of parent involvement requirements of ESEA, including; and, communicate effectively with school personnel. This legislation is essential because it would reach and assist parents most isolated from participation by poverty, race, limited English proficiency and other factors. It is essential because of what we know about how children learn--that children that are the farthest behind make the greatest gains when their parents are part of their school life. Many schools do a very good job of involving parents in education reform. This bill does nothing but ensure that parents have the option of an independent voice in districts where schools do not do such a good job. If we are to educate our children, we must also educate their parents. This legislation provides one necessary means to do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I found out this morning, as many other Senators, that Senator Chafee passed away. I see the beautiful flowers on his desk. I have been in the Senate now for 9 years, and while I did not know Senator Chafee as well as some Senators here, I admired him. I think he was tough in debate. He had positions that he took on issues, but he was substantive. In a way, I think he was a model of what we are about because he was interested in the debate on the issues. He was always a civil, warm, good person. Sheila and I were talking to support staff today and they were saying what a nice man Senator Chafee was. That is what they said, that he was such a nice man. I think Senator John Chafee was a kind, decent, caring human being. He was a great Senator with a highly developed sense of public service for Rhode Island and for the country. I know we are going to miss him and the country is going to miss him. I want to extend my love, as a Senator from Minnesota, to Senator Chafee's family and to the people of Rhode Island. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I start out by saying this debate over S. 1387 and S. 1389 is probably a debate we should not be having now. I think the Senate has far more important issues to deal with--having to do with the minimum wage and the standards for working people, having to do with giving consumers more protection through HMO or managed care reform, having to do with campaign finance reform and the ways in which money has subverted our representative democracy. And, believe me, if, in fact, cloture is invoked and we go forward with this bill, I will argue the farm crisis. I will have an amendment to this bill that will call for a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers taking place that are driving our producers off the land. These are the issues people care about in our country. My question is, When are we really going to be debating these issues on the floor? I think that is what we should be doing. Having said that, however, I think the debate over CBI and African trade bills could be useful and enlightening because I think we have a choice between two very different models. Senator Feingold has introduced a very impressive and innovative bill. It is based on legislation introduced in the House by Jesse Jackson, Jr., which really blazes a trail for U.S. trade policy. It is truly groundbreaking. And for those people who want our trade policy to work for working families, this is the direction in which we should go. I do not think we are going to have a debate between people who are saying we ought to build a wall on our borders and we should not be involved in trade. For me, that is not the issue. The issue is not whether we expand trade; the issue is on whose terms we expand trade. What are the rules and who benefits from the rules? The choice could not be clearer. The Feingold-Jackson legislation, called the HOPE for Africa Act, says that an expansion of trade should benefit working families and poor families in America and in Africa. Trade agreements should be about making the global economy work for working people in all countries. The HOPE for Africa bill says if we are really serious about raising labor and environmental standards across the globe, then we have to have enforceable protections built into our trade agreements. The HOPE for Africa bill says that we can't be serious about wanting to help African countries develop economically if we don't do anything about the crushing debt burden. The HOPE for Africa bill says the lives of Africans suffering from AIDs are far more important than the monopoly profits of foreign pharmaceutical companies. The HOPE for Africa bill has its priorities straight. It expands trade the right way by putting people first. Our other option is the same old more of the same, more NAFTAs, NAFTA for the Caribbean, NAFTA for all of South America, NAFTA for Africa, more IMF-style economic policies that have impoverished one country after another all over the world, more investment protections for multinationals to export jobs overseas so they can avoid complying with American-style labor and environmental standards. I think we should have learned our lesson from NAFTA. We have gained jobs; we have lost jobs, but that is almost beside the point. The kind of labor, environmental side agreements we put into effect were an afterthought. They were not part of the trade agreement. They weren't enforceable. Basically, if we are going to do these trade agreements, we ought to be talking about uplifting the living standards of working people, of low-income people, in our country and other countries. What we have right now, without clearly enforceable standards dealing with the basic right to organize and bargain collectively, to earn a decent living in other countries, much less in our own country, is a trade agreement that says to working people: Look, these multinationals can go to other countries. They don't have to comply with fair labor standards, including the right of people to be able to organize and bargain collectively. They can pay low wages, miserably low wages, with exploitive working conditions, and then export those products back to our country, undercutting working people who are trying to produce and basically eliminating our jobs. It is lose-lose. That is why the Feingold-Jackson bill is such a clear alternative. If we pass these bills without any kind of meaningful and enforceable protection for the interests of working families, we will have made a big mistake. That is part of what is going to be happening in Seattle. You will see at this WTO meeting all sorts of NGOs, nongovernment organizations, all sorts of environmental organizations. Being a Senator from Minnesota, a lot of farm organizations and farmers are going to be there. A lot of labor people are going to be there; a lot of working people are going to be there. They are going to basically say that is exactly what is at issue here--when we look at S. 1387 and 1389, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the U.S. Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. We are for trade; we are for being in an international economy, but we are not for the kind of trade agreements that drive our wages down and basically eliminate our jobs and don't provide protection for people in other countries. If we are going to have trade agreements, we are for them, but not unless you have clearly enforceable standards dealing with environmental protection and dealing with the right of people to organize and bargain collectively. If you don't do that, then we know all too well what these kinds of agreements mean for working families in Minnesota and our country, much less for the people of the Caribbean and African countries. When people come out to this WTO meeting, they are going to say what WTO should be all about is the rules of trade, not trade without rules. We want to talk about the rules of trade. We don't want to support an agreement which is trade without rules. We want enforceable protection when it comes to the basic right of people to organize in these other countries and we want some enforceable environmental standards as well. As we move forward in this debate, we do have a piece of legislation that does look to other nations, that is all about trade, that is all about our role in the international economy. The difference is that the Feingold-Jackson legislation is a trade bill that will lead to uplifting the standards of working families. I want to signify to my friend and colleague from Delaware, whose work I respect, that we will have debate about whether or not this bill should be on the floor. If it is on the floor, one piece of good news for me, though I am in disagreement with the legislation, is it will give me the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor that deals with the farm crisis, that says we should have a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers by these big packers and big grain companies that are basically driving producers out. I hope there will be another amendment to take the cap off the loan rate to deal with the price crisis. I am determined that if we go forward with this legislation, I will be out of the box with those amendments as soon as possible next week. I have been waiting for 4 weeks now to come to the Senate floor with legislation that will alleviate the pain --or some of it--of family farmers in our States. I thank both of my colleagues for their patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in to recognize 10th anniversary of the disappearance of one of Minnesota's finest young men, Jacob Wetterling. Jacob's abduction at gun point 10 years ago today from St. Joseph, Minnesota, has profoundly affected the lives of his family, but also the lives of the people of Minnesota and the entire United States. Jacob's family has endured a significant loss and has found the strength to help other families survive tragedy. Patty and Jerry Wetterling have spent the last decade raising awareness and influencing public policy through the formation of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation. The foundation works on a national level to eradicate the abduction and exploitation of children by educating, raising awareness, and responding to the needs of victim's families. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation has worked with over 1,500 families in the search for their missing children, they have presented workshops and seminars to thousands of people, and have shared their message of personal safety and abduction prevention to countless parents and children. Thanks to the Wetterling Foundation sex offenders are required to register in all 50 States and law enforcement agencies can notify neighborhoods when a likely-to-re-offend sex offender moves there. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation and the family of Jacob are perhaps most widely known for their message of hope, Jacob's Hope. Today we take a moment to think about Jacob Wetterling and the thousands of missing and exploited children and we pray for their safe return. Minnesota has an unsung hero in Patty Wetterling and the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, today we recognize, in great appreciation, the work they have done to save the lives of our children. The Wetterling's have helped others in need while never giving up on Jacob's Hope. Today we salute this courageous family.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I shall be brief. First, I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original cosponsor of the Durbin amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will describe the amendment one more time for those who are following this debate. I think it is important what the amendment says. It would ban all postviability abortions, except in cases where both the attending physician and an independent nontreating physician both certify in writing, in their medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health, with then a very strict and very clear definition of ``grievous injury.'' That is what the amendment says. It would actually reduce the number of late-term abortions. This legislation fits in with the constitutional parameters set forth by the Supreme Court for government restriction of abortion. This legislation retains the abortion option for mothers facing extraordinary medical conditions such as breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. At the same time, this amendment clearly limits the medical circumstances where postviability abortions are permitted. By doing that, this legislation protects fetal life in cases where the mother's health is not at high risk. I came to the floor to speak about this amendment because I believe the Durbin amendment is, if you will, where I am kind of within me. This is what I believe. I think it makes sense to move in this direction. I think it makes sense to set up a strict standard. I think it is terribly important, when we look at postviability abortions, to have this test, to have this standard that has to be met. I am certainly not going to vote for an amendment or a piece of legislation which is so open-ended that where there clearly are the medical circumstances, the life of a mother is threatened, she can't go forward with this procedure. Here is why I come to the floor. I don't understand why those who want to see some change would not support this compromise. If you are interested, I say to my colleagues, in trying to make a difference, if you are concerned about some of these late-term abortions, if you think there ought to be a more stringent standard, then that is what this Durbin amendment says. If you are interested in passing legislation, if you are interested in making a change, if you are interested in passing a bill that isn't going to be vetoed by the President, if you are interested in passing legislation, as opposed to one more time going through this political war and making this a big political issue, then you ought to support this amendment. There are some people from the other side who think this amendment is a mistake. They don't want to see this amendment pass. I think this amendment is reasonable. I think it is a compromise that makes sense. I think it deserves our support. I actually will make this not at all personal in terms of what other Senators have said. It is simply not true that there aren't many people in the Senate who are not concerned, that don't share some of the concerns that have been reflected by speeches given on the floor. Sheila and I have three children, and we also were confronted with two miscarriages--6 weeks and over 4 months. Anybody who goes through that knows what this debate is all about. I also know it is about a woman, a mother, a family having their right to choose. I am very nervous about a State coming in and telling a family they are going to make this decision. But I also understand the concerns, especially the concerns-- again, I go to the language about postviability abortions. But here we have an amendment that says it will ban this except in the cases where the attending physician and an independent, nontreating physician certify that, in their medical judgment, if you don't do this, then you are going to see a threat to the mother's life or she is going to risk grievous injury to her physical health. Isn't that reasonable? I am so tired of the sharp drawing of the line and the polarization and the accusations and the emotion and the bitterness. Why don't we pass this amendment? It is a reasonable compromise. For those who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, that is never going to happen. That is the law of the land. But if we want to make a difference and we have this concern, I think we should support this Durbin amendment. I come to the floor of the Senate to thank him for his effort. I am comfortable with this amendment. I think it would make a difference. I think it would meet some of the agonizing concerns that I and other Senators have. I am not about to support legislation that is so open ended that it makes no allowance at all for the health of a mother. That is my position. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Wellstone before everyone.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his comments. As I was listening to him talking about the history of the civil rights movement, it occurred to me that the civil rights movement was all about giving people of color, all Americans, the right to participate fully in the political life of our Nation. In many ways, I consider this issue to be every bit as important as that issue. The civil rights movement was a movement that changed our country for the better, not just for people of color but for all of us. I think today many Americans believe they have been locked out and they can't fully participate in the political life of our Nation. I think the ethical issue of our time is the way in which big money has essentially hijacked politics, has corrupted politics in a systemic sense. Therefore, I think Senator Levin is absolutely right. I will not speak very long. I have had a chance to speak many times during this debate. I believe, as a Senator, I should come here today and say this vote tomorrow morning is all about whether or not Senators who say they want this reform will maintain the commitment to it. It is quite one thing for those who are opposed to reform to filibuster this bill, but it is quite another thing for the rest of us to say: Well, you filibustered the bill; now we move on to other legislation. If Senators want to continue to block this, then they will have to continue to block it. If, in fact, those of us who believe the most important single thing we can do right now is to at least get some of this big money out of politics in the case of soft money, the least accountable part of the giving and the taking, then I think we have to be willing to fight for it. I hope the majority who voted for this legislation, who voted for what I think would be a historically significant reform, a step forward for our country in getting some of the big money out and bringing citizens back in, will be the same majority voting tomorrow. I think the vote tomorrow is really the critical vote. Either we essentially say to those who have filibustered and those who have blocked our efforts, we will go away; it is over, or we will say, no, you don't move on to other legislation; we are going to continue to speak out and continue to debate and continue to work hard until we pass reform. It is late in the day. The vote is tomorrow morning. But I am hoping that, through the media, citizens will understand what this vote is about tomorrow. I really believe people in the country want to see us make this change. I have an amendment. I have a self-interest reason. I have an amendment I have introduced. I am not going to get a vote on this amendment if everybody goes away. Given how difficult it is to pass reform, given all the ways in which those vested interests who give the money, those who are the well connected, those who are the heavy hitters, those who are the well heeled seem to have too much influence here, and given the fact that those who have the power don't want the change, I think that is, in part, what we are up against. The vast majority of the people in the country want the change. If we don't get this vote tomorrow and it is all over, I am absolutely convinced the energy is going to have to come from the grassroots level. I have an amendment--and I will come back with it over and over again--that basically says, if we are not willing to pass the reform legislation here, then let the people in our States decide. We are a grassroots political culture. Sometimes it is the local level, sometimes it is the State level, which is willing to light a candle and show the way. If Massachusetts and Vermont and Maine and Arizona have passed clean money/clean election legislation, which basically gets all of the interested private money out and says to candidates, if you run for office, and it is voluntary, but if you will agree to spending limits, you can draw from the funding in this clean money/clean election fund so it will be a clean election; it will be clean money: it won't be interested money; it will be disinterested money, the elections will belong to the people in the States and the Government will belong to the people in the States and this is what we really ought to do. If they want to do that, then my amendment says they ought to be able to apply it to Federal office as well. They ought to be able to say that is the way we want to elect Senators or Representatives from Minnesota or Kansas or Michigan or whatever State we are talking about. If tomorrow we don't get the vote, which essentially says we refuse to back down, we don't have 60 votes yet, you people will have to continue to filibuster this and we are going to keep having amendments, we are going to keep having votes, and we are going to keep having debate. The majority leader said we had 5 days of debate. We haven't had 5 days of debate. I am still puzzled why we didn't come into session until 1 today. I am not saying that in the spirit of whining. I am saying that in the spirit of some indignation and anger. We should have been in here this morning. We should have been debating the vote we were taking this afternoon on the McCain-Feingold bill. Senators should have had the opportunity to come and talk about why they were for it or why they were against it. It is not as if this is a small issue. It is not as if this is a small issue. When we talk about how we finance our elections, when we talk about who gets to run for office, who wins office, what kind of issues we look at, and whether or not people believe in the political process, we are talking about whether or not we have a representative democracy. That is what we are talking about. I argue that not only have we moved far away from the principle that each person should count as one and no more than one, but we are also getting to the point where we have Government of, by, and for a few people; Government of, by, and for those who can make the big contributions; Government of, by, and for just a tiny slice of the population. That is hardly a healthy, functioning, representative democracy. That is really what this debate is all about. The problem is, we haven't had much of a debate. It is 6:20, and I am out here, and this is the end of the day, I gather. Tomorrow morning, we will have the vote. This debate has just begun. It should not be over. Really, what I hope is that tomorrow we will vote against moving on to other legislation and there will be a lot of Senators out here. I will have this amendment that says let the people at the grassroots level determine this, and if people in our States want to get the big money out, and they want to have clean elections, and they want to have clean money, and they want to do it this way, then let them apply it to Senate and House races because, I am telling you, I think that is actually the way it is going to go. We won't get a chance to have an up-or-down vote on that amendment or many others that Senators have. We won't have people out here spelling out why they are for McCain- Feingold, or for other changes, what ways they want to improve it, what do they think we should do. We haven't had that full debate. This issue deserves that debate. This is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. But we haven't done the deliberation. What we have had is an effort to block this, and I think those who block this legislation are just hoping it will go away. The way it goes away is if those of us who have been for the reform just literally fold our tents and go away. Some of us around here are making the appeal that that should not happen. I want to make one final point. And I am speaking as one Senator from Minnesota. I think for me, ever since I came here in 1990, this has been the issue. There are many issues I care about, but this is such a core issue. I find it hard to believe that all of us will not focus on economic justice, on making sure we have equal opportunity for every child, and on making sure we have environmental protection on this land, making sure we do something about the conditions in the inner city, making sure people in rural America have a chance, making sure family farmers get a decent price, making sure there is a good education for every child, making sure we speak to the bread-and-butter economic issues that affect the vast majority of families, making sure we have the courage to take on the big insurance companies, big oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and telecommunication companies. I think the way in which we finance campaigns and the influence of big money diverts our efforts, frustrates our efforts, and determines that we won't be able to make this change. This is the core issue. This is all about--as Bill Moyers, a wonderful journalist, has said--the ``soul of democracy.'' That is what this debate is about. If this debate is all about the soul of democracy, if whether or not we are going to pass some reform is all about the soul of democracy, if this is all about whether or not we are going to continue to have a real functioning representative democracy, that we are still going to have self-government, then I think we don't do this in 4 days; we don't go away. Tomorrow morning, there is a critical vote. I am really hoping the majority who voted for the McCain-Feingold bill--a very modest effort, a stripped-down piece of legislation, with bare minimum reform, that is at least a step in the positive direction--those Senators who voted for that I hope will be the same Senators who will say: No, we are not going to let you take this off the agenda, this issue stays on the agenda of the Senate, and we want full-scale debate and an opportunity to introduce amendments, and we want everybody out here spelling out for the people in our States why we are for reform or why we think this current system is unacceptable. The other point I will make is that, for those of you who are working around the country with public campaigns, for all of the locally elected leaders who have said, we are committed in our States to passing clean money/clean election legislation, I say go to it. What happened out here on the floor of the Senate serves notice that the way this change is going to take place is from the grassroots level. What I want to do as a Senator is to support those efforts everywhere in the country. I want to meet with people doing the organizing. I want to continue to bring the amendment to the floor of the Senate which says, if States want to go in that direction and apply the clean money/clean election initiatives to Federal races, they should be able to do so because I am convinced that you won't be stopped. It could be that the monied interests are going to be able to stop the forum here, but I don't think they are going to be able to stop it in Minnesota or in States all around our country. We are going to have to do it at the grassroots level. We are going to have to bring more pressure from the grassroots level and have more of this legislation passed by the States. It will bubble up, and eventually--I certainly hope before I finish up my career in public service--we will finally pass sweeping legislation which not only will get a lot of the big money out of politics and a lot of people back into politics but will do something that is even more important, and that will be to renew democracy. I look for the day when people in our country are engaged in public affairs, when we have a really good citizen politics. I look for the day when young people can't wait to run for public office and serve in public office. I just hope for the day, and dream for the day, when people have a really good feeling about public life, a really good feeling about politics, a really good feeling about political parties, a really good feeling about the debate on the issues. I long for that day. I hope for that day. I dream for that day. One way or the another, I am hoping and dreaming that during my career in the Senate we will be able to pass this legislation. I hoped it would be now. Whether or not it will be now depends upon whether or not we will have a majority of Senators who will say tomorrow: We are not moving off this legislation, we are not going to let those who oppose reform take this question off the table; this will be the business of the Senate tomorrow, the next day, and the next day, and maybe the next day after that, until we pass reform. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me say to my colleagues that I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor because I thought we should get on with business and have up-or-down votes on amendments that deal with this, I think, critically important question. Let me start out with some context. This is an editorial from the New York Times, which actually was written Tuesday, October 20, 1998. The title is ``A Grass-Roots Message On Reform.'' This deals with some of the victories that have taken place around the country; namely, two initiatives; one was in Massachusetts and one in Arizona. Of course, the Presiding Officer knows this all started with Maine, and then there was Vermont. I am talking about the clean money/clean election option. This is an editorial that talks about the momentum at the State level. What has happened is, a good many States in our country have partial public financing. In Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and also Arizona, citizens of those States have decided that if people running for office will agree, it is on a voluntary basis, they are going for a clean money/clean election option. If a State desires a States rights option, they should be able to apply it to House and Senate races. I point this out to the Chair because I think it is all positive about her. I notice in this paragraph, it says that it is no surprise that two of the seven Senate Republicans who challenged their leadership on this issue came from Maine, where similar public financing legislation was passed in 1996. It has been important to see what is happening at the State level. I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There was a piece also that David Broder wrote, on July 18, 1999, in the Washington Post, ``Federal Lag, State Reform.'' David Broder, a highly respected journalist, talks about the energy at the State level. He talks about the work of public campaigns and victories in Maine and Vermont and Massachusetts and Arizona. He also talks about some of the activity around the country, the energy of grassroots people, people in our States, at the State level, who say, don't tell us we don't care about good government; don't tell us we don't care about clean elections. They are passing these initiatives. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't yield the floor, but I will yield for an inquiry.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Madam President, I wish to read from a letter that asks Senators to support this amendment which would allow States to enact voluntary public financing legislation, commonly referred to as clean money/clean election initiatives regarding the election of Federal candidates in the States. Historically, the states have been ``laboratories of reform.'' (a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis) where innovative public policies have been created and tested. We believe, therefore, that the U.S. Senate, which has been a champion of states' innovative efforts in a number of policy efforts in recent years, should also support the right of individual states to determine the campaign finance system for their candidates for federal elections. This letter goes on to talk about the great victories in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, and also goes on to cite a recent poll undertaken by the Mellman Group in Iowa--you know everybody is focused on Iowa with the Presidential races--pointing out that voters, 72 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans, support a system of voluntary full public financing and spending limits for campaigns. Not only did the support cut across party lines, but also there was support among ideologies within the political party. I ask unanimous consent this letter, which is signed by about 50 different organizations that are working on reform at the State level, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, before I get started in arguing my brief to this amendment, I appreciated the comments of my colleague from Ohio. I appreciate the sincerity in which he made his case, but there are a couple of points on which I am in disagreement. I don't know if this amendment will come up. I certainly hope it doesn't. We have been focusing on soft money. I join Senator Levin in thanking Senators McCain and Feingold for continuing to be a strong voice for reform. I understand the pragmatism of their initiative. I think if we could ban soft money it would be a significant step for our country--a good step forward, not a great leap sideways. I thank them. But I also want to point out for Senators, Democrats and Republican, that there is also the hard money issue. People who are listening--soft money/hard money--I think are wondering what all of this is about. When I hear other Senators say we ought to raise the limit from $1,000 to $3,000, actuality it would be $2,000 to $6,000 counting primary and general elections. I want to point out a couple of figures. This year, a spectacularly small portion--in the Presidential race-- of U.S. citizens have contributed more than $200. So far this year, only 4 out of 10,000 Americans have made a contribution higher than $200 to the Presidential race. That is .037 percent. As of June 30, 1999, only .022 percent of all Americans have given $1,000 or more to a Presidential candidate. In the 1998 election, .06 percent of all Americans gave $1,000. That was roughly 1 in 5,000 citizens. If you say money is speech, then I guess we know who the people are who are going to do all of the talking. I cannot believe that Senators--Republicans, Democrats--whoever they are, believe this will give ordinary people more confidence and more faith in the political process. Again, what we have right now, when you are talking about contributions of over $1,000 this year, is .022 percent. Even over $200, it is only .037 percent. People do not have this kind of money. People can't afford to make these kinds of contributions. Now what we are going to do is raise this from $1,000 to $3,000-- actually $2,000 to $6,000, counting primary and general elections--and we are going to call this a reform. I want to say to everybody that in my not so humble opinion, about 90 percent of the people in the country will not view this as reform. They will view this as a huge step backward, and they will view this as an effort to enable the wealthiest and high-income citizens to have even more influence and more say over the political process than they have right now. This amendment is a States rights amendment to this underlying bill. I hope it will have broad bipartisan support. This amendment allows States to set up voluntary systems of full or partial public financing for Federal congressional candidates that involve voluntary spending limits on both personal and outside contributions as long as those systems otherwise are not in conflict with the Federal Election Campaign Act. Again, it is entirely up to the candidates. It is only if they agree to it. Clearly, we set a floor, which is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Again, the letter I read to you was on the mark. States have been the laboratories for reform. This States rights amendment would allow these laboratories to do this work but in a safe way because we make it clear that the Federal law remains the floor. No State can violate existing Federal law. No State can be in violation of existing Federal law. But if a State wants to do better--if Kentucky or Minnesota or Nebraska or Arizona--Arizona has already done better, and Minnesota tried --they want to apply some system of partial or full public financing to Federal offices, and they say: we are sick and tired of waiting for you all to pass this kind of legislation; we have the sneaking suspicion that those interest groups that have the power have too much say in the Senate and you are not going to pass it; let us have a go at it, then we ought to let States do so. The Federal law is the floor. But it is a very low floor. We had this debate the other day. I don't want to go over again in great detail the definition of corruption. Let me simply say one more time that I, for one, I say to my colleague whom I have a lot of affection for, the Senator from Utah, that I am not going to make any arguments about a one-to-one correlation between fundraising and ``corruption.'' I am not going to make any of those arguments, but I will say that to me corruption is more serious than wrongdoing of individual officeholders. It is systemic. That is what we have. It is simply a case of those people who make these big contributions, the big soft money contributions and the big hard money contributions--they are the investors. They are the heavy hitters. They are the players. They are the ones who are well connected. They are the ones who have too much influence. And most citizens believe there is a connection between big special interest money and outcomes in American politics. I am very sad to say that most citizens who believe that are right. People know that who has the money determines who wins and who has the money determines all too often what even gets put on the table in the first place. That is why people are turning away from the political process. That is why people are disillusioned. That is why people are disengaged. That is why people feel, I will say it again, if you pay, you play; if you do not pay, you don't play. That is what is going on. Recent polls: 92 percent of all Americans believe special interest contributions buy votes of Members of the Congress--92 percent. Again, I say to colleagues, I am not agreeing with that kind of thing, but it is one of the reasons we should want to change this system. It really doesn't matter in the last analysis. If you get more money from oil companies, or labor unions, or environmentalists, or citizen groups, or financial institutions, the fact is people can always have that concern. Why don't we try to break that? Eighty-eight percent of people believe those who make large contributions get special favors from politicians. Sixty-seven percent believe their own representatives in Congress would listen to views of outsiders who made major political contributions before they would listen to their own constituents' views. And then, finally, nearly half of all registered voters believe lobbyists and special interests control the Government. I know the sponsors of the new McCain-Feingold bill have stripped the bill down in the hope that we are going to have the votes to achieve cloture and that we can move this long-stalled debate forward. I am in agreement. However, given the inability of Congress to agree on a lot of the incremental changes, which is important, let alone comprehensive reform--this is a stripped down bill. The authors will admit that. But they are saying, let's try to move something forward. Let's take a step forward that will lead to improvement. I agree. But what I am saying about this amendment is that it is also an ideal time to let States take the lead. We should not allow States to undermine Federal election law. They won't do that. But the law should also not be an artificial ceiling that prevents States from setting up systems of public financing such as Maine has done, such as Vermont has done, such as Arizona has done, and such as Massachusetts has done that would allow them to address this obscene money chase, that allows them to address voter apathy; that allows them to address the kind of corruption that I have talked about--both actual or corruption that is perceived.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I actually have not finished laying out the amendment. To my colleague from Utah, I was saying the huge percentage of people who believe this to be the case troubles me. I certainly do not believe that in a majority of cases of Senators whom I know, to the extent I know them--and I think I do--that that is the case, the ``money'' vote way. I don't think that is the link. That is my sense, not in an individual way. I have also argued, and the Senator has heard me say this many different times, I do think we have a more serious kind of corruption, and it is the imbalance of power. It is systemic. Therefore, from my point of view, my colleague from Utah could be referring to one of two things: Either the statement I gave on the floor the other day in which I said we have to change this system in order to give citizens faith in this political process--and they have every reason to believe that; unfortunately, it is dominated by the few--or the Senator could be referring to this amendment. I hope not because all this amendment says is, whether one agrees or not with the perception, if people in Utah or people in Minnesota decide they want to put into effect comprehensive reform and cover our Federal elections, House and Senate races, as they are doing in the State elections, they should have the right.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am yielding for a question. Go ahead. I want to be clear I have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased, for my colleague from Utah, to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the first part of the question I appreciate. The second part of the question I might have a slightly different interpretation. To the first part of the question I want the Senator from Utah to know--for that matter, the Senator from Kentucky--that I believe in public service, and I am honored to be here. I reject the across-the-board denigration of public service and people in public service when and if anyone does that. I haven't seen that done on the floor of the Senate. However, I hear people talking that way and I go out of my way to say to people that there are many Senators whom I have met, including those who have a very different viewpoint, who I think have a highly developed sense of public service, who believe in what they are saying, and believe in what they are doing. If the Senator were to ask me whether or not I tried as a Senator or teacher to speak to this notion that there is all this corruption and wheeling and dealing and everything is cynical and everything is corrupted, absolutely I do because I don't think that is true. On the second point, I think my time is well spent supporting the McCain-Feingold effort, and for that matter, supporting even more comprehensive reform. I do believe the money chase and the mix of money and politics--especially big money politics--has undercut what I hold most dear, which is this very noble and grand, wonderful, over-200-year experiment in self-rule that we have had in this country. I think this is a debate about representative democracy. I believe we have to change the way we finance campaigns if we are to have a healthy, functioning, representative democracy. I thank my colleague for his question. Madam President, if the American people, according to survey after survey, are going to say this system of financing is out of control and they want an overhaul, then we owe it to them to get out of the way and let the States go ahead and move forward and do what we as a Congress have been unable to do. Just because the Senate can't move on comprehensive reform doesn't mean we should tie the hands of States. My colleagues can agree or disagree with what States will do, but give them the option. Let me give the legal context. My own State of Minnesota attempted to set up a system of public financing, a system for Federal candidates, 9 years ago in 1990 when the State legislature passed the law offering partial public financing to candidates, the congress of Minnesota. Unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down Minnesota's law in 1993 in Weber v. Heaney. The court ruled because the Federal Election Campaign Act did not specifically allow States to create this kind of voluntary public financing program, then FECA prohibited it. The amendment I am introducing corrects that by adding one simple sentence to FECA which specifically allows States to set up voluntary public financing programs for the election of their own members to the House or the Senate as long as no program violates any provision of the current Federal Election Campaign Act. The court said, given what we are dealing with, given existing law, we cannot go forward. If we change the law, it could very well be a different court decision. In other words, if a State wants to create a public financing fund and give its congressional candidates the option; it is a voluntary option of financing their campaigns wholly or partially with public money rather than the private contributions, then that State would be able to do so, again, provided there are no violations in the FECA provisions. I want to emphasize this amendment makes these programs strictly voluntary, as the system of public financing for the Presidential campaign is voluntary. Some States are already moving in this direction with regard to State and local elections. There is a lot of energy for this. Twelve States already offer partial public financing to candidates for State offices. In fact, one of the most advanced is in the State of Kentucky. In addition, four States have gone even further and recently passed full or nearly full public financing systems for their State elections--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Senator McCain's State, the State of Arizona. Local and State elected officials, along with citizen activists in nearly 40 States around the country, have launched the Elected Leadership Project 2000. And this is an all-out effort for comprehensive reform. I say to colleagues, if the people in our States want to strengthen American democracy, if they have the gumption and they have the citizen politics to go forward with real reform that would get so much of the big money out of politics--that would really create a level playing field, that would reinforce people's faith in the elections, that would mean people could say these elections belong to us, this political process belongs to us--and that is why there has been so much support for the clean money/clean elections initiative--then my amendment says to Senators: Let them do it. You might not agree. But if your State wants to do what Maine has done and Maine says we want to apply this to Congress as well, then Maine should be able to do it; Minnesota should be able to do it; Kentucky should be able to do it, Utah should be able to do it. This legislation goes to the root cause of a system which is founded on private special interest money, and it cures the disease. I hear colleagues talking about the need to tighten up campaign finance laws. The problem is not what is illegal; the problem is what is legal. The real problem is that most of what is wrong with this current sick system is perfectly legal. It is perfectly legal, those huge amounts of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money contributions that Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are trying to prohibit and which prohibition too many Senators are trying to block-- huge amounts of personal, individual contributions that really, basically, very-high-income and wealthy people are able to contribute but the vast majority of people are not--all of which determine who gets to run, who gets elected; all of which determine the people who have the most access. We have moved so far away from the principle that each person should count as one, and no more than one, it is absolutely frightening. We do not have elections any longer; we have auctions. Why don't we get the big interested money out? We had this debate about corruption. Again, maybe it is only the appearance of corruption. But my friend Phil Stern, who is no longer alive, once wrote a book, ``The Best Congress Money Can Buy.'' He made the following argument in the book. I just thought of it. Bill Moyers, in a speech he gave called ``The Soul Of Democracy,'' made the same argument. Imagine what it would be like--maybe some people had a chance to watch the ball games last night--imagine what it would be like if umpires or referees received huge contributions from the players of the different teams before the baseball game or before the football game. Would you have any confidence that they would be rendering impartial decisions? You might be worried that they would not be. In a way, we have something similar to that here. We make all these different decisions about health care and health insurance reform, about telecommunications legislation, banking legislation, where we are going to make budget cuts, labor legislation--across-the-board. At the same time we receive all these contributions, we are the referees; we are the umpires; we are going to make the decisions. It looks terrible. It looks awful. It looks awful to people in the country. What I am saying is that if, in fact, we want to give people an opportunity to have more confidence in their political process, then I think we ought to go forward and we ought to agree to this amendment. I have two final points. I have been waiting for a long time. I will be done, but I want to make two final points. First of all, I have heard it said that people do not care. I do not think that is true at all. I think people have reached the conclusion that when it comes to their concerns, they are of little matter in the Congress. I think people have reached the conclusion that the influence of private wealth and power is strongly felt; that it shapes the acts and policies of government; that money crawls the halls of the Capitol and the halls of the White House. No one in politics today can deny the shaping influence of money on public acts. Few people who contribute vast sums of money to political campaigns do it just out of profound ideological beliefs. They do it in part because they do have some hope for gain. It is an understandable ambition for those individual figures, but one to which public figures should not yield their larger commitment to all Americans. That is what this debate is about, whether or not we as public figures maintain a larger commitment to all the people in our country, not just the people who have the financial wherewithal to make these contributions. That is what this debate is about. In my view, until we take the big money out of politics, our historic drive for more opportunities for citizens, for more justice, for a better life for all the people, for improving the standard of living for all the people in our country, for really investing in children's lives, for making our country a better America, that drive will continue to be diverted and frustrated and ultimately denied. This issue is the core issue, and this amendment I have introduced simply says to my colleagues we ought to, if we are not going to go forward with comprehensive reform but at the State level our States want to have clean money/clean elections, and they want to apply it on a voluntary basis to races to the House of Representatives and the Senate, then they ought to be able to do so. I do not see why we would not have strong bipartisan support for this amendment because, frankly, I think, along with the efforts of Senator Feingold and Senator McCain--Senator McCain and Senator Feingold--the energy for the reform is going to come at the grassroots level; it is going to come at the State level. That is what this public campaign has been about all across this country. That is what the victory in Arizona was about. That is what the victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine were all about. That is what people in my State tried to do 9 years ago. Let's just pass a law that would enable States to move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment? Will the Senator yield?