Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. Just one question, because the Senator has been on the floor and I have been listening very carefully. It initially started out as a debate. I expressed my concern that I thought whatever the intentions were--I said good intentions--on the part of the colleagues, but that I thought that you really couldn't talk about this except in the context of what has happened with the Teamsters, and I thought this was profoundly mistaken. But now, what the Senator has been doing as a lawyer is--I am a lay person. I have been listening very carefully. As I understand the Senator, what he is really saying is that the most serious part of this above and beyond my concerns is that it really does--as the Senator from Oklahoma said earlier, he didn't see this as being anything in contradiction with the consent decree--the Senator from Maryland is arguing that it is most certainly in contradiction, in which case it becomes a very dangerous intrusion into the judiciary. Is that correct? Is that the legal principle here, and the government principle?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one comment in the form of a question? Just to quote from Attorney General Thornburgh, who said on March 14, 1989, to back up the Senator's point, ``This settlement, which union leaders agreed to earlier today, culminates 30 years' of efforts by the Department of Justice to remove the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union''--to go back.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to respond. I know the majority leader wants to respond. First of all, if the Senator was listening carefully, I said, whatever the intention, it just seemed to me that it is hard contextually with what we do from what is happening outside the Senate. And I think it is a big mistake to do this. I think many people will view this as nothing less than an effort to retaliate. That is my position. Whether or not I am right or wrong, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that the proof will be in the pudding. We will see how people in the country respond. We will see what interpretation people put on this. I think it is a big mistake. I think this is a real overreach. As I tried to do in this debate, I went back through the history of this. I make it crystal clear. Richard Thornburgh, in this settlement of March 14, 1989, which union leaders agreed to earlier today, said culminates 30 years of efforts by the Department of Justice to remove the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union. We are saying in the second-degree amendment that nothing that we do should be construed to apply to expenditures. Don't overreach, and don't take an imprudent action, and don't try to overturn this. That is profoundly mistaken. That is my argument. And that will continue to be my argument, irrespective of what some of my other colleagues believe. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Texas wants to focus on the black-robed judges, but I think his analysis is a bit ahistorical. Rudolph Giuliani, former U.S. attorney, 1988: ``To date, the United States Government is bringing the lawsuit to attack and reverse once and for all the major American scandal.'' Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General, March 14, 1989--not a black-robed judge: ``This settlement, which union leaders agreed to earlier today, culminates 30 years of efforts by the Department of Justice to remove the influence of organized crime within the Teamsters Union.'' This was an agreement with a Republican administration. The second- degree amendment here, the Kennedy amendment, simply says, nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to expenditures required by the consent decree in United States versus The International Brotherhood of Teamsters. My colleague from Oklahoma wants to say there isn't anything in his amendment that goes against this consent agreement. If so, this second-degree amendment should be acceptable. We should not even be having this debate. Now, I heard what my colleague from Texas said about the need to not be personal. I won't be. Let me make a different kind of argument. When, all of a sudden and unrelated to the bill on the floor, there is an amendment that goes after a consent agreement that goes back to the actions of a Republican administration, and when that all-of-a-sudden move on the Senate floor follows only a few short weeks from a very inspiring and successful effort on the part of the Teamsters to collectively bargain, and when this effort, unrelated to the bill on the floor all of a sudden comes up just a few short weeks after many people in the country are saying, thank goodness there is a focus on trying to have full-time jobs as opposed to part-time jobs, thank goodness there is a focus on living-wage jobs, thank goodness those of us who are hard-pressed and struggling to earn a decent living and raise our children well are going to have a chance, I think this is the wrong time for such an extraordinary move. I don't think we can decontextualize what we do on the floor of the Senate. It would be a little foolish to believe that, whatever the intentions are of colleagues, people in the country, many working families, union or nonunion, won't look upon this effort as just payback. That will be the perception. That is the way it looks in terms of the chronology of this. That is the way it looks in terms of the timeliness of this. That is the way it looks in terms of this action by the Senate, following up on the successful effort on the part of a union to bargain collectively. Finally, once again, it is such an extraordinary move to go against an agreement that a Republican administration was a part of and to take this extraordinary, and I think really very imprudent, action. Senator Kennedy's second-degree amendment is reasonable. It just says--and I will finish--nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to expenditures required by the consent decree. Whatever those expenditures are or are not, this amendment just says, look, we don't come out here on the floor--it is not in the dark of night, but all of a sudden--with this kind of major move, and I think this is an extremely reasonable second-degree amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order, please?

Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield, why doesn't he put the question to me first?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts that I would agree. That is why I find it hard to understand why there can't even be an agreement here on the floor of the Senate because I think the position that the Senator takes is very reasonable, and I think it is important to have this consent decree as part of the Record for that very reason. Mr. President, I will yield the floor, if my colleague wants to speak. If that is what he really wants to do, I am pleased to yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. As I understand what the Senator from Massachusetts is saying in reply or in response to the Senator from Pennsylvania is that we want to try and finish but there are some other Senators that want to speak and the Senator is right, I would like to speak. I think it is a shame we did not have an agreement. We should have. This is a very reasonable second degree, I think, but I want to make it clear to my colleague from Pennsylvania I would like to speak, and I can be relatively brief.

Mr. WELLSTONE. A point of inquiry.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the courtesy. My understanding is we have a vote at noon; is that correct?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Robb be listed as a cosponsor of the Wellstone-McCain / McCain- Wellstone amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, on the Wellstone-McCain/McCain- Wellstone amendment, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that this vote at 7 preclude a second-degree amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam Chair, I will not object, but might I inquire, the amendment that we have introduced, Wellstone-McCain, McCain- Wellstone, this precludes a second-degree amendment, I gather. Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to add one final word to what my colleague, Senator McCain, has had to say. Above and beyond the organizations that Senator McCain recognized for their fine work, and above and beyond Mo Udall, this amendment comes from legislation which, as I said, is really named after Mo Udall, for reasons I don't need to explain to any colleague. I also would like to thank, but I want to do this carefully, Muhammad Ali, who has been very courageous, and I use that word carefully. Muhammad Ali struggles with Parkinson's, and he could have chosen to have had the world or the country have only seen him as he was when he was in his prime as a boxer. Instead, he has been very public, very visible and a very, very strong advocate, not just for himself but for many, many other people. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, and I know that my colleague from Indiana is going to have a second-degree amendment which I think really adds strength to this and he has some very thoughtful and important questions to raise or comments to make, but I am going to end on a personal note. I want to say to everybody here that we really do need to have a strong vote, and we need to keep this in conference. When Senator McCain was talking about this disorder and what it does to people, I remember when L-Dopa, the first drug, came out. My father was in the original pilot group. For a while, L-Dopa helped, but then it reached the point where it did not. With my father, Leon Wellstone, at the very end, he not only could not walk, and he was a writer and his hand would shake and he could not type, but, in addition, he could not even speak. It can be so ravaging to people. It can be so devastating. The reason we have brought this amendment to the floor is that it is an equity question. So precious little has been invested in Parkinson's research at the very time when there is such potential for big breakthroughs. I want to make it clear to everybody that we have had the Parkinson's community come here to Washington, and they have come year after year for the last 3 or 4 years that they have been working on this. Each time, we make progress, and then at the very end, for some reason, they get shut out. So I make a plea to people on the basis of please vote for this funding. It is just a matter of elementary fairness and justice. It is just a matter of equity. Please don't shut people out. I just don't want to see people who have been so courageous and who have come here and have struggled so hard not be successful in this Senate and in this House of Representatives. We have to pass this legislation. It really would be a wonderful vote, and it really would make a huge difference in the lives of many of our neighbors and many of our friends who are men and women of enormous worth and enormous dignity and enormous substance. Nothing I say is said out of pity, it is said out of respect for the dignity of people. I just would like to say one more time, I hope we will get a huge vote for this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I defer to my colleague from Arizona, and I thank him for his--I am not going to use the word ``leadership'' because many people always talk about Senator McCain's leadership--but for his emotional and personal involvement. He is a Senator who is very connected to people. I thank him for all of his work. I hope we will get a good, strong vote. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk, along with the cosponsors.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I could talk at some length about this amendment, and I will not. I will just make a few introductory comments, and then my colleague, Senator McCain, will speak on this. We have, I believe, close to 66, or thereabouts, cosponsors. This amendment, which I am very proud to offer today, is really an amendment that is named after Mo Udall, who was a very distinguished Representative in the House of Representatives and somebody that many people here have a great deal of love and respect for. This amendment would call for 10 Parkinson's research centers. This would be $100 million a year. The reason for this amendment is that Parkinson's disease is a devastating neurological disease. Probably my colleagues are very familiar with it. They may have had a loved one who suffered from it. I had two parents who suffered from Parkinson's disease. Mr. President, what happens with people with Parkinson's is that there is a tremendous problem with shaking, people have difficulty walking, and many people have really found it difficult to be, if you will, their own lobbyist. People have found it difficult to speak for themselves. But what has happened in the last several years is that there has been a wonderful group of people who have come here. The Udall family has been very, very important in this whole struggle. In addition, Joan Samuelson, with the Parkinson's Action Network, has been really critical to this. They have come here and I think have met with Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike. This is a bipartisan effort we have on the floor of the Senate. They have essentially said to all of us, ``Time is not on our side. We have the research that we can point to. It is such promising research. We are on the cuspis of major breakthroughs, but if we do not at least increase this funding for research for many of us, we really will not have that much of a future.'' Mr. President, there are a million people in our country, men and women who struggle with Parkinson's disease. Up to now, we have been spending about $30 per person. It is a really shamefully low amount of money that we have spent. Very little has been invested. But now these men and women, this community, has come to the Nation's Capital. They have met with all of us, and they have made their case. I am very honored to offer this amendment with Senator McCain. I hope we will get very, very strong support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as original cosponsors to this amendment Senator Craig, Senator Burns, Senator Durbin, Senator Ford, Senator D'Amato, Senator Breaux, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Santorum, Senator Johnson, Senator Snowe, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Hollings, Senator Torricelli, Senator Faircloth, Senator Levin, and Senator Lautenberg.