Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator and then yield the floor to my colleague from Kansas who is anxious to speak. I respond to the Senator from Massachusetts in two different ways. First of all, I say to my colleague, as a strategy of welfare reform or as a targeted strategy to reduce poverty and have more economic opportunity, and for that matter, as a targeted strategy to move toward a middle class or as a targeted strategy to reduce violence, I do not think there is any question that it is the key. That is what we have to focus on. I say to my colleague, my understanding is that, roughly speaking, in poll after poll, 70 to 75 percent of the population agree. When we have a broad consensus in our country that we ought to raise the minimum wage, we ought to make it a working wage, it is all a part of economic opportunity, it is extremely important to this country, then it seems to me the Senator from Massachusetts does everyone a real service by saying, ``Let's go on record making it clear that indeed we will address this problem. We will have some positive legislative initiatives in this area.'' Again, I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I hope that this amendment receives widespread support. It should. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I understand this amendment, it simply urges the Senate, asks the Senate to take the position that we will indeed take up and debate legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage, at least by the end of the Congress. Am I correct, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts? Is that essentially it?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his remarks. I have said it to him many times, I am going to really miss him. I think he has been a real conscience of the Senate, and I think people admire the Senator from Illinois not only because of his integrity but because of the way he treats each and every Senator with real respect and sensitivity. He cares a lot about people, and that is what this debate is really about. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President and my colleagues, many of whom I know have travel plans, I think we have now come to a very good, solid agreement so I do not think we will need an hour for debate. I think we can do this in just a few minutes. The amendment that I am sending to the desk makes a great deal of sense. What we are going to do in this amendment is we will have--this goes back to a debate we had just about an hour ago in this Chamber. Anything under $10 is de minimis, and that does not count toward the aggregate. Then anything above $10 counts toward what will be an aggregate limit that Senators cannot go beyond, in terms of receiving meals or any kind of gift from any lobbyist or other special interest. Likewise, we can keep the $50; anything over $50 cannot be accepted. So, Madam President, I think we are back on the reform track. The concern that some of us had about the prior amendment--and frankly, I say this to my good friend from Louisiana, I think this was more just a misunderstanding--we did not really see an aggregate limit and saw it as being very open-ended, in which case gifts could be given and gifts could be received in perpetuity, as long as they were under $50. This may have been an honest confusion. Now we have an amendment that brings us together. It sets some very reasonable standards. I know the Senator from Arizona wants to speak. I send this amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Michigan. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know we went through this last night in, I think, rather extensive debate. A Senator certainly can attend charitable events, no question about it. The issue is the recreational travel. What this vote is about is just one issue, and the issue is this: It does not serve this institution well, it does not serve any of us as individual Senators well, when lobbyists pay for Senators and their spouses or their family to go on weekend golf, tennis, skiing, or fishing trips. It is inappropriate. We ought not to be taking these gifts. People in the country do not think it is right. We should not think it is right, and I certainly hope that this amendment by the Senator from Alaska will be voted down.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could just get the attention of my colleagues. Mr. President, let me just emphasize what the Senator from Wisconsin said. Fact No. 1 is that people in the country just think it is inappropriate when it comes to the meals and the tickets. They think we should let go of it. And we should, if we want to restore confidence. Fact No. 2, this amendment says that you can go out for a meal or you can take a ticket or whatever, and as long as it is under $50 you can keep receiving the same gift from a lobbyist in perpetuity. There is no limit. There is no $100 limit. Senators, you cannot tell people we are making a reform, you cannot tell people we are putting an end to this practice, with this kind of huge loophole. It is not credible. It will not work. This amendment is deeply flawed and is not a reform.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my understanding is we have strong support. We are just going to voice vote this. I believe that the vote on the individual gifts was a mistaken vote, because we did not have the aggregate limit. I think that was a loophole we did not want to have. We have come together now. That is what matters. I thank Senator McCain. It has been really fascinating working with the Senator from Arizona, and that is the way I describe it. It has been an experience I will write about in my journal. I appreciate working with him. I thank Senator Levin, who perhaps has the most knowledge about these issues on reform and has been at this as long as anybody in the Senate. I thank Senator Lautenberg for his fine work, and certainly my colleague from Wisconsin. I love having him as a colleague in the neighboring State of Wisconsin. Also, Senator Breaux, Senator McConnell, Senator Lott, the majority leader. We have now come together. We are ready to vote on this. I am very proud [[Page S 10857]] of what I think is a reform bill that is going to make a real difference. I yield the floor and hope we move to a vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Wisconsin needs.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Michigan needs.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Under $100, no aggregate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Now we have this amendment which is just barely an improvement. My colleague from Wisconsin said the original proposal was under $100, no aggregate, all you can eat. This reads, ``The prohibitions of this paragraph do not apply to gifts with value of less than $50.'' Mr. President, Senators should be clear about the vote. What this is saying is that you would like for a lobbyist to be able to on any number of occasions----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think the Senator's comments are important. I do not want to cut him off, but I want to reserve what time I have left. My point is really simple. I just think that this may be the most important vote of all because, again, we ought to just let go of this. And for people in Minnesota, it is just not credible to say, ``We passed important reform on the taking of gifts.'' ``What was it?'' ``Well, we could take a gift on many occasions from a lobbyist as long as it was under $50 and it would never apply to any limit.'' People will just laugh at that. That is not reform. That is my first point. My second point, Mr. President, which may or may not move colleagues, but I would like to talk about the flip side of the coin. It does seem to me, Mr. President, that for a lot of people in Minnesota, a lot of hard-pressed people, we cut the low-income energy assistance in the House of Representatives. They eliminated it. There are a lot of wage earners, there are a lot of senior citizens, there are a lot of students, there are a lot of farmers, there are a lot of neighborhood people in the cities, there are a lot of regular people who cannot afford to take us out for $50. Where do they fit into this equation? Maybe they have a shot at taking us out for $20, so that we go out to dinner with them and not just with lobbyists. Let us have a little equality here, and that is the second part of my argument. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was pleased to yield for a question. I think the Senator's comments are helpful. I wonder if I could get some time on the other side. We have little time left.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I would be very interested in the comments of the Senator from Michigan, but we may have just some confusion here which we may be able to clear up.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I make this one comment and then yield the floor?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Very quickly, I say to the Senator from Alaska that we have had this discussion, because this may just be some confusion. I do not know any other way but to say it straight. What we have tried to do, and what we have done in this coalition effort, is to just deal with what has gotten us into trouble, which is not what I think the Senator from Alaska is talking about, which is some of the ski and golf trips, and whatever. I think we should let go of that and end that practice. When you go home, and as part of your official work, you go to a charitable activity, such as the Senator from Alaska cares fiercely about, and your activity there is not substantially recreation--you are not going there to ski all weekend, or whatever--that is permissible. Maybe we have cleared that up.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me say two things to my colleague from Alaska. First of all, if we want to talk about campaign finance reform, and if the Senator is concerned about people paying for trips that Senators take which raise money, introduce an amendment to deal with that problem. But that is not what we are talking about tonight. The Senator can introduce an amendment to deal with that. It is a matter of proportion. I think every Senator should be aware of this. You can go to a charitable gathering. That can be part of your work. You should go, and it could be paid for by a private party. There is no question about that. The problem is, when it is substantially recreational, that is where the abuse comes in. Mr. President, you cannot make a distinction between fishing trips, or tennis, or golf, or skiing. That is the problem. That is where we have gotten ourselves into trouble, no matter how good the cause is. When a particular lobbyist or interest pays for a Senator for a weekend, or several days of travel, and accommodations to go fishing or play golf or to go skiing, it is just inappropriate. I mean, what has to attract people to the gatherings is the cause itself. God knows what the Murkowski's do is a very important cause. But we have to let go of these paid-for ski trips, golf trips, and tennis trips. We have to let go of it. It is not appropriate, and it does not look good. People do not want us to do it. I urge my colleagues to let go of it. That is why I think this amendment must be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware wants to put a question to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona, but I want him to know he will have 6 minutes. I am going to use 1 minute because I would like for him to do the summation. I was worried, because for a moment, I thought I would have to, in the spirit of honesty, step forward and say I am not speaking in opposition to it. I have been working on this for a long time. Mr. President, I just want to say, during my time in the Senate, I have found the discussion that we have had with the Senator from Arizona to be just really interesting. As a political scientist, that is the way I would put it, very interesting. I think we have come together with a really good bipartisan reform effort. I think that all of us feel very good about it. As the Senator from Wisconsin said, it is significant, and it is a very significant message to people in the country that we are going to change the way in which we conduct business here. And so I wait for the debate on the amendments, and I think we will have some very spirited debate. I feel very good about this piece of legislation now on the floor of the Senate. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and certainly the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Maine. We have a lot of people that have worked hard on this. I believe the Senate can do itself proud and support this strong reform initiative. I will wait for debate on the amendments before becoming more engaged in the discussion.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield whatever time the Senator from Michigan needs.