Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague that, as a matter of fact, there is as long as once you come to the event your activity is not substantially recreational. That is the key point. Then there is a prohibition. Otherwise, there is not. I say to my colleague, if, in your official duty, you go to a gathering for a good cause--that is why you are there and that is how you spend your time--that is fine. The problem is when--and I defer to my colleague from Michigan if he wants to add to this--the problem is when you go to a gathering and you spend most of your time in recreational activity, then the paying for that travel is not permitted. That is the key distinction.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I say to my colleague from Alaska, two mornings ago I heard quite a wonderful report on the work that the Murkowskis do in Alaska. I absolutely understand the why of the amendment and admire the Senator for what he stands for. We do not always agree on all issues of the committee he chairs, but I do not think there is ever any question about his personal intentions and his sincerity. Again, the important point is that the contributions and the paying for trips is permitted when it comes to charitable activity. The key language is as long as what you are doing is not substantially recreational. That is the real issue. I say to my colleagues, that is the key point. The problem for us is that we have gone to these gatherings and they are for a good cause, but a large part of our activity is for the golf and for the tennis, and it is substantially recreational. Frankly, we do not look good. It is a matter of perception, and we should just let go of it. We do not need it. That is really the problem.

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time does the Senator have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this gift ban reform has been perhaps, at least in my 4\1/2\ years here, one of the most debated and scrutinized pieces of legislation. I will be very brief. Five minutes will do.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Medicare dependent hospitals--and the definition of a Medicare dependent hospital is a hospital that has Medicare patient loads of 60 percent or more--have significantly lower overall margins than other hospitals, and will face two choices: Either those hospitals will close down or they will have to reduce services. Minnesota has four Medicare dependent hospitals in the urban areas, and we have 40 of those Medicare dependent hospitals in the rural areas. In addition, 43 percent of Minnesota's hospitals currently lose money on Medicare patients. If the proposed Medicare cuts are enacted, 67 percent of Minnesota's hospitals would lose money on Medicare patients. Small, isolated rural hospitals require a stable funding source in order to provide care. I will tell you right now, in many of our smaller communities, in many of our greater Minnesota communities, in many of the communities in rural America, what is going to happen is that those hospitals with a Medicare patient mix of sometimes up to 80 percent are simply not going to be able to make it. And when those clinics and hospitals close, that means not just Medicare recipients but other citizens as well do not receive the care that they need. Medicare has come to symbolize this Nation's commitment to health and financial security for our elderly citizens and their families. It is a successful program that has played a central role in improving both access to and quality of health care services, not only for our country's elderly and disabled, but for all of us. We are talking about our parents and our grandparents. Mr. President, I will, as we go to the 30th anniversary of Medicare, vigorously oppose all efforts or any effort to dismantle a Medicare system in order to give a tax cut that will disproportionately benefit those people who need it the least. Let me repeat that. I will resist any effort to dismantle the Medicare Program in this country in order to give tax cuts to those citizens who, in fact, least need the financial assistance. Thirty years ago, Medicare was part of a Democratic vision for a better America. Mr. President, today it still is. I come from a State that has made [[Page S 10787]] an enormous contribution to our Nation. I come from a State that has made a contribution through a great Senator and a great Vice President, Hubert Humphrey--Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale and Don Fraser--and Minnesota had a lot to do with the beginning of the Medicare Program and with support for this program, which has made such a positive difference in the lives of people, our senior citizens around this country. I intend to fight hard to make sure that we keep this as a high quality program. My mother and father depended on this program. They are no longer alive, but for them, if not for Medicare it would have been financial disaster. So I do not intend to see this program dismantled--not on my watch as a Senator from Minnesota. And the more we get into this debate, the more people in Minnesota and all across this country are going to say: Senators, whether you are Democrats or Republicans, this is unacceptable and unconscionable. Do not be cutting Medicare, do not be cutting Medicare and quality of services for elderly people in our country, all for the sake of tax cuts for wealthy people in our country. There is no standard of fairness to that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Ted Marmor titled ``Medicare and How It Grew--To Be Confused and Misjudged'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 extra minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson traveled to Independence, MO, and he signed Medicare into law. That simple ceremony marked the beginning of a new era of health and economic security for America's seniors. Prior to Medicare, only half of America's elderly had health insurance. Today, more than 36 million elderly and disabled Americans, including more than 630,000 Minnesotans, are protected by Medicare. Mr. President, Medicare is a program with overwhelming support in Minnesota among seniors, their children, their grandchildren, and all Minnesotans. Many of us remember what it was like for seniors before Medicare. Many seniors lost everything paying for necessary health care, and many others simply went without it. Mr. President, the Medicare Program, imperfections and all, made the United States of America a better country. Prior to Medicare, what often happened was that as people became elderly and no longer worked, they then lost their health care coverage. Many people could not afford good health care. This was a program, along with Medicaid, that made our country more compassionate. It made our country a fairer country. It made our country a more just country. I can say, Mr. President, having had two parents with Parkinson's disease--and the Presiding Officer and I have talked about Parkinson's disease before, and we both have a very strong interest and support for people who are struggling; I think the Presiding Officer has a family connection also with Parkinson's disease--for my mother and father, neither of whom are alive, Leon and Minnie, the Medicare Program, I think, was the difference at the end of their lives between dignity and just economic disaster. It is a terribly important program. Mr. President, Medicare also is important to Minnesotans because we, as a State, I think, have had a great deal to do with its creation. Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Don Fraser, among others, worked tirelessly on its creation. This was a project of countless Minnesotans, advocates for seniors from all across our State, our universities, our communities, all came together during the early part of the decade of the 1960's, and finally culminating in 1965 [[Page S 10786]] on July 30, when we passed this hallmark legislation. In many ways, I argue today on the floor of the Senate, Medicare is a product of Minnesota. It reflects Minnesotans' values. It reflects the tradition of my State: A tradition of respect for seniors and a commitment to those members of our community who need a helping hand. As Hubert Humphrey, a great Senator, said in support of Medicare, ``Our country's strength is in the health of our people.'' That was the premise of the Medicare Program. This year, the 30th anniversary of the Medicare Program, all too many Republicans have resolved to cut the program by $270 billion over the next 6 years. While the budget deficit clearly needs to be reduced, the Republican proposal to finance a tax cut to the tune of $245 billion-- most of it going to high-income and wealthy people--and at the same time putting into effect severe and, I think, draconian cuts in the Medicare Program, a program which has played such a central role in improving both access to and quality of health care services for our country's elderly and disabled, is unacceptable, I argue--and we will have a debate about this, as time goes on--and unconscionable. Mr. President, while I believe the Medicare Program could and should be improved, I want to be quite clear that I do not think that this program will be improved by cutting $270 billion over the next 6 years. Mr. President, a dramatic restructuring of Medicare not based on sound public policy would be a grave mistake. A dramatic restructuring of Medicare of the kind that has been proposed now by too many Republicans, not based on sound policy, would not be a step forward for Medicare beneficiaries in Minnesota or across the country, but would be a huge step backward. Republicans have proposed, Mr. President, to fundamentally change the program from universal health insurance for seniors to a fixed amount of cash which each Medicare beneficiary could use to purchase coverage in the marketplace. This would effectively transfer the risk of Medicare inflation and medical inflation to the elderly, in order to relieve the Government from bearing the risk. Mr. President, seniors would be expected to pay the difference between the cost of a health plan and the Medicare voucher amount. The elderly in our country, Mr. President, already pay four times more out- of-pocket expenses for medical costs than those under 65 years of age. This does not include the enormous cost of nursing homes, which is now nearly $40,000 a year. While Republicans claim that they want to use a voucher system to emulate the health care cost containment successes of the private sector, they neglect to mention that their budget cuts will only allow Medicare costs to grow at a rate of less than 5 percent per person, while private health care costs are projected to grow at a rate of 7 percent per person. Those are exactly the figures. That is exactly the information. Mr. President, that means that even if the Medicare Program, which cares for the sickest and the frailest members of our society--the same members, I might add, Mr. President, who have been systematically excluded by the insurance companies from coverage because of preexisting conditions--even if Medicare can capture all of the efficiencies of the private sector, there still would not be enough money to cover the costs of this program. Mr. President, Minnesotan providers have already suffered from inadequate payments for Medicare. For example, Minnesota's HMO's are currently offered inadequate payments for the Medicare population. As a result, many of our HMO's have declined to participate in the Medicare Program on a capitated basis. Minnesota, compared to California, compared to New York, compared to Florida, sometimes only receives half of the reimbursement per person. Mr. President, what I am saying is that we, in Minnesota, have kept the inefficiencies out of the system. We have already cut the fat. If these payments come to Minnesota, capitated at a fixed amount way under the cost of providing care to beneficiaries under a voucher-type scenario, seniors will be forced either to pay more out of pocket--and we are not talking about a high-income population when we talk about the elderly in Minnesota or in our country--or they will have to go without coverage. Mr. President, beyond the impact of Medicare cuts felt by seniors and the disabled community, we will all pay the costs of Medicare indirectly. We will pay it in one of two ways: Either as children or grandchildren, we will have to help pay the costs of our elderly parents or grandparents. Many families are already under a tremendous amount of economic pressure. The bottom 70 percent of the population has been losing ground economically over the last 15 years. I think it is rather naive to believe that families will have a lot of extra income to pay this additional cost. Or, when the hospitals, clinics, and doctors are in a position to do so, and I do not blame them for this, they will just shift the costs. It is like Jell-O. Put your finger in one part of the Jell-O and it just shifts. What they will do, since the Medicare reimbursement will be significantly under the cost of providing care--that is already the case in Minnesota--these cuts will not work in my State, I tell Members now. This slash-and-burn approach will not work in Minnesota. It will not only hurt Medicare beneficiaries. It will also hurt care givers and providers and, in addition, those care givers and providers in the metro area, if they can, will shift the cost of private health insurance. Then the premiums will go up, then the employers will have a difficult time carrying insurance, and more will be dropped from coverage. This is crazy public policy that some people are advocating around here. Mr. President, Medicare Dependent Hospitals, which have a Medicare load of 60 percent or more----

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am assuming that we are going to be going to the gift ban reform very soon. Since there is this break, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Michigan, I do not know that I need that much time, because I feel, like the Senator from Wisconsin, covered the ground in a very thorough way. Initially, we had in the original bill, the McConnell-Dole bill--what was the aggregate on the original version?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. The way this amendment reads, the Senator from Arizona may be interested in this, the last sentence reads ``The prohibitions of the paragraph do not apply to gifts with a value of less than $50.''

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the rest of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have witnessed, over the last few months, especially the last 2 weeks, a sickening spectacle in Bosnia. Women raped for alleged sins committed by their ancestors centuries ago, torture, and the brutal cold-blooded murder of young Moslem men. Where are the Serbs taking these men, 12 years of age and older--if you want to call a 12-year-old a man? I have felt from the beginning we should be flying over, taking notes of the license plates, and making clear to the Serbs they will be held accountable for war crimes. Mr. President, this is the never again--again. These are Nazi-like tactics, Nazi-like actions. That is what we are witnessing. During the last 3 years, I have voted at various times both on the arms embargo and to find other ways that allies could respond to this aggression by the Serbs. And it does seem to me that the arms embargo must be lifted. But if we are going to be intellectually honest, we need to think through all of the policy implications that accompany this momentous decision. If the UNPROFOR forces are going to be leaving, they have to have safe exit, and the international community, with the United States included, I believe, has to make a commitment. What about the refugees themselves? I traveled to the former Yugoslavia, and I met with refugees. And I saw enough pain to last a lifetime. God forbid what is going to happen to them in the interim if U.N. forces withdraw and the Serbs just go on forward and we have more slaughter on top of slaughter. What is going to be our response and the response of the international community? I say to my colleagues, I think this is a moral imperative, and we should end this. I hope it is multinational. But we should end this arms embargo. But, please, Democrats and Republicans alike, do not think that now, all of a sudden, it is a level playing field. Do not make this a technical fix. Do not turn your gaze away from what is happening because we have other obligations that we must live up to. The people of Bosnia need our help. They deserve the right to defend themselves against brutal Serb aggression. We should vote today to send a strong signal to the administration and to our allies that we must move forward forcefully on Bosnia before the entire U.N. operation collapses and the people of Bosnia are overrun altogether by the Serbs. Mr. President, my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, ``never again'' should mean ``never again.'' Let us vote to send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we still believe in that proposition. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly. First of all, in transition, let me thank the Senator from Virginia for his remarks. I did not mean to make such an abrupt transition from your very personal and powerful remarks. I apologize. Sometimes we rush so much we are impolite. I hope I was not.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we back now on the Helms amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, this amendment, which I gather has been set aside, and I gather there are some negotiations going on, would set a prohibition on the use of Federal funds. And, as I look at this, community-based organizations--part of the definition would be the promotion or encouragement of certain activities--``No funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may be used to promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexuality, intravenous drug use.'' Let me talk about ``encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexuality.'' We went through this debate before, Mr. President, when we were talking about any activities in schools that would promote directly or indirectly homosexuality. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, I do not know--I have to believe that this is not the intended effect--but what the effect of this amendment would be, the effect of this amendment would be very cruel and mean spirited and harsh and beyond the goodness of the vast majority of people in this country, because the way this amendment reads--and I certainly hope there will be some change--if you had community-based clinics, say you have the Minnesota AIDS project, and some young man came in and he was talking to some of the people there and he said, ``Look, I am gay, and my family is ashamed of me and a lot of my friends shun me. And I do not want to live. I am thinking about taking my life. I feel worthless.'' If those men and women that are working at that community- based clinic said to that young man, ``The fact that you are gay does not make you any less of a human being. You are a person of worth, dignity and substance. And, for God's sake, you do not want to take your life. You can live a life of contribution to community. You can live a life of contribution to country, a contribution to world. And you certainly do not want to take your life,'' by the wording of this amendment, those individuals that were working at this community-based clinic would be encouraging homosexuality as a way of life. We cannot have amendments worded like this on the floor of the Senate. This is just too cruel. I am not going to say that the intent of it is too cruel because I do not want to believe that. But the effect of it would be cruel and harsh. It goes beyond the goodness of people in the country and it goes beyond the goodness of Senators regardless of their political party. And this amendment as now worded should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just to be clear, I know the Senator wants to go on with other features. Just so we can clarify this point, going to what the Senator from Michigan asked the Senator from Wisconsin, the problem, as I understand it, is that--we are just talking about one provision in the McConnell-Dole substitute --is that Senators can receive from lobbyists up to $100, not per day, but per gift. There is no aggregate limit. So this is in perpetuity; correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, $36,500 from one lobbyist a year. That is the conservative definition; it could be much more. There might even be efforts to cut that by half. Then it would only be $18,000 from one lobbyist per year, although, if you add in the number of occasions where that lobbyist can give us a gift during the day, it could be double that or triple that; no aggregate limit. And that is called gift reform? Mr. President, the gift ban legislation has in a way taken on a life of its own. It has become a symbol of incumbents' stubborn resistance to changing the way lobbyists operate in Washington. I cannot believe it has taken over 2 years. I have been involved in this from almost the very beginning. I think this resistance and these alternative proposals in the guise of reform, which do not pass any credibility test at all, which are going to infuriate people if Senators end up voting for this and claim that they have made significant changes--this is a symbol of incumbents' stubborn resistance to changing the way Washington operates. [[Page S 10587]] Mr. President, is it going to be business as usual? Do opponents intend to try to change the gift ban to allow Members of Congress to continue to establish foundations or other similar entities to which lobbyists will be allowed to contribute in order to curry their favor? That is in the McConnell alternative. So we have no limit on gifts, up to $100 in perpetuity, with no disclosure, $36,500 a year, but actually it can be much more for one lobbyist. And, in addition, charitable travel is included. If you are for a charity and you believe in that charity, then we should all go but we should pay our own way. It is just not appropriate to have a lobbyist or other special interest paying our way to wherever for ourselves and our spouse for golf or tennis, for a nice vacation trip over a long weekend. It is not appropriate. We should just let go of this. Then there is a provision in this alternative, the McConnell-Dole alternative, that purports to be reform that says we can continue to establish our own foundations, our own entities and then ask lobbyists to contribute to those foundations that we control to possibly curry our favor. That is hollow reform. That is not real reform. Or will we continue to allow lobbyists to contribute to legal defense funds with all of the accompanying conflict problems that this raises? That is not reform. That is hollow reform. That is in the McConnell-Dole alternative. Or will we allow Members of Congress to continue to direct lobbyists to make charitable contributions to their favorite charity, the same lobbyists who are asking them for access for legislative favors for themselves or clients? I hope not. That is in the McConnell- Dole alternative. That is not reform. That is hollow reform. Mr. President, I really do think that this piece of legislation puts all of us to the test. It puts all of us to the test. It puts all of us to the test in several fundamental ways. The No. 1 priority, by golly, if Senators are willing to vote to reduce free lunches for children in this country, Senators ought to think about their priorities and, by golly, we ought to end all free lunches for Senators. Actually, what we should do is end the free lunches for Senators and Representatives and certainly not end the free lunches for children who need that nutrition. Second of all, it would be better not to pass any piece of legislation than to pass a piece of legislation which purports to be reform with enough loopholes for the largest trucks in America to drive right through, many of which I have identified. Third of all, since we have been at this for 2 years, I think gift ban does have a life of its own. And this McConnell-Dole alternative represents the same resistance by Washington to the kind of change that people in this country are really demanding. The Contract With America had nothing about any of these reform measures. Mr. President, it is time. We will pass today the lobbying reform, and this week we are going to pass a strong gift ban reform. Then eventually we are going to move on to campaign finance reform. When we do that, I think we will have passed some measures that we can be proud of and people in the country can be proud of. But, Mr. President, the alternative or substitute, the McConnell-Dole, which is going to be laid down later on does not represent a step forward but it represents a great leap backward. We need to move forward. This piece of legislation that we have introduced today, S. 1061, represents a strong, tight, comprehensive gift ban reform. And that is what the Senate ought to pass. We owe people in this country, we owe it to the people we represent, to do no less. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, and Senator McCain, who has been very engaged in this, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Levin from the word go, and Senator Cohen. I also know that Senator Baucus has joined in this effort. I think we will have Republicans and Democrats alike involved in this. But we will have a very sharp debate, and we will identify what it means to move forward with a reform effort that we can be proud of which is credible, which meets the standards that I think people in the country want us to live up to as opposed to some alternative that has the word ``reform'' and that is sort of made for politicians where you use the word ``reform'' and you claim you are moving forward while all at the same time you are cleverly designing a piece of legislation that essentially maintains and perpetuates the very practice the people in this country want us to eliminate. That we cannot let happen--today, tomorrow, the next day or this week. We have to pass tight, comprehensive, tough gift ban reform. That is what people expect. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First of all, let me thank my colleagues for their real fine work on this legislation. Senator Levin has done such fine work with Senator Cohen on the lobbying reform, and Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg, Senator Baucus, Senator McCain, and others. I was listening to my colleague from Michigan. Let me, at the beginning, emphasize some of the points he made. This has been a really long journey in the Senate. I say to the Chair, who is a friend, that actually back in Minnesota, when I talk to people in cafes, they do not even understand what the debate is about. To them, it is kind of not even a debatable proposition. Lobbyists and others do not come up to citizens in Colorado and Minnesota and say, ``Look, we would like to take you out to dinner. We would be willing to pay for a trip you might take to Vail.'' Not to pick on Colorado; it could be Florida, or anywhere. ``And bring your spouse.'' And so on and so forth. Most people do not have people coming up to them and making these kinds of offers. I think the citizens in our country just think it is inappropriate for us to be on the receiving end of these gifts. And they are right. We should just let this go. For me, this journey started in May 1993, over 2 years ago, with an amendment I had on lobbying disclosure where lobbyists would have to disclose the gifts they were giving to individual Senators. That amendment was agreed to. Then we went on to this kind of broader debate about the gift ban. It has been a real struggle. I have never quite understood the resistance of all too many of my colleagues. Although, in the last analysis, on each vote, I want to make it clear, we have had very strong support. Actually, S. 1061--88 current Members of the Senate have essentially already voted for precisely the comprehensive gift ban legislation that we have before the Senate today. So I expect it will engender the [[Page S 10586]] same strong support on the floor of the Senate as we go forward. Mr. President, Senators Feingold and Lautenberg and I in the last Congress had to threaten to attach gift ban to another piece of legislation to finally get a consent agreement to have it eventually brought up; finally we had it on the floor. This has been a much scrutinized, much debated piece of legislation. Ultimately, as Senator Levin stated, at the very end we had lobbying reform and gift ban reform in the form of a conference report that came over here that was filibustered at the end of the last Congress. Then we started off this Congress. At the very beginning, again, I think Senators Feingold, Lautenberg, and myself, we had an amendment on the Congressional Accountability Act. It was our feeling this was very much about accountability. That was defeated. We wanted to include gift ban reform. That was defeated on the Congressional Accountability Act. The majority leader said we would take it up later; I think by the end of May. I came out with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, essentially repeating what the majority leader had said, that we take it up by the end of May. That was defeated. I could never understand the ``no'' vote on that. Now, here we are at the end of July. This legislation has garnered the support of a broad range of reform minded groups: United We Stand, Common Cause, Public Citizens, and others. I think the reason for this is that people in the country really want to see some changes in the way we conduct our business here in the Nation's capital. People in the country, I have said this before on the floor of the Senate, want to believe in our political process. And people in the country are, I think, far more serious about reform than some of us are. As I observed several weeks ago on this floor, some of my majority colleagues, frozen like deer in the headlights, have refused to move forward on the gift ban. There has just been unbelievable resistance to a very simple proposition. And the only way in which we have been able to do it is through a tremendous amount of pressure. I ask this question, and I am going to ask this question over and over again for as long as this debate takes. Why are too many of my colleagues enthusiastic about slashing free or reduced-price lunches for children but at the same time they wither when it comes to eliminating free lunches for Members of the Congress? Let me repeat that. Why are so many of my colleagues, or hopefully just a few of my colleagues, who are leading this effort at resistance, so willing to cut or slash free or reduced-price school lunches for children but they wither when it comes to eliminating the free lunches for Members of Congress? I think this represents truly some distorted priorities. Let me just read from some editorials in some of the newspapers about this piece of legislation, what is called the McConnell-Dole alternative, to give you and colleagues and people in the country some sense about how this issue is being discussed in the country. The New York Times wrote that the McConnell proposal would, ``perpetuate much of the old system under the guise of reform.'' The Washington Post said that the McConnell proposal ``would be substantially more permissive about those charity trips and expensive free meals. Without an aggregate limit, a lobbyist could theoretically take a Senator out for $75 dinners, night after night, and not be subject to any limits at all. You might as well not pretend to have a gift ban.'' I am, of course, referring to a substitute that is going to be laid down which, in the guise of reform, really represents the opposite of reform. The Kansas City Star wrote that ``the gravy train would stay on the track under a ploy of Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. McConnell would limit a meal or gift to $100 but the long-time foe of gift bans conveniently neglects to restrict the numbers of gifts. That means spending would go on and on. Senator McConnell's legislation would appear to be sound. They are not''--these are not my words--``his phony, bogus gift ban would have no appreciable impact on the current corrupt system.'' Mr. President, there are just some titles: ``Good and Bad Lobbying.'' ``Capitol Still Sports `For Sale' Sign. Senators Showing True Colors. Republican Gift Fraud.'' ``Stop the Freeloads.'' ``Beware of Mischief in Senate Ethics Bill.'' ``Airtight Ban Needed.'' ``Don't Weaken the Gift Ban.'' And, from the Pioneer Press, St. Paul Pioneer Press, in Minnesota, ``Prove It's Not For Sale.'' Mr. President, there is no doubt that these kinds of gifts, and other favors from lobbyists, have contributed to American's deepening distrust of Government. They give the appearance of special access influence and influence, and they erode public confidence in Congress as an institution and in each Member individually as a representative of his or her constituents. That I think is the issue. This giving of gifts by lobbyists and special interests, this receiving of gifts by Senators, erodes public confidence in this institution and public confidence in each of us as representatives of the people back home in our States. We should let go of it. Mr. President, we have seen delay after delay after delay. Now, the question I ask my colleagues is whether or not they are going to essentially embrace some hollow reforms as substitutes for the real thing. Are we going to have colleagues talking about reform out of one side of their mouth while on the other side they oppose it? Will we have colleagues who will support hollow reform as a substitute for the real thing? For example, do my colleagues again intend, as some did last year, to try to gut the provisions on charitable vacation travel to golf and tennis hot spots like Vail, Aspen, Florida, or the Bahamas where Members and their families are wined and dined at the expense of lobbyists and major contributors? Are we going to keep that provision and then say we passed reform? I hope not. But I expect that such an attempt will be made on the floor. We fought that fight last year and we won. And I certainly hope that we will win again. Mr. President, are we going to see a measure that purports to be reform which says--the Senator from Wisconsin and I have discussed this--that actually we can take gifts up to $100 from anybody, lobbyists included, actually not even per day but per occasion with no aggregate limit with no disclosure? So breakfast, lunch and dinner? We could be receiving free lunches, free breakfasts, free dinners, tickets to--I do not call them the Redskins game--the Washington team game, or to the Orioles game or to concerts or trips? Anything that is under $100 we could receive in perpetuity from a lobbyist with no aggregate limit and no disclosure requirement. I say to my colleague. What, again, does that add up to, if you were doing $100 a day?

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is no aggregate limit, and there is no disclosure requirement?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I just want to point that out in terms of what we might call hollow reform versus real reform.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the Senator from Michigan, is that correct? The other question I had was, above and beyond it is not per day but per gift, my understanding is there is not any disclosure requirement either.