Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to provide a very brief analysis to people in our country about a very important reform bill that is going to be coming to the floor on Monday, the lobbying disclosure and gift ban legislation, S. 101. Mr. President, we will start the debate, and actually each section of lobbying disclosure and gift ban will be taken up separately. There is no question in my mind, Mr. President, that people in our country yearn for a political process that they believe in, and there is no question in my mind that people in our country--in Minnesota, Idaho, Massachusetts, all across the Nation--really want to see an open, honest, accountable political process. There are several critical ingredients to this, and two are certainly lobbying disclosure--Senator Levin has been an extremely capable legislator in taking the lead in this area, with Senator Cohen--and also the gift ban. Senator Feingold, Senator Levin, Senator Lautenberg, and myself have all been very active. The reason I come to the floor is that there is a development people ought to know about--an attempted substitute bill. This will be a McConnell-Dole initiative. Mr. President, I think people need to know about this initiative because I think it represents not a step forward but a huge leap backward. Mr. President, this substitute bill is full of enough loopholes for many huge trucks to drive through. To give but just a few examples, lobbyists would be able to take you or me out to dinner one night, as long as it is anything under $100; the next time, maybe we could be taken to a Bullets game; the next time, we could go to an Orioles game; the next time, we would just be given a gift. It goes on and on and on, and there is no aggregation limit. Actually, it is not per day but per occasion. Lobbyists, three times a day, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but take us out as long as it is under $100 or give us some other gift, as many times as this lobbyist wanted to. It never would be counted and never would be disclosed. This is not comprehensive, sweeping gift ban legislation. Second, to give but another example, the whole issue of charitable travel. I think it is important that Senators and Representatives, when they care about a charity, travel to an event. We should be there to support it. But to have lobbyists pay for Members to be there with our spouses and with our families--and, by the way, playing golf and tennis at the same time--is inappropriate. We ought to be letting go of this. I do not understand why Senators, regardless of their party, do not understand that if we want people to believe in the political process, and we do not want to see bashing of public service, we all believe in public service, we ought to let go of this. This Dole-McConnell initiative, again, has a huge loophole. Likewise, Senators can set up legal defense funds and lobbyists can make contributions to those defense funds. That was prohibited in the original bill that we passed. Likewise, Senators can ask lobbyists to make contributions to different foundations. That was prohibited. Likewise, Senators can set up contributions and have lobbyists contribute money. Mr. President, this is not reform. This is not a step forward. This is a step backward. This is an attempt to make an end run around reform. I just want people in the country to know about it. I do not understand what happened between last year and this year. Last year, before the November election, the Senate voted 95-4 for the gift ban legislation, virtually identical to S. 101. Mr. President, 85 of those who voted for the measure have returned to the Senate. Three new Senators voted for a similar gift ban in the House. Now we see this effort to essentially eviscerate--if that is the right word-- reform through this, through this measure to be introduced as a substitute by Senator McConnell and Senator Dole which, quite frankly, is unconscionable. It passes no credibility test. Mr. President, last October 5, the majority leader said, ``I support gift ban provisions. No lobbyist lunches, no entertainment, no travel, no contributions to legal defense funds, no fruit baskets, no nothing.'' What has happened? Mr. President, I just come to the floor because I want people in the country to know about this. The debate starts Monday. I think, given this substitute that I gather is going to be laid out sometime on the floor--no question but it will--there is going to be, I think, really a historic, very intense debate, because 99.9999 percent of the people want comprehensive gift ban reform. That is what I think many are determined to make happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object unless we have 2 minutes to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like the record to show that we were for all debate today. We wanted it during the daytime. This was not our decision.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would object, but I would be pleased to have 3 minutes for the Senator from Pennsylvania and 3 minutes for the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would not object at all.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would object unless we could have a unanimous consent----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if the Senator is going to speak against our position, then I would ask for more time on our side.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say to my colleague from Illinois that it has been a real honor to be in the Chamber of the Senate with her throughout this last couple weeks. I say to my colleague from Illinois that I think she is quite right about process. This is just a glimpse of what is to come in terms of really a lack of standard of fairness when it comes to who is asked to tighten their belt. And perhaps it is also a glimpse of what is to come in terms of trying to have a stealth Congress, where you make these cuts at 3 a.m. in the House, you make deals, and come over to the Senate. I say to the Senator I believe, since this is a glimpse of what is to come, that for us this is just the beginning. This is just the beginning. This will become, I believe, a very important, historic debate in the Senate. I know we are very determined to make sure that happens. Mr. President, I wish to just summarize because I had a chance to speak earlier, and I wish to speak to one thing I have heard said several times that I really want Senators to think about before they vote. I am just going to take the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program because we are going to have two votes, two different amendments will be voted on. Mr. President, many Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, are on record supporting the LIHEAP program. This $319 million that we are trying to restore from the Pentagon travel administrative budget is money that we voted for in the Senate. Senators are for this. The House has now zeroed it out after this deal was made. They have zeroed it out. This is a vote that could very well determine the future of this program. But to vote to restore this funding is consistent with the position I think of a majority of Senators in this Chamber. It has nothing to do with contradicting the prior vote. Second, Mr. President, just because the majority leader says if I should fail in my attempt to table these amendments--let us start with the one on LIHEAP--I will pull the bill, I doubt it. We have disaster relief for Oklahoma and California. Senator Moseley-Braun and I have been very consistent about this. That is why we said we wanted the right to have these amendments. We want some democracy; we want some openness here, and that is why we made it clear once we were able to obtain that right we will go forward. I doubt the majority leader will pull this bill. Third, I say to my colleagues, it is a difficult argument for you to make back home to the people you represent, and I know you care about, that somehow you had to vote for these cuts in the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that you do not support because this bill would then have to go back to the House and it would take a few more hours. This bill could go back to the House, and it could be back here at 1 o'clock. Forget the deals, forget inside Washington politics and think about the people who we represent even if those people do not have the big bucks, even if they are not the heavy hitters, even if they are not the big players. This vote goes to the whole question of the heart and soul of the Senate. Mr. President, 450 people have died in the last 2 weeks. Cooling assistance is part of this program. My colleague from Pennsylvania is one of the champions of this program. He would be the first to say that. Why are we cutting this program? Mr. President, I just say this one more time. Whether it is a cold weather State, where this is not an income supplement, this is a survival supplement, whether we are talking about heating assistance or cooling assistance, the total appropriations for this bill were less than one B-2 bomber. And we want to take just $319 million out of a Pentagon travel administrative budget that the GAO says is bloated and wasteful, with all sorts of articles: ``Billions Go Astray, Often Without a Trace,'' and just make sure we have a modicum of funding for low-income energy assistance. That will be the first vote. I will say it one more time to my colleagues. Before you vote, please think deeply about this. I appeal to Senators: Do not be too generous with the suffering of other people. We can restore this $319 million and we can send this bill over to the House, and it will be back here at 1 p.m. Convenience between House and Senate is an inside process and deals have nothing to do with justice and fairness and what we stand for. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there any other time on the opposing side?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will reserve that time. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the Senator from West Virginia, I thank the Senator for his gracious remarks. It means a great deal to me personally and I am sure to Senator Moseley-Braun as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment with the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona. As I understand the amendment, it really says nothing more than we should, during this Congress, take up this issue of campaign finance reform. It is an extremely reasonable amendment, one I think that should engender the support of Democrats and Republicans. A very good friend of mine who is going to be leaving the Senate, Paul Simon, wrote a book not too long ago, and I had a chance to read a rough draft. The first chapter was on campaign finance reform. I said to the Senator, ``That should have been the first chapter, because this is really the root issue.'' I think it is the root issue and really the root problem for several reasons. I only have 4 minutes today, but we will be coming back to this over and over again, because I think we are going to insist on this reform during this Congress. First of all, it is a root issue, Mr. President, because I think, in a way, this mix of money and politics, which really becomes the imperative of American politics, if you will, this money chase, it undercuts democracy and it undercuts democracy for two reasons. First of all, it undercuts the very idea that each person in Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, or Florida should count as one and no more than one, because that is not really what is going on any longer to the extent that big money has such a dominant influence in politics. Second of all, it undercuts democracy because it represents corruption, but not the corruption of individual officeholders, but rather a more systemic type of corruption where too few people have too much wealth and power. That is what is skeptical, cynical about public affairs, and all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, have the strongest possible self-interest in having your citizens really believing in politics and public affairs. But when people see this influence of money, they become very cynical. Mr. President, it also has a lot to do, unfortunately, with representation or lack of representation. I remember during the telecommunications bill--and I am not trying to pick on any group of people--but the reception room was packed with people. Some people just march on Washington every day, they are lobbyists or others, they represent a lot of big money, they make big campaign contributions. I have to say, when we talk about low-income energy assistance, which I think we will be talking about, cuts in low-income energy assistance or nutrition programs for children, whatever, you never see that mix of money and politics. Those citizens are just as much citizens as any group of citizens having the same representation. I think something is terribly wrong. So, Mr. President, I have introduced bills in the past, I have introduced a bill this Congress, offered amendments, and have given enough speeches about the need for campaign finance reform. I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, I am proud to be part of this effort. I think we ought to pass this bill, and we ought to pass it this Congress. I think it is the strongest and most important thing we can do. I also have to tell you, Mr. President, that from my own point of view--Mr. President, how much more time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. How does the Senator know that I am not personally wealthy?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, I view all of these reform efforts--the gift ban and lobbying disclosure, which we take up on Monday, and the campaign finance reform--to be just critical measures, because I think people have to believe in this process or they are not going to believe in the products of this process. I think people feel that politics has become a game they cannot play. I think people feel like this is a political process that does not represent them well. I think people feel like only a few people are well represented in politics. We have to make our political process more accountable, more honest, more open, with more integrity, and I cannot think of a better way to do it than to take strong action and pass a comprehensive gift ban and lobbying disclosure bill next week--I know we are going to have spirited, long, hard, tough debate about that--and, in addition, pass this campaign finance reform bill sometime this Congress. Again, the only thing this amendment says is we should take this up. Mr. President, I will make one final point. I am now up for reelection. I was so hoping we could pass a campaign finance reform bill. I absolutely hate the system and the way in which we have to raise money. I think almost every single Senator does. I said in Minnesota, and for several years, I will only raise $100; if nothing changed, I will have to raise money to run against other people. With all the ads on TV, communications becomes the weapon of electoral conflict and all of us end up having to do that. But, quite frankly, all of us ought to get together in a bipartisan way once and for all to pass a reform bill that really would, I think, make this political system operate in a much more effective way, not just for Democrats and not just for Republicans, but for all the people in this country. I think that is critically important. We have gone through this debate before and, quite often, any time there is any kind of campaign finance reform bill, people say, even if there is a minimum amount of public money--maybe we can do without any--even if there is a minimum amount, people say this is food stamps for politicians. It is not. The elections do not belong to the politicians, they belong to the people back in our States. I think the Senator from Arizona is absolutely on the mark when he says that one of the strong messages that has come from people--it came in the 1990 election in Minnesota; it came in the 1992 election the Senator from Wisconsin was involved in; and the 1994 election--is people want to see change, people want to see reform. So, Mr. President, I hope that all of my colleagues will vote for this amendment. This amendment just says we make a commitment to bring this question up. We make a commitment, Democrats and Republicans together, to introduce a bill and to pass this legislation. I think this amendment ought to receive 100 votes because, quite frankly, I think that is the sacred trust we have of people in our country. They want us to make this change. They want more democracy, not less. They want more opportunities for people to run for office. They want more openness in the political process. They yearn for a political process they can believe in. What better thing could we do than to take up campaign finance reform, along with gift ban and lobbying disclosure, and pass a reform bill of which all of us can be proud. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I think probably 5 minutes more will be fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I stand corrected.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, before my colleague leaves, we come here to speak on the floor and we have other engagements. Let me just say to him that I think we are totally in agreement on the need for a full discussion and debate. Hopefully, it will be one that is done with a considerable amount of substance and grace and dignity on welfare. I do think it would be a mistake to fold this into a reconciliation bill because I think whenever you are considering such a major departure from public policy--and this is a major departure of public policy--it is a mistake to fold it into the reconciliation bill where you really do not have the opportunity for the debate and discussion. I say to my friend from Missouri that, if he is going to speak in morning business, I would really prefer to let him have the time, so I will just take 2 minutes rather than taking up the rest of the time for now. I do think there are a couple of things that concern me about what is called welfare reform. First of all, I want to make sure it is not reformatory as opposed to reform. It seems to me real welfare reform enables a family--and in the main we are talking about women and children --to make the transition from welfare to workfare. Now, we have been talking about that for a long time. Actually, Franklin Delano Roosevelt talked about that in 1935 when what we now know as the AFDC Program was introduced as a part of the Social Security Act. The problem is when we talk about moving to workfare as opposed to welfare, it is very difficult to have any welfare reform unless, in fact, there is affordable family child care. I mean, it is very difficult today for a single parent. Almost all of these single parents are women. In some ways I wish more were men. And I wish there were less single parents, period, No. 1; and, No. 2--and I think the Chair and I agree on this--men took more responsibility. But if we are going to say to a single parent, ``You need to work,'' there are a couple of critical ingredients to make sure this is real welfare reform and not reformatory. One is for especially smaller children, that there is affordable child care. That is not done on the cheap. I know that in Minnesota, one of the problems that we have run into-- and I think we are doing a really good job on welfare reform--is we have long waiting lists. As a result of that, many of the mothers that you talk to cannot make the transition to work because they simply cannot afford or find--not custodial--but developmental child care for their children. A welfare family is not 1 mother and 10 children. We are usually talking about one mother and two children. I will be done because I do not want to take the time away from my colleague from Missouri and we will have plenty of time for debate on this. The second point is the one we talk about all the time, which is we have to somehow figure out where health care reform fits into this, because all too often what happens is a single parent goes back to school, a mother goes back to school, a community college, maybe then finishes up at the University of Minnesota, then tries to get a job. The Washington Post had a very, very good portrait about this. What happens is, you are no longer receiving Medicaid, you are paying child care, and if you look at the wages that are out there for jobs, you are behind. So we have to make sure that, in fact, families are able to make this transition without punishing families. So I think the health care reform piece is critically important. Finally, I think this is a challenge for all of us. I think it goes well beyond welfare reform policy. We really need to look at the fundamental question of standard of living in this country and the squeeze on the vast middle class and what has been going on for the last 15 years, plus--I am not pointing the finger in any party direction--and I think the overwhelming challenge is to have an economy that produces good jobs that people can count on. I think that has to be part of welfare reform as well, so a mother has a job that pays a wage, has benefits on which she can support her children. I think we need to look at these much more carefully. I could say more. I will not. My colleague is anxious to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will manage the minority leader's time. Mr. President, I want to respond to the majority leader in a very positive, and by no means personal, way. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the majority leader. He is quite right. There have been negotiations that have gone on for some time. I believe that we would be ready very soon to go forward on the rescissions package. There were several issues. The majority leader has now been working with us. We have agreed to have debate on a number of amendments--one dealing with the low-income energy assistance, and the second one, which I really want to talk about and hope that there will be some change and restore some of the funding for this program. The other has to do with the job training and education programs. Mr. President, the only disagreement--and I believe it will be worked out--has to do with a counseling program which, I say to my colleague from Missouri, I would like to talk about for a long time. I will not, because other colleagues want to speak, and I will get a chance to speak later. This is an interesting program, Mr. President. The ratio, Members will like this, of paid staff to beneficiaries is 1 to 2,000. It is not topped down. It is out in the States. This is a program that is extremely important. It is what we are all about. It is basically a few paid staff that in turn nurture a lot of volunteers that in turn provide seniors with just basic information about their health care coverage. People sometimes find that bewildering, and sometimes there is unfortunately some ripoff when it comes to supplementary Medicare coverage. It is extremely successful. The majority leader said last night, and he is quite correct, that he has now been working with us and actually is helping me to restore the funding to this program. It does not require a lot of resources. We are talking about restoring $5 million. It was a $10 million program. By the way, Mr. President, sometimes these numbers seem small to Members but this program makes a huge and positive impact in the lives of a good many very vulnerable citizens. The only confusion and disagreement was that I was waiting for the reprogramming of this. I thank the White House for their help. I certainly would like to thank the minority leader. What I wanted to be careful about, and this just simply had not been worked out yet, is that the reprogramming was not a ``rob Peter to pay Paul.'' I did not want to take this money from another program that was extremely helpful, for example, to seniors. So, Mr. President, the only delay, and I think it is a very slight delay, and I see no reason why we cannot go forward, is to make sure we have a reprogramming done. I also wanted to make sure that my colleagues had some understanding on appropriations. I mean, both the majority chair of the committee, Senator Hatfield, and the minority chair, Senator Byrd, I wanted to make sure that they were fully apprised of where we were going on the reprogramming. That just did not happen last night. That is the one missing piece. It all goes together. There would not be a need for a third amendment if we work that out. I think we will. Mr. President, I will just say what I have said all along, which is-- I am speaking for myself; I think Senator Moseley-Braun would say the same thing--we really believed that it was important that the bill not just go through here without some debate and discussion. We wanted an opportunity to have some amendments. We have agreed to a limited time. We are ready to go forward, and I think we can. Again, I say to the majority leader and I say to colleagues, at this point in time we have one piece to work out. I believe that will happen this morning. I see there is no reason why we cannot get the reprogramming part taken care of--that will be the piece that the majority leader and I are now working together on, which is of course always the best way to proceed, if you can--and then we will have a limit, time limit on two amendments that will deal with the two other areas. Then we will have a vote. Mr. President, I say this morning because I am quite confident that we can move forward and I will be ready to do so when the majority leader is ready to do so. We will just wait to work this out on the reprogramming part, and then we should be ready to go. That is what we have been aiming for all along. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Moseley-Braun and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess that having 2 minutes really proves the point that Senator Domenici from New Mexico made earlier with a considerable amount of eloquence. This is an important, really fundamental issue that goes to the core of who we are as a people and a society. It really should not be debated tonight on an appropriations bill--the legislative appropriations bill. I guess about all I can say in 2 minutes is that I wish it was the case when I visit hospitals--now being a grandfather with two small grandchildren--that I could look at a child and feel reassured that that child, regardless of gender, or regardless of race, or regardless of disability, would have the same opportunity. That is called equality of opportunity. I am the son of a Jewish immigrant from Russia, and I think that is one of the most important principles to me in our country, which is why I love our country so much. But, Mr. President, that is not the case. I think that we ought to think long and hard before we pass an amendment which, I believe, is very extreme, and I believe that its effect--I do not know about purpose--turns the clock back a good many decades. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to support the Gramm amendment. I think that the Murray/Cohen/Daschle/Moseley-Braun amendment, if we are going to have this debate tonight, should and must be the prudent middle ground for us.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber so the Senator from Iowa can be heard?