Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last year in Minnesota over 14,000 students received assistance from the Federal Stafford Loan Program-- 14,000 students. I just rise to speak in opposition to the Snowe amendment and say that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Dodd amendment. Mr. President, this is, indeed, too little too late. What we are faced with right now are some really draconian cuts that will do irreparable harm to higher education in America. In the second-degree amendment we are going to introduce, we focus on corporate welfare or tax expenditures. Mr. President, I would far prefer for some of the oil companies, some of the large pharmaceutical or insurance companies or large financial institutions to be tightening their belts and to be a part of the sacrifice than I would go forward with deep cuts in financial assistance for higher education. I cannot think of a more important middle-class issue as a former college professor than this issue. I do not have time, but if I had time I could recite story after story after story after story of students who have written letters to me and made phone calls saying for God sake, please do not deny us the opportunity to have an affordable higher education. No matter how you cut it, that is what these cuts are all about. I do not even have a chance in the 2 minutes to talk about earlier education which is, of course, equally important. These cuts in higher education are myopic. These cuts are profoundly mistaken for our country. These cuts will have an accrual effect on students all across the across the nation from Ohio to Minnesota, and the Snowe amendment in that respect is really just a little bit more than symbolic--too little, too late. We can do much, much better in how we sort out our priorities. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if my colleague from New Mexico, upon condition that I speak against the Snowe amendment, would grant me time?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I might ask if I could have 4 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Delaware. It is my belief that this amendment would accomplish two very important goals with one simple action, namely, closing an outrageous tax loophole for the super-rich, and preserving one of this continent's most fragile treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now as some of my colleagues are no doubt well aware, as long as I have been coming down to this floor to speak, I have been speaking in opposition--strong opposition--to opening up ANWR to oil and gas drilling. My position has not changed one bit, for those of my colleagues who have not heard me address this issue before, I want to take this opportunity to again state the reasons why I am so opposed to drilling. Mr. President, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not an energy policy, it is a non-energy policy. Even if--and this is a big ``if''--even if the big oil companies were to tap the 3.2 billion barrels of oil the Department of Interior has estimated may lie under ANWR, the United States would be no more energy secure than it is now. The oil reserves under ANWR would compose only a fraction of this country's huge appetite for oil for a short period of time, and at a tremendous, perhaps catastrophic ecological cost. We will be no less dependent on foreign oil, and perhaps more so, now that the Senate has apparently expressed its willingness to see Alaskan oil exported overseas to the highest bidder. We will have gained nothing except the experience of witnessing, once again, the grand exercise of greed. And at what cost, Mr. President? I will tell you what cost. We will have squandered one of the last remaining, irreplaceable treasures that belong not to us, not to the oil companies, not to this Government, but to our children, and their children and their children's children. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the biological heart of the Arctic; and once it is gone, Mr. President, it is gone forever. Let us not continue any further down this path of foolishness. I urge my colleagues to vote for their children's sake to accept the Roth amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Arizona, I will be relatively brief, probably within 10 minutes. Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from West Virginia for his fine work. In many ways, I look to him as a teacher, especially when it comes to understanding this process and also when it comes to wedding integrity with politics. I thank him. I rise, however, in disagreement with two Senators for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect, because I hold the Senator from Oregon in the same high regard, in the highest regard. Mr. President, while I supported many of the cuts provided for in this bill, I really believe that what happened in conference committee, as the minority leader pointed out, really violates a basic standard of fairness. For example, I brought an amendment to the floor which put the Senate on record that we will take no action that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. The distinguished Senator from Oregon accepted that amendment as a part of this rescissions package that then went to conference committee. The amendment was dropped in conference. I understand why it was dropped, that we were simply expressing the sense of the Senate, and not the sense of the House of Representatives, too. But I also realize, based upon the cuts in this rescissions bill and based upon some of the votes that we have cast today, that it is going to be very important for me and other like-minded colleagues to work hard to make sure that we, in fact, will not take such action in the months to come as we move through this budget process. Mr. President, I think that is exactly what we are doing. Frankly, I was never quite sure of that bill we passed in the Senate. I worked about 12 or 15 hours. So did other Senators, right before the final vote which must have been about 10 p.m. that night, to restore certain funding for key programs. I felt proud at that point, because while it was not all that I wanted, it moved us in the right direction. And when I got up in the middle of the night about 3 a.m. that night, I started thinking maybe I should not even have voted for that package. It was a close call. We have a lot of close calls, and we make our best decisions. However, I felt good about some of the work many Members had done together. We restored some of the funding for WIC, Women, Infants and Children Program, restored funding for child care. There was a counseling program for seniors, to make sure that they did not get ripped off, as all too often happens when it comes to some of the supplemental Medicare coverage. We worked hard to restore funding in Medstart, safe and drug-free schools, School to Work initiatives. In any case, Mr. President, I felt like we had done a good job of restoring some funding for programs that are not bureaucratic, but that makes a very important difference to a lot of young people in our country, especially children at risk. Mr. President, now what has happened is that more than 80 percent of the funds that we restored, most of that funding for the most vulnerable citizens in this country--children--have now been cut again. Of the $835 million we restored, $685 million was dropped in the final package. Mr. President, I believe that this rescissions packages just simply does not meet a basic standard of fairness. So many kids are in trouble in our country, and we have to be willing to reach out and invest in them, reach out and provide support for them. Not support that reinforces dependency, but support that is important to kids, that broadens their opportunities. Starting with making sure that a woman who is expecting a child has a decent diet. Making sure that a newborn infant has a decent diet. What are we doing cutting the Women, Infant, and Children Program? It is an unqualified success. Mr. President, there were never any cuts in the Pentagon budget. None of the big military contractors was asked to sacrifice at all. I think this rescissions package asks the very citizens who cannot tighten their belts, to tighten their belts. Especially children in our country. Especially low-income children, minority children. And it is for that reason I believe the President of the United States is absolutely right when he says we should make some changes in this bill, or he will veto it. And they don't have to be wholesale changes, relative to the amount of funds in the whole bill. There are parts of this rescissions package I want to support. So do my colleagues. But when it comes to the disproportionate cuts that affect the most vulnerable citizens in this country, starting with children, it just simply is wrong. And the President of the United States of America is absolutely right to draw the line. To say, ``I am not going to be a party to or agree to a package of cuts that basically focus on those citizens who do not give the big bucks, who did not have the political power. These are just cuts based upon the path of least political resistance, and I won't be a party to them.'' And let me observe one more thing about the President's role in all these negotiations on this bill. It has been implied on the floor here today that the administration did not provide its full views on the rescission bill as it moved through the conference committee process. That is simply not true. I understand the administration provided its specific objections to the bill at each stage of its development, including a letter to the conferees on April 28. These objections are printed in the Congressional Record of May 18, 1995 on pages H5339 through H5352. I commend this letter to my colleagues' attention. Mr. President, let me finally say one more thing about this bill. I do not know that there is another Senator who has been more of a leader on issues that affect people in Indian country than Senator McCain, and so I say this conscious of his important role. In many Indian communities there is no running water, sanitation facilities or indoor plumbing. Mr. President, 40 percent of the American Indian population live in substandard housing, in substandard housing conditions, in deplorable conditions. Yet we are now poised to wipe out $80 million that was duly appropriated last Congress, which could really make a difference in providing some affordable low-income housing. Mr. President, I cannot stand by in silence, while the Senate prepares to pass legislation which I think would have devastating effects on our first American citizens. Mr. President, as I review overall this rescissions package, I just think that we can do better. What has come back from the conference in the form of this conference report includes many of the cuts we restored for nutrition programs, safe and drug free schools, safe housing for children, child care, School to Work, AmeriCorps, 8 percent of that, has now been cut again. I speak tonight to express support for the President's decision but, more importantly, to support some of the most important citizens in my State and in this country, and that is young people. Some of the kids who are having the most difficult time are the very kids we ought to be supporting right now. We can do much better. I think we will do much better. But only if we stand strong and only if the President remains firm in his commitment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would apologize as a teacher for not doing justice to the issues before the Senate. It is just impossible in 2 minutes. Let me start out by saying that there is an old Yiddish proverb that I think applies to this amendment on the floor. That Yiddish proverb says you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Quite frankly, this is a perfect example of that. On the one hand, we tell people we are serious about deficit reduction. On the other hand, we are talking about $300 or $350 billion of tax cuts going disproportionately to the wealthiest and highest- income citizens. Mr. President, I just have to say that that does not pass the test of intellectual rigor in the State of Minnesota. People want the Senate to get real with them. They want the Senate to be straightforward with them. They do not believe for a moment that we can have hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts while, at the same time, we are pretending to be serious about deficit reduction. Second of all, Mr. President, and it is very difficult to talk about what the statistics mean in personal terms, but honest to God, when we are talking about severe cuts in Medicare for elderly people, and Medicaid for elderly people, and nutrition programs for children, and support for students to be able to go on to higher education, a higher education that they can afford, and when we give away an investment in education and health care and jobs for people, and we want to do all of this deficit reduction on the backs of these citizens, middle-income citizens, families, working people, all on behalf of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the United States of America, it not only does not meet the Minnesota standard of rigor, it does not meet the Minnesota standard of fairness.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will there be any opportunity for questions and discussion after the Senator speaks? Or does he want to just go forward without any questions?

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I have a point of inquiry and that is it?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? I wanted to ask a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I did not mean to interrupt. I understand.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not come on the floor with any well-rehearsed speech. But it does seem to me that, once again, we are not actually debating whether or not there ought to be deficit reduction. We are also not debating whether or not anybody is in favor of the debt that we built up in this country. As a matter of fact, I could make my own analysis about what happened starting with what was euphemistically called the Economic Recovery Act, passed in 1981, pushed by President Reagan, which eroded the revenue base of this country about $700 billion over 5, 6, 7 years; plus an unprecedented buildup in the Pentagon budget. I find it interesting that by and large we still have not heard very much discussion about all the subsidies that go for oil companies; all the subsidies that go for tobacco companies; all the subsidies that go for pharmaceutical companies; all the subsidies that go to some of the largest corporations and financial institutions in America. But we have been talking about cuts in nutrition programs and financial aid for higher education. We did not have much time to debate that on the floor this afternoon. And, I think, draconian cuts--draconian cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. I do not have the time and I do not have the data right now to go into those arguments in great detail. But I will say to my colleagues that when I presented this this morning on policy grounds, I did not hear any rebuttal. So in terms of ``we have to do all of this,'' let us not be so generous with other people's suffering. Let us make sure we do it in a responsible way. The reason I support my colleague from Ohio is that I consider this to be bashing. I mean, 200,000 additional positions eliminated--by what agency? What job? What position? A description of those positions? Who are we going to do it to? What positions are we eliminating? It is very easy to just say eliminate 200,000 positions. I would like to know: Where? Where do these men and women work? For what agencies? Is it the National Institutes of Health? Or is it going to be some of the other Federal agencies? Where are you eliminating these positions? It seems to me it is not responsible unless the Congress approves in advance exactly what agency, what positions, what descriptions, what men and women, whose positions are you eliminating? Colleagues stand up on the floor and they say ``Oh, these decisions are so difficult. We have to make difficult decisions.'' Easy if it is not our job. Very easy. We have to make these difficult decisions. Sometimes I think we get a little bit too generous with the suffering of other people. Before I would vote for such an amendment I would want to know exactly which people we are talking about. Let us just get concrete. What agency? What descriptions? Which Federal employees? Providing what kind of work in this country? For whom? Let us have a discussion of that. I think in the absence of that kind of specificity this is a profoundly mistaken amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his graciousness and say to him, as a teacher, as long as we are talking about education, the best education is when we have a chance to have this exchange of views. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what we have before us today is a budget that says loud and clear to the American people that education is no longer a priority. The proposed $40 billion cut in education spending represents the largest education cuts in American history. In fact, it is estimated that by the year 2002, the Federal Government's commitment to young Americans will be cut by over 33 percent. And these cuts span all age groups. For example, by the year 2002: Over 400,000 young children will be denied a Head Start through preschool education; Education for over 5.5 million children and youth with disabilities will be eliminated; School-to-work programs, partnerships between businesses, communities, and schools stand to lose over $5.3 billion. And less than one-half of the children who need it will receive assistance to improve their reading and math skills. Are these America's new Goals 2002? The cuts I have listed above are devastating. But there is also another program that the proposed Education budget reductions will negatively impact. I want to talk to you about cuts in student aid. Remember, all of those who signed the Contract With America have signed a document that says they intend to support cuts in student aid. The proposed Senate budget is serving as another vehicle to accomplish this devastating promise. Under the proposed budget, $30 billion would be cut in Federal aid to college students over the next 7 years, affecting over 4 million students. For example, last year in Minnesota, over 14,000 students received assistance from the Federal Stafford Loan Program alone. And these students are not from wealthy families who could afford to bear the entire brunt of the cost of their child's post-secondary education. In fact, the average income for the families of these students was less than $37,000 per year. A college education is an essential part of the American dream. It gives people an opportunity to be all that they can be. And, I know from what my father always believed for me and I believe for my children--that their lives will be better than the last generation because they went on to pursue a higher education. In fact, over 92 percent of all Americans believe that investing in a Federal support of a college education is an investment in our country's future. We also must remember that college education also significantly benefits to our Nation as a whole. Our communities are stronger, our economy is stronger and our democracy is stronger. But the dream of an education is more and more difficult to achieve. Most students now are not going straight to college from high school. It is not affordable. Some have to save some money before they can afford to go. Some have small children to take care of. The student body these days includes a lot more non-traditional students--those who are returning to school, those who only go part time because of jobs or family or both, and those who take more than 4 years to get their degree. The costs of going to school keep going up. Students are forced to put off school until they have saved enough money, seek student grants or go into a lot of debt. It used to be that State and Federal governments provided more grants than loans. Students were not asked to mortgage their future. But over the last 10 years the balance between grants and loans have been inverted--the number of loans far outweighs the number of grants. Loans are now the largest source of Federal student aid. The Federal Government has had a commitment to high education for almost 50 years. Yet even at its current level of resources, the Federal Government's contribution is insufficient. We should not be cutting financial aid programs--we should be increasing and improving those programs. Higher education is one of the best investments we can make as a country and it is one of the best investments individuals can make in their own future. An education increases earning potential, decreases unemployment, and improves the standard of living. As a Nation, we cannot afford to cut educational financial aid to America's families. We should not be taking away one of the few opportunities families have for their children and grandchildren to make a better life for themselves. The Senate should go on record in saying that in our effort to balance the budget we should not be reducing opportunities for students to improve their lives. it is extremely difficult to go to college these days The total costs of attending a 4-year public institution averages to about $7,600. The average cost to go to a 4-year private institution is around $16,000. Tuition alone has increased more than 120 percent over the last 10 years. At this cost higher education is out of reach for many middle income families. Without student aid many would be unable to pursue higher education. Students must seek out scholarship and other grants and awards. Many borrow, but even that is not possible without help from the Federal Government. For the 1993-94 academic year, students borrowed a record amount--$23 billion from Federal guaranteed loan programs. The average loan exceeds $2,700 annually. And, borrowing of course sends recent graduates into the working world with a pile of debt along with their nice new diploma. Debt that is sometimes with them for half of their lives. Krista Hannem is a sophomore who will be graduating from community college and going on to Mankato State University to get a B.A. She is 24 years old, and married. She writes: I do not receive State or Federal grants, nor do I have any scholarships. In order to pay for my 2 years at [a community college], I have had to take out over $5,000 in student loans ***. Last year I was receiving help through the State work- study program. When that was cut I suffered again. I realize that part of education is receiving some debt, and that it should not be a free ride, but neither should it be a weight tied around my neck. So I ask that whatever decision you make, you consider the many students like myself who are choking with this weight. most students are non traditional The typical student these days is not the Brady Bunch kid who graduates high school and goes straight on to college. Forty-five percent of the student body these days is over 25 years old. In fact, nearly 20 percent of all students are older than 35. Many are single parents. Forty-three percent attend on a part time basis, thus probably not finishing a B.A. in 4 years. Even traditional students, students who enroll full time at 4-year institutions immediately after high school are remaining for 4 consecutive years, obtain a bachelor's degree within 5.5 years. Sixty-two percent of students of all ages work, including nearly half of traditional students. And, about one student in five is a member of a minority group: African American, Asian American, Latino, or Native American. Denise Peters from Edina writes: I am a 29 single parent currently enrolled as a Jr. at the U. of M. Because of the excellent support of financial aid and other programs I have been successfully maintaining a 3.76 GPA. Before returning to school--from the time my son was 6 weeks old I worked as a medical assistant making $9.00 an hour * * *. Without the needed assistance the rug would be pulled out from under me * * *. Sandra Mitchell from St. Louis Park writes: I am devastated at the idea of any financial aid cuts. Not only would I need to drop out of college--I am a sophomore-- but it would leave me with only two options. First, I could obtain an entry level position. Second, I could remain a public assistance recipient for a while. At any rate the best I could do for my self and my son and society is to maintain at below poverty level. I faced these options after a miserable divorce which left me without a home, money, or even credit to plan for the future. I have goals, not only for myself, but to be allowed to contribute and replace what I have used. By the time I graduate in 1997, I will be financially independent. Likewise I am setting an example for my son to achieve independence and pride which are invaluable to our whole society. Troy Goodwater is a sophomore at Austin Community College. He is a 20-year single male. He lives at home. He has a part-time job and attends college full time. He writes: My father is retired and receives only a four hundred dollar check each month from [[Page S7092]] social security and my mother works two jobs in an effort to make ends meet. They are unable to assist me in anyway in helping paying my tuition. I receive federal and state grants to help me pay my tuition, without these grants I would not be able to further my education. These grants pay for all my schooling, because of my low finances. The Federal and State grants are very helpful to myself and many others college students and if these grants are cut the people who want an education and can not afford one will suffer the most in the long run. our federal commitment to higher education should be strengthened not cut For almost 50 years the Federal Government has made a commitment to helping students go on to higher learning. Just during the academic year of 1993-1994 the Federal Government spent $31.4 billion to ensure that lack of resources does not prevent people from pursuing their dreams of a college education. In Minnesota alone, students received more than $420 million in Federal dollars. The Federal Government provides 75 percent of all student aid including federal grant, loan, and work-study programs. In 1990, about 5 million students received Federal student aid under one or more Federal programs. In the 1993-94 academic year about 3.8 million students received Pell grants; 4.5 million received Stafford loans; 991,000 received supplemental education opportunity grants; 697,000 received Perkins loans; 713,000 received Federal Work Study awards; and 650,000 received State student incentive grants. Most Federal student aid is based on need, with the amount of assistance determined by formulas that factor in family, individual earnings, savings, and the cost of education. Pell grants are targeted to the neediest students. The campus-based programs--supplemental educational opportunity grants, Federal work study, and Perkins loans-- gives school financial aid officers the flexibility to respond to unique student needs. These programs help both low- and middle-income families. Of the Pell grants awarded to dependent students--those who are financially dependent on their parents--41 percent goes to students from families with incomes less than $12,000 and 91 percent goes to students from families with incomes below $30,000. Among Pell recipients who are financially independent, 73 percent have an income below $12,000. Stafford and direct loans primarily benefit middle income families. Most subsidized student loans--72 percent are awarded to students who are still financially dependent on their families. The average family income of a dependent student who receives a Stafford loan--a loan on which interest is not charged while students are in school--is approximately $35,000. Seventy-five percent of such students have family income between $12,000 and $60,000. Among independent students who receive loans, average family income is $14,400. More than 69 percent have incomes above $6,000. More than half of the students who receive Perkins loans have family income below $30,000. More than half of the students who receive funds under the work-study program have family income below $30,000. And more than 75 percent of students who receive funds under the Federal supplemental education opportunity grant program have family income below $30,000. In recent years the Federal Government commitment has been diminishing. It used to be that State and Federal governments provided more grants than loans. Students were not asked to mortgage their future. But over the last 10 years the balance between grants and loans has been inverted--the number of loans far outweigh the number of grants. Loans are now the largest source of Federal student aid. And, even the number of loans has decreased. The explosion in the numbers of eligible Pell grant recipients combined with inflation meant that in 1992, 4.2 million students were forced to share the same amount of money that served 2.8 million students in 1987.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think it is unconscionable that we not have more time. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Mary McEvoy, who is a fellow with me who unanimous consent that she be allowed the privilege of the floor during the rest of this debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just tell you something right now, if you are going to cut down on reimbursements, which, of course, you will have to do with Medicare, let us get real and honest about it, two things will happen. Either, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, the providers will be in a position to just simply transfer the cost, shift the cost, in which case--the Presiding Officer knows health care policy well--in which case then what happens is private health insurance premiums go up and then what happens is businesses either no longer can afford to cover employees or the premiums of everybody go up, and then what happens is we get into what is called a death spiral, which means premiums go up and yet fewer people are covered. Every year, 1 million people less in the United States of America are covered by employment-based insurance. That is what you are going to set off. Get real. Let us debate health care policy. Our legislative proposals have consequences in people's lives. Do not give me these aggregate budgets unless you can explain to me what you, in fact, intend to do. For any colleague to come out on the floor and say the President has no proposal, the President has no alternatives, Democrats do not have any alternatives, welcome to health care reform. The reality of it is staring you in the face. We need to do systemwide cost containment, and let us do that, but for God's sake, let us not target the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Now, Mr. President, if the providers cannot shift the cost, which will be the case all too often in rural America, in greater Minnesota and in North Dakota, then many of them will go out of business. It is that simple. Do not take my word for it. Just ask the caregivers-- nurses, doctors, you name it--all across rural America what the consequences of these cuts will be. Or you can just simply raise the cost of this for seniors. But please remember--I do not have the figures right in front of me--but please remember, I say to my colleagues, that right now elderly people 65 years and older are paying four times out of pocket already than citizens under 65 years of age. And please remember, I say to my colleagues, that about 85 percent of Medicare expenses go to households with incomes of under $25,000 a year. So do not have the illusion that these benefits are going to people who have a lot of income. Please remember, I say to my colleagues, that the median income for a male 65 years of age and over is about $15,000 and the median income for a woman is about $8,500. So do not have any illusions that you can put this cost back on many of the senior citizens within this country. Again, the real question on the Medicaid front is here we have a situation in our country where every year 1 million less citizens have employment-based coverage, and the only reason we have been able to do better on some of the statistics on infant mortality, the only reason we have been able to cover some of our citizens, many of whom are working poor who do not receive that coverage, is through the expansion of Medicaid, much less the ways in which we cover the way people who are elderly and ultimately wind up in nursing homes. If you want to get serious about the cost, do something about home-based care. Let us get back to health care policy. Now we are going to cut this 1.4-percent per person? Mr. President, Minnesota is in a particularly precarious position when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid cuts or, what my colleagues like to call, capping the rate of growth of the programs. HMO's that enroll Medicare beneficiaries in Kings County, NY, get $646 per month per enrollee, whereas HMO's in Hennepin County, MN, get $362 per month per enrollee. We have already kept our costs down. We do not get the high payments that other States get. So a slash-and-burn approach for [[Page S7035]] States like Minnesota that have done an admirable job of already keeping costs down ends up punishing us. We do not have any fat in our system. We are already penalized by the current reimbursement system. And now for recipients, they will be facing about $3,200 more in copayments and deductibles and premiums over 7 years; about $1,028 more in 2002. By the way, I am assuming that in order to make up these cuts, there will be a 50-50 split between what older people will have to pay out of pocket and further cuts in reimbursement for the caregivers. Mr. President, after all we have heard on Capitol Hill lately about Medicare costs, it would be very easy to forget what the Medicare Program is all about. It is a health insurance program established in 1965 to provide benefits to those who need them the most. It is not a right to a certain dollar amount. It is not just a price tag on the head of every senior, and it is not a check to go shopping. This Medicare Program provides the foundation of our health care system, especially in rural areas, and it provides support and protects those populations that would have the most trouble purchasing coverage in the private insurance market. Mr. President, I smile when I hear some of the proposals about vouchers and then go out and purchase health insurance. We have preexisting condition. It has gotten to the point where you have to prove to the private health insurance companies in this country you will never use it in order to obtain it. And my colleagues think that elderly people who are sick, struggling with different illnesses, are going to go out with vouchers and purchase health insurance from these companies? Welcome to health care policy. Let us get substantive. When Medicare was enacted 30 years ago, most elderly citizens were uninsured. They lost their health insurance coverage when they retired, and currently even with Medicare coverage, as I said before, seniors spend about four times as much out of pocket as individuals under 65. As I said before, 85 percent of Medicare expenditures pay for care for seniors with household incomes of less than $25,000. Mr. President, I just simply do not understand how my colleagues intend to restructure to the tune of $250 billion on the Medicare and $150 billion, or whatever, on Medicaid without doing serious harm to many citizens in the State of Minnesota and all across this land. So then the question, and it is a fair question to ask, is why is Medicare so costly? And the simple answer--as a matter of fact, this answer is so simple that the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible, and I would be pleased to debate any colleague on this proposition--the simple answer is that Medicare is costly because it covers very sick people and because health care costs for all Americans, whether privately insured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid, have risen rapidly over the last two decades. And increasing enrollment--I cannot say this too many times, because sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle turn their gaze away from this truth. Increasing enrollment, especially for the over-age 85 population, and the renal-diseased beneficiaries, and increasing medical inflation account for the bulk of the Medicare's Program's increasing costs. It is simple--kidney transplants, dialysis, people living to be 85 years of age--people need more assistance. What is the policy proposal? To have fewer people living to be 85? Of course not. Nobody proposes that. So, Mr. President, since Medicare is a victim of its own success and we cannot do anything about more and more people living longer lives, all of which I think we are grateful for--and we hope it for ourselves and for our parents and grandparents and other citizens--then what we ought to do is focus on medical inflation, systemwide. Medicaid provides a safety net for pregnant women, children, as well as critical long-term services for the elderly. Already, as I pointed out, it is projected per person to grow at a slower rate than the private sector. What are we going to do about these citizens, Mr. President? You know, they do not have as powerful a constituency. But what do we intend to do? Women who are expecting children, and children, and elderly, who, by definition, have to go to the poor house, figuratively, to become eligible for Medicaid assistance, to receive nursing home coverage, and we are going to make draconian cuts in per-person expenditures--draconian. I challenge any of my colleagues on this proposition. What is going to happen to those citizens? Is North Dakota going to pick up the cost? Is Minnesota? It is a shell game. We are not going to walk away from them. So nobody should have any illusion. I hear my colleagues say how we are going to reduce expenditures and let us get fiscally responsible. Yes, let us control costs systemwide. This simply shifts the costs. In this particular case, it is back to the States and local communities. Mr. President, I am waiting for a discussion about health care policy. I will make two proposals. Colleagues do not have to accept them, but both are important. One proposal in the last Congress was that if you put some limit on insurance company premiums, as you remember the Congressional Budget Office said, by the year 2002, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, we would have saved $100 billion, in 1 year alone. That is systemwide. Maybe it is too controversial for colleagues. Sure, insurance companies are very powerful. Maybe that is not the proposal. But you have to contain the cost systemwide. You cannot just pick out one segment of the population. You target them, you hurt them, you shift costs, you do irreparable damage to some of the underserved communities, including rural America; you do not provide the assistance that we now provide for teaching hospitals; you do not provide the necessary assistance for the disproportionate share of payments for those hospitals who treat the poor citizens in this country. It does not work at all. You just shift costs. Someone pays for it. You make it a shell game if you do not do it systemwide. So let us get real and do it systemwide. That is how you really begin to get some handle on the Medicare and Medicaid costs. If you do not do that, you scapegoat all too many citizens in this country. Mr. President, the other thing that you can do, if you are serious about substantive policy--not just slash-and-burn, not just cut, cut, cut--invest in home-based care. For God's sake, why should elderly people not--I had a mother and father with Parkinson's disease. We lived this. Why should elderly people or people with disabilities not be able to live at home in as near as normal circumstances as possible, with dignity? Last Congress, we were debating health care policy. We wanted to expand home-based care. We wanted to control costs systemwide. We wanted to have more of a focus on primary care, preventive care out in the communities. But this Congress it is slash and burn. Where is the voice of my colleagues who, when we talked about cost containment systemwide last Congress, we talked about rationing and limiting choice, and now they want to ration and limit choice among elderly, low-income, disabled people, and there is not a word? Their silence is deafening. Why are you not out on the floor talking about rationing and limiting choice now? We have an alternative. Our alternative is--there is no credibility to broad-based tax cuts going in the main to the wealthiest citizens of the United States of America while you proceed with a slash and burn approach toward the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Believe me you, we will have alternatives dealing with loopholes and deductions in corporate welfare. We will have a whole lot of other alternatives on the floor. Mr. President--and I will conclude--again, my colleague from Florida is not on the floor right now, but the debate is not about deficit reduction--going forward deficit reduction. The debate is about where is the standard of fairness. The debate is about responsible economic policy. Some colleagues think 2002 is the date. I have always felt that was a political date, not a realistic date. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, I heard so many of my colleagues in the course of this debate over the last several months say, ``We will balance the budget by 2002. We will have broad-based tax cuts, and we will increase the Pentagon budget.'' Some of it is on any cuts in Medicare. Do not worry, veterans, do not worry students, we will pay the interest on the debt and we will do all of it.'' Well, Mr. President, I do not think it turned out to be credible. So we are not arguing about deficit reduction, but what we are arguing about is where is the standard of fairness. Mr. President, there is no standard of fairness to the tax cuts for the wealthy and these kinds of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying we have 2 days of debate on the budget. I think we finish up Wednesday night. But as far as I am concerned, this debate just begins. My good friend from Florida said that people in the last election voted for change. They did. But it begged the question, what kind of change? Did people vote for this kind of slash-and-burn approach, not based on substantive, I think, policy analysis about what we need to do in health care reform in the Medicare and Medicaid area? Did people vote for these kinds of cuts? We will have a debate about the role of Government. And I will conclude with the remarks made by a great Senator from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey. I have said it before on the floor of the Senate. I think I am going to say it over and over and over again. Senator Humphrey said: ``The test of a society is the way in which we treat people, dawn of life children''--I will have an amendment about children--``the way we treat people in twilight of their lives, the elderly, and the way we treat people in the shadow of their lives, struggling with a disability, people struggling with an illness and people who are needy or people who are low-income.'' By that standard, I think this budget proposal falls way short of the mark, and we can do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as long as medical inflation increases at a faster pace than general inflation, health care costs are going to continue to be the challenge for us, continue to be the Pac Man of both household budgets and the Government's budgets. That was precisely the problem we were trying to address last year. And that is the flaw in my colleague's analysis--I am sorry he is not on the floor now to respond to this--that the President had no proposal, the Democrats had no proposal. Mr. President, we have yet to hear exactly how the Medicare Program is going to be restructured to generate more than $250 billion in savings over the next 7 years. Actually, we have not heard anything in specifics. And the reason we have not heard anything in specifics is that there is no way to make these current cuts, massive cuts, easily and quickly without causing the current system to unravel. The public knows it, businesses know it, and the providers of our care know it, as do many elderly and other recipients. Similarly, we have yet to hear whether or not the formula for Medicaid funding will adjust for population growth or how it is going to be divided among the States. Two-thirds of Medicaid expenditures pay for long-term costs for the elderly and the disabled--two-thirds. So what we do know is that these cuts will be most devastating for the frailest of our citizens. Mr. President, again my colleague says there is no proposal on the floor. Sure, there is a proposal on the floor. We have an amendment that says do not go forward with massive tax cuts flowing disproportionately to the wealthiest, highest income citizens of America. Instead, take that money and use that money to make sure that we continue to provide adequate funding for Medicare and for long-term costs through Medicaid. That is the tradeoff. I have been a little bit dismayed about the debate, because I do not think we need to get into sound bites. I think we can get into sound policy analysis. Let me talk a little bit about some of the numbers that have been put out here on the floor, and I will be as rigorous as possible in my analysis. When we hear about ``No, no, no, we are not cutting; we are going to limit it to 5 percent of overall growth,'' what is misleading when we are talking about this, when we are talking about Medicare and Medicaid, since most of those Medicaid expenses go to nursing home expenses for the frailest and poorest of our elderly citizens, is that these projections that we are hearing on the floor do not take into account population growth. In case anybody has not noticed the demography of our country, more and more people, citizens in the United States of America, are 65 years of age and over. And more and more of our elderly are 85 years of age. That is why the costs continue to go up. There are more and more people that are elderly. My colleague said these programs have been a failure because more and more people are dependent on them. Of course, more and more people are dependent on Medicare and, for that matter, Medicaid expenses for nursing home expenses, because the program has been a victim of its own success. More and more are dependent because more and more people, thank God, live to be 65 years of age and over and our policy goal is not to make sure that fewer people live to be 65 years of age or older. I mean, it is sort of a preposterous argument. By definition, more people are eligible for Medicare because we have a larger percentage of our population that are elderly, and that is what I think we desire. That has been one of the real pluses of having the Medicare Program, that we have been able to provide health care assistance to elderly people, whereas before 1965--please remember, Mr. President, this is not a price on each senior's head. This is not some sort of check we give people and say, ``Go out wherever you want and purchase care.'' We know all the problems the elderly people have with preexisting conditions. We know what happened prior to 1965; when people were retired, they did not have health care coverage. This is a benefits program. This is an insurance program. Why not ask the Medicare recipients and ask their children and ask their grandchildren. It has made the United States of America a better country. So, Mr. President, let us just look at the demography and the figures. On Medicare, the current system--and I am talking about per person growth rates, CBO figures--the current system, with the private health insurance coverage, is going up 7.2 percent per person and Medicare 8.3 percent per person. These are budget proposals, Republican proposals, between now and 2002. I do no damage to the truth. I am willing to debate anybody on the floor on these figures. With the Republican proposal, the private will go up 7.2 percent and Medicare will go up 5.8 percent per person. That is what you have to look at. That is what you have to look at. By the way, there is an interesting point to be made. Since we are covered under the private health insurance plan, that means that we make allowances to make sure that our per person expenditure for each Senator goes up 7.2 percent but, for those people over 65, it is 5.8 percent. I may have an amendment to address that inequity later on in this debate. But with Medicaid--I said this to my colleague from New Mexico last week, and I am still waiting for a response--these figures about, ``Oh, no; it is going up 5 percent,'' I say to my colleague from North Dakota, these figures are a bit misleading because these figures do not take into account the number of individuals, as you just look at the demography, who will be eligible. More and more a percentage of our population are aged. I do not know why colleagues are surprised about this. Now with Medicaid, we are looking at Medicaid, and now unfortunately we see not only this related to an explosion of people that are over 65 years of age, but also the poor and the children. What we have here, although, again, two-thirds of Medicaid expenses are for nursing homes, the current system, private per-person coverage 7.2 percent, been going up; Medicaid, 7 percent. Now, again, using the CBO baseline Health Care Financing Administration [[Page S7034]] projections with the Republican proposals, private goes up 7.2 percent, Mr. President, and 1.4 percent--1.4 percent --per person under Medicaid. Mr. President, I would just like to ask this question: What does that translate into in human terms? If you are going to limit between now and 2002 the increase of Medicaid reimbursement to a 1.4-percent increase per person, what is going to be that impact on those elderly citizens who receive Medicaid assistance for catastrophic care? And what will be that impact on those people who struggle with disability? Mr. President, my colleague from Florida spoke about some of his meetings back home. On Friday night, Jill and I went to a ball that was a wonderful celebration with the developmental disabilities community. I met a man--I can barely read the type--Robert Gregory. He cannot speak but, through new technology, he was able to type this out for me. And what he wrote out for me was this: ``Please, will you tell the Republicans, don't set the disabled back 18 years. We are happy at how far we have come.'' Now, the Chair cannot respond, and I know that he would respond because I know he has a real commitment to the community, but I have to say--and I am waiting for someone to respond in debate, and I will be back later on today--if you are going to limit per person, that is the only way you can be rigorous in these figures; do not give me all these aggregate figures. They do not take into account the dramatic increase in the number of citizens that will be 65 years of age and over. If you are going to limit it on Medicaid--which is frail, low-income elderly nursing home expenses, in the main, and also key to men and women and children with developmental disabilities--to 1.4 percent, and you are not doing a darn thing to control medical inflation systemwide, what happens to these people? That is my question. And so far in the debate, the silence has been deafening. What happens to these people? Now, are fewer of them going to be, let us take, first of all, the disabilities community. Are fewer people going to be eligible? Less reimbursement for personal attendance? Where are you going to make the cuts? How are you going to do it? I say to my colleague, somebody, somewhere, sometime, someplace, tell me. Come out here on the floor and tell me in debate how you intend to make these kind of cuts and limit per person expenditure to 1.4 percent a year without devastating consequences for some of the most vulnerable citizens in the United States of America and I will vote with you. You just come out here, be rigorous, and present the evidence. Mr. President, there are no specifics about $250 billion in restructuring Medicare because it cannot be done. Well, I mean you could do it in a couple of different ways. You can, of course, provide less reimbursement for the providers, but right now the reimbursement is, roughly speaking, 58 percent of what is in the private insurance reimbursement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a number of statements from a number of different citizens and caregivers in rural Minnesota printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. So there is a proposal in the Chamber right now. And I would say to the Presiding Officer, as I was saying earlier before he was presiding, I did not want to break up the free flow of his remarks, and I was hoping he would respond while he was in the Chamber. But he is in the chair, and I will be kinder because he will not be in a position to debate me. I do not want to go after my good friend since he has no chance to respond. There is a proposal and there will be a number of alternatives proposals over the next few days to this budget resolution. The Democratic amendment is to restore funding to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs using the money currently slated to pay for tax cuts for, in the main, wealthy, high-income citizens. It is that simple. Mr. President, as I was listening to my colleague, the Presiding Officer, I thought to myself how ironic that those who fiercely blocked health care reform and took cost containment off the table in the 103d Congress now are willing to slash Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and to balance the budget on the backs of elderly, low income, and, I would argue, students. And later on in this budget debate we will be talking about the very working families about which my colleague spoke. Mind you, in this proposal there is no focus on all of the subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes, and deductions that go to some of the largest corporations of America. There is a commitment to several hundred billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy. Some of the largest Pentagon contractors are not asked to tighten their belts. But when my colleague talks about the future of our children, let me just tell you that slashing some of the nutrition programs or saying to students you will not get an exemption on the interest that you pay on your loans while you are in school--though, by the way, many of us did--does not strike me as being a very wise investment in the future of our country. (Mr. LUGAR assumed the chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I was going to ask my colleague from Florida to yield while he was speaking, but I did not want to break into the flow of what he had to say, so some of what I say in my remarks will be a response to my colleague from Florida. I do not know whether he will be able to stay or not, but I wish to let him know. Mr. President, sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. And as I was listening to my good friend from Florida speak, it occurred to me that that was an example of not knowing what he did not want to know. There actually is a proposal out on the floor right now, and I will talk more in this overall debate about deficit reduction as I go forward with my remarks today, and that particular proposal is a Democratic amendment to restore some of the funding to Medicare and Medicaid using money that is [[Page S7033]] currently slated to pay for tax cuts for, in the main, wealthy and high-income people. That is the proposal. We are not quite clear how much on the Senate side yet, but on the House side it is about $350 billion. (Mr. MACK assumed the chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Florida wants to speak now and that is absolutely fine with me. I just ask unanimous consent, after the Senator from Florida speaks, that the Senator from Minnesota have up to half an hour to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that by prior unanimous agreement, at 9:15, Democrats were to speak; is that correct? If not--is there no such understanding?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I inquire, do you have any other names listed on that unanimous consent?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I promised I would do several weeks ago, today I am submitting, on behalf of myself, Senators Feingold, Lautenberg, and Baucus, the tough, comprehensive gift ban that some of us have been pushing for over 2 years. These are exactly the same gift ban provisions that were developed last year by House-Senate conferees, but that were blocked at the end of last Congress, and again at the beginning of this Congress, by opponents of reform. They are the same gift ban provisions that were contained in last year's conference report on S. 349, the Lobbying Disclosure Act. So that there is no confusion, let me repeat that: these are exactly the same gift ban provisions that were contained in the conference report on the Lobbying Disclosure Act last year, and that have been supported by the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans on this Senate floor last year. I do not need to rehearse the long history on this legislation, which made an arduous journey, with many twists and turns, through both houses of Congress last year, and through a House-Senate conference committee, only to be stopped by a Senate filibuster at the end of the 103d Congress. I intend to continue to press it forward, and I also intend to support efforts to enact promptly the lobbying disclosure bill to which this gift ban was attached in the last Congress. I believe that because the registration bill contains tighter definitions of who exactly is a lobbyist than current law, and actually imposes sanctions against representatives of special interests who fail to comply with the new rules, they work most effectively in tandem. But I also believe that because there will likely again be attempts to direct seemingly high-minded, though false, criticisms against the purported ``chilling effect'' on lobbying of the lobbying disclosure bill--a charge that is preposterous on its face, since the bill simply requires paid, professional lobbyists to register, it doesn't limit their activity--there should be another straight up or down debate and vote on the gift ban itself. These attacks, as they did last year, could come from the lobbying community, from right-wing radio talk show hosts, and others, even though the language which they claimed to be concerned about had been deleted altogether from the bill. I urge my colleagues to support both without weakening changes. Today I am filing the gift ban as a proposed amendment to S. 652, the telecommunications legislation that is currently pending on the Senate Calendar. This has been one of the most heavily lobbied pieces of legislation in recent memory, from all sides, so it is appropriate that this be a vehicle for the gift ban--and perhaps also for the lobbying disclosure legislation to which it was attached last year. I intend to bring the gift ban amendment to a vote in the Senate soon after we turn to this bill. If the Senate does not soon turn to the telecommunications bill, then I intend to continue to survey other appropriate vehicles for such an amendment. I suspect that the decision not to turn the telecommunications bill immediately following the budget resolution might have been affected by our decision to move forward now on the gift ban legislation as a proposed amendment to it. But whatever the vehicle, I intend at the very least to prompt a full and thorough debate on this issue, and I hope to get it voted on soon. I hope that this time, unlike in January, the Majority Leader and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will support this important legislation, as they publicly indicated they would do last year. In fact, last year 37 Republicans cosponsored these same gift ban provisions, but then proceeded to vote against them in January, after an indication from the Majority Leader that he intended to deal with this issue on the Senate floor this month. Americans are watching closely to see if the new majority in Congress delivers on its promise of reforms. So far, they have not. This should not come as a surprise, since these were the same people who blocked major reform last year in each of these areas, solely out of a political concern that Democrats might get some credit for cleaning up Washington. Their reform promises have rung hollow all the way along, and they ring hollow today. In a recent editorial the Washington Post again challenged the new congressional majority to enact a number of tough, sweeping political reform measures that have been opposed by congressional incumbents and bogged down for a number of years. They observed that the simplest and most straightforward of these reforms is legislation to impose a tough, sweeping ban on the gifts, meals, vacation travel and other perks--the same provisions that were killed at the end of the last Congress. The President is prepared to sign this bill now, and I think we could and should have it on his desk within a few weeks. The President called for lobbying reform and a gift ban in his State of the Union Address, and yet my colleagues in the majority have blocked our bill and put forward no alternative. As I observed 2 weeks ago on this floor, our majority colleagues, frozen like deer in headlights, refuse to move forward on the gift ban. Enthusiastic about slashing free or reduced- price lunches for children, opponents wither when it comes to eliminating free lunches for Members of Congress. This bitter irony has not been lost on the American people. Passing the gift ban, and tough new lobby disclosure rules [[Page S6936]] developed in tough bipartisan negotiations last year led by Senator Levin, is one of the best ways we have to begin to restore the confidence of Americans in the integrity of the legislative process. It is long past time for enactment of this gift ban. This amendment would help to significantly change the Washington culture of special interest perks, favors, meals, travel, and gifts being provided to Members of Congress. There is no doubt that these kinds of gifts and other favors from lobbyists have contributed to Americans deepening distrust of government. They give the appearance of special access and influence, eroding public confidence in Congress as an institution and in each Member individually as a representative of his or her constituents. This legislation imposes a sweeping ban on gifts, meals, entertainment and lobbyist-sponsored vacation travel, and imposes tough new restrictions on non-lobbyists. It should be passed and enacted this month, if necessary over the objections of those would-be reformers who have talked so much about reform out of one side of their mouths, while opposing it out of the other. I point out again that these are the same provisions that were opposed by the Majority Leader when we offered them as an amendment to the Congressional Accountability Act in January. At that time, the Majority Leader indicated that he intended to have an alternative gift ban bill on the floor in May. Now it is well into May, and nothing has happened. No hearings have been held, no bills have been introduced, nothing on gift reform is scheduled for floor consideration anytime soon. In the other body, it is basically the same story. The question today is: Where is the Majority Leader and where are the Republicans with their version of gift reform? Since 37 of them, including the Majority Leader, already cosponsored, at the end of last year, the same provisions that we offered in January, and will offer again soon to an appropriate vehicle here on the floor, what changes do they intend to try to make in the bill? Do they again intend, as some did last year, to try to gut the provisions on charitable vacation travel to golf and tennis hotspots like Vail, Aspen, Florida, or the Bahamas, where Members and their families are wined and dined at the expense of lobbyists and major corporations? I hope not, but I expect that such an attempt will be made. Do they again intend to try to hollow out gift ban reforms by just slightly lowering the existing thresholds for expensive meals, sports tickets, and other gifts paid for by special interests here in Washington, so they can say they are for reform? Again, I hope not, but is possible. Do they really intend in this climate to try to stall their way through another Congress, or worse to sneak something through Congress that's not real reform? I hope not, and I will do everything I can to make sure that doesn't happen. It is not by change that the so-called ``Contract with America'' contains not a word about real reforms like these that would clean up the way Washington works. It is because there is seemingly no commitment to the real reform agenda of campaign reform, lobby reform, and the gift ban on the part of the new Congressional majority. In the other body, proponents of the gift ban announced recently that they have again been forced to resort to complex procedural strategies to circumvent the normal committee process by trying to discharge gift ban legislation, in order to even get a vote on it in that body. The real standard for gift ban reform is the tight, tough bill that Senator Levin and I and others put forward in January, the same provisions as were contained in last year's House-Senate conference report which after months of struggling had been supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses--until push came to shove at the end of the Congress and the bill was killed in the face of a massive disinformation campaign by the Republican leadership and their friends in the right-wing talk show circuit. In the past there have been those on both sides of the aisle who have opposed a ban of gifts and other perks. But in the end, overwhelming majorities of both parties have voted for this legislation. And overwhelming majorities would support it again. We have waited over two years for a bill that should have taken us two weeks to enact into law. I intend to fight to make sure this bill is enacted into law this year. Since it was decided that Members and the Ethics Committee would have needed some time to digest these new rules, last year's bill would not have become effective until the end of this month. There is no good reason that we cannot have new rules in place to meet the deadline. As those of us who have pushed this issue forward for two years said before the congressional recess, we are tired of waiting. The American people are tired of waiting. It is long past time to act on tough new gift reforms. The Senate should act, now, on tough, sweeping gift ban reforms. And we should follow it up with comprehensive lobbying registration and campaign finance laws. That is the real reform agenda. That is what Americans are really looking for as they press for changes that will clean up Washington. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I invite them to cosponsor our amendment which embodies a tough gift ban bill when it comes to the floor.