Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for making, I think, an important point, which is actually that this accompanying report is a valuable tool for us as we try to make the best possible policy, for two reasons. In the negative, if you will, it tells us if we are about to pass a piece of legislation that will in fact be harmful to children in America. But it also tells us in the positive, when we pass legislation, this is in fact the contribution of this legislation to the lives of children in America. That is the purpose.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could just respond for a brief moment to the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wish to yield the floor in a moment to the Senator from Arkansas. First of all, let me thank the Senator from Connecticut. As we speak about this amendment, I wish to try to talk some about the state of children within our country because I think that is part of the context of this amendment. Later on, I also want to talk about this budget debate and what has been taken off the table and why it is that so many people around the country are so frightened that in fact what we are about to do is really cut children, the most vulnerable citizens. But please understand, I say to my colleagues, that every 5 seconds in the United States of America a child drops out of school; every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman who had no prenatal care; every 2 minutes a child is born severely underweight; every 4 minutes a child is arrested in an alcohol-related arrest; I think every 6 minutes a child is arrested in a drug-related arrest; every 2 hours a child is murdered in our country, and every 4 hours--this is devastating to me as a grandfather and father--a child takes his or her life. Mr. President, we cannot abandon children, and as a matter of fact I think the ultimate indictment is when we do so. Either we invest in children when they are young or we pay the price later. I will have some very specific figures on hunger of children in the United States of America a little later on as we go forward with this debate, and I will also have some statistics on the fastest growing homeless population, which are children. But I say to my colleagues the arithmetic of what we could very well be doing with this contract on America is very harsh; it is very mean spirited. We know what has been taken off the table. Military contractors are not asked to make cuts. Oil companies are not asked to make cuts. Coal companies are not asked to make cuts. A whole lot of other corporations are not asked to sacrifice at all. But we are going to cut nutrition programs for children. We are going to cut programs that provide children with some assistance so that they can have an opportunity. Now, some of my colleagues say, no, we are not going to do that. This is just simply trying to get people to panic. Senator Wellstone or Senator Bumpers or Senator Moseley-Braun or Senator Dodd are just exaggerating. Mr. President, we can put all of that concern to rest, and we can go on record tonight in the Senate that it is the sense of the Congress we should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. We should be able to vote ``yes'' for that. Mr. President, we can also adopt an amendment that says if we are going to call for impact statements on legislation that affects corporations and State governments and county governments, surely as we move forward we can call for company reports that issue impact statements as to how this affects children. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the majority leader for his willingness to work closely with us on the floor. I say to the majority leader that there are some other Senators who would like to speak that are with me, and I would like to get to those Senators right away. We will try to not take up many hours, but we consider this to be an important amendment, and we will try to do it within whatever timeframe the majority leader talked about. Mr. President, let me for my colleagues just briefly describe this amendment. Then there are several Senators that are with me, certainly the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who is going to have to leave, and I would like him to open up with some of our remarks. This amendment is twofold. First of all, it reads: It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. I would like to repeat that, if I may, for the Chair and for my colleagues. The amendment reads as follows: It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. Mr. President, the second part of this amendment has to do with the duties of congressional committees. What this amendment says is that each committee, as it considers any bill that affects children, will have an accompanying report which will deal with the impact of that legislation on children. This is very consistent with some of the direction in which we are going in the U.S. Senate. If we are going to talk about the impact that legislation has on State governments or on county governments or on corporations or businesses, then surely, Mr. President, we can also talk about the impact that this legislation has on children within our country. I want to just give a few examples. Today, in Minnesota, there were about 150 people, many of them children, many of them Head Start mothers, I say to the Senator from Connecticut, a number of different organizations, and the Children's Defense Fund, looking to the year 2002 and understanding what might very well happen in this country-- that is to say, that the cuts we make go the path of least resistance-- which spelled out what they are worried about. As they looked at some of the projected cuts, they talked about Minnesota 2002: 29,150 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women would lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements; 31,350 children would lose food stamps; 154,600 children would lose free or subsidized school lunch programs; 93,000 children would lose Medicaid coverage. Mr. President, I can go on, but the point I simply want to make before yielding the floor to Senator Dodd is I come from a State that has had a number of great Senators. I hope that if I work hard, I can maybe just be a little bit as good as Hubert Humphrey. Seventeen years ago, Hubert Humphrey said the test of a Government and the test of a society is the way we treat people in the dawn of life--children--the way we treat people in the twilight of their life--the elderly--and the way we treat people in the shadow of their lives--those that are struggling with an illness, those that are struggling with a disability, and those that are poor or those that are needy. I believe that this Contract With America takes us precisely in the opposite direction. Surely there is a way that we can continue with deficit reduction and not ride roughshod over children. Surely, we can go on record in the U.S. Senate today, making it clear that it is the sense of the Congress that we will not enact any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. And surely today in this amendment, we can make it clear that we will do child impact of our legislation to make sure that whatever we do does not make more children homeless, does not make more children hungry; that whatever we do supports our future, which is to support children in this country. I have much more to say about this amendment. I hope that the U.S. Senate will go on record and support this amendment. But I would like to yield the floor to Senator Dodd from Connecticut, who has been such a leader in the U.S. Senate on children's issues. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if it is OK with my colleagues--as the Senator from Iowa knows, I have been trying to move things along--I ask unanimous consent that, after the vote, I be able to then offer an amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, one day in the life of American children, three children die from child abuse--this is the Children's Defense Fund report last year--nine murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns; 27 children--a classroomful--die from poverty; 30 children are wounded by guns. One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday; 145 babies are born at very low birth weight; 202 children are arrested for drug offenses; 307 children are arrested for crimes of violence; 340 children are arrested for drinking or drunken driving; 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American children, 801 babies are born at low birth weight; 1,234 children run away from home. One day in the life of American children, 2,868 children are born into poverty. One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children, 100,000 children are homeless. Mr. President, we had a rather amazing statement made by one of our colleagues in the House of Representatives that the reason there would be no precise figures on precise cuts before a balanced budget amendment is that Representatives and Senators, therefore, would not vote for that amendment. There is a reason for that. By the most conservative Congressional Budget Office estimate, if you put Social Security in parentheses, if you do not cut the Pentagon, and if you have to pay the interest on the debt in order to get to where we are supposed to get to by the year 2002, we have to cut $1.2 trillion. I say conservative estimate, because we are now in a bidding war to raise the military budget, the Pentagon budget, to the tune of maybe $50 billion over the next 5 years, and we are in a bidding war for more and more tax cuts. That is revenue lost. That just leaves certain areas of the budget where we can make the cuts. The arithmetic of this is very clear and it is very compelling. I do not present today on the floor of the Senate a sophisticated econometric model. There are all sorts of different variables to consider. But I will tell you this: On present course--and we must change that course--when you look at outlays 2002, in terms of where we are heading, and then you subtract Social Security, which will not be cut, you subtract the Pentagon budget with a given percentage of the overall budget, and you subtract interest on the debt and you look at a projected $319 billion deficit reduction target, that $319 billion is about one-third of what you have left to cut from. So, Mr. President, we could be talking about, roughly speaking, 32- percent cuts. Maybe we will not have a 32-percent cut in veterans programs. Maybe we will not have a 32-percent cut in Medicare. In Minnesota, that would mean a cut of $1 billion just in my State alone in Medicare. Maybe it will be more in child nutrition programs. Maybe it will be more in other children's programs. I know that in Minnesota alone, by 2002 on present course, we can see $145 million taken out of the following essential food assistance programs. This is not precise, but this is the direction we are going in: Food stamps, aid to women, infants, and children, and nutrition programs for the elderly, and the School Lunch Program. I said it before and I am going to say it again. A Food Research and Action Council 1991 report, 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry in the United States of America. U.S. Council of Mayors' status report on Hunger and Homelessness in American Cities 1994 estimates 26 percent that were homeless. The increase of the population, 26 percent, I believe, of the homeless population were children. National Academy of Sciences, 100,000 children are homeless each day in our country. Mr. President, if we continue on the present course and say we are not going to cut the military contractors; no, we do not want to do that; they have a lot of power. Heaven forbid that we do anything about oil company subsidies or coal or gas or all sorts of other subsidies. Heaven forbid that as we think about how to contain health care costs, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are part of the sacrifice. All that is off the table. Willie Sutton was asked, Why did you go rob the banks? He said, That's where the money was. In this Contract With America, we are going to make cuts that affect the most vulnerable among the citizens in our country, and they are children because they do not make the large contributions, they do not lobby every day, and they do not have the political power of some of these other interests. Mr. President, again, today in Minnesota, 100 to 150 citizens, many of them children, at a press conference, a number of the organizations, Children's Defense Fund and others that have worked with children and have such credibility for their work, were making predictions on where we are going to be in 2002 with this Contract With America as it is implemented: 29,150 babies, preschoolers and pregnant women would lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements; 31,000--actually, I think it is 51,500--children would lose food stamps; 154,600 children would lose free or subsidized school lunch programs. Mr. President, I suggest that every Senator take a look at his or her State and ask the question: What exactly is going to happen here? If we are going to cut these programs that affect children in the country, either it becomes a shell game and our States then have to pick up the cost through a sales tax or a property tax, or the food shelves go bare, we see a rise in hunger, we see a rise in homelessness, and we see a rise in poverty among children in this country. I said it once and I am going to say it again tonight before this vote: I come from a State, as the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin said, with a rich tradition of care and commitment for and to children. Senator Hubert Humphrey personified that better than any other Senator could. Senator Humphrey said the test of government and society is how we treat people in the dawn of life, and he meant the children; and in the twilight of life, and he meant the elderly; and in the shadow of their life, and he meant people struggling with an illness or struggling with a disability or those that were poor. Unfortunately, Mr. President, one out of every four children in America are poor; one out of every two children of color are born into poverty today. Mr. President, I heard the majority leader say two things, one with which I agree and one with which I am in profound disagreement. The first thing he said was that he has a history of concern and a history of commitment when it comes to nutritional programs and children in America, and he is absolutely correct. For that I pay him my greatest respect. But, Mr. President, the second point that the majority leader made was that somehow the timing is not right, this is not the right time. Now, I am not today going to do an analysis of the number of amendments that have been brought to the floor on different bills which may or may not have been a part of those bills by some sort of test of germaneness or relevancy. Believe me you, there have been many brought to this floor, and certainly by now the current majority party. That is not my point. My point is that Senators bring amendments to the floor, just so that people who are watching this debate are clear, because of timing. If you think an amendment is important and you think that the timing of it is critical, that is when you do it. Now, before we rush headlong into legislation that is going to hurt children in this country, why is the time not right for the Senate to go on record that it is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless? Why is not the time right for the Senate to go on record that with our committees, when we report bills out, there will be reports accompanying those bills which will spell out the impact of that legislation on children in America? Tomorrow and the next day the timing is not right, the majority leader says. Tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and I am not sure how many days afterwards we are going to be talking about unfunded mandates and we are going to be talking about precisely this; that when legislation comes out of committee there will be a cost-benefit analysis, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. President, if we can say that we ought to do an impact analysis of legislation on State governments and county governments and city governments and corporations or small businesses, can we not today at the beginning of the session before we get into this agenda and start passing legislation, especially legislation that is going to hurt children, pass a piece of legislation in the form of this amendment that says no, we are not going to do anything, we are not going to do anything that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless? Has it come to the point that the Senate is unwilling to go on record saying that? Is it not timely for us to say that today? I say to my colleagues in a nice way, I am sure that you listen to all your constituents. And since I am sure you do, you must realize that there are many people in this country who believe that we are about to go through some cuts that are going to hurt those citizens who are the most vulnerable in this country. Now, I have had colleagues disagree with me, and they have said you are sounding an alarm but not based upon any serious problem. Mr. President, all you have to do, for those who have said no, we are not going to do that, I would say why then do you not support this amendment? Mr. President, I have to say to the majority leader and my colleagues, I cannot believe that you are trying to make the argument that the timing is not right for this. Why is it not time for the Senate to make it clear we are not going to enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless? Why is it not time for us to make a commitment to children and make it clear that we will have a child impact statement which goes with legislation reported out of committee as to how that legislation will affect children? I say to my colleagues that if you vote against this today, you certainly are sending a message loud and clear. And what you are saying to people around this country is, yes, you all have reason to be fearful and you have reason to worry and you have reason for some indignation that we are about to make some cuts that are going to hurt the most vulnerable citizens in the United States of America, children, because we are unwilling to go on record otherwise. What do you mean the timing is not right today? When is the timing going to be right? When is the timing going to be right? And I say to my colleagues, yes--I say this to the Senator from Iowa, because I so appreciate his grassroots approach to politics--populism is alive in America. People are in an anti-status-quo mood, and people voted for change. But, Mr. President and my colleagues, there is a tremendous amount of goodness in the United States of America. People did not vote to cut nutrition programs for children. People did not vote for legislation that could increase the number of children who are hungry or the number of children who are homeless. I say to my colleagues, if you do not think there is some compassion in this Nation, and you do not think there is some sense of fairness in this Nation, and you do not think there is some sense of justice in this Nation, then you are profoundly wrong. I hope the majority leader does not come out here and move to table this amendment, which is all about congressional accountability. I want the Senate to go on record and be accountable that we will not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. But if the majority leader should come out and move to table, and we have a straight party-line vote, I sort of wonder when some of my colleagues--I know I have in the past not necessarily voted with leadership--are going to sort of vote exactly what they believe. I cannot believe there is not anybody on the majority side of the aisle who does not support this amendment on its merits. But if it is voted down, then, Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleagues tonight I will bring this amendment up in the Senate over and over again. It will be up on the unfunded mandates bill and it will be up on every piece of legislation, because I am going to hold my colleagues accountable on this. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds, because I know my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, is anxious to speak. I wish to thank the Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, for her remarks. I do not think she really needed to go with prepared remarks, because I think the Senator knows the issues so well and has such a commitment to them. I wanted to just simply thank the Senator for being here out on the floor. I wanted to emphasize one point, which is that we might want to call this amendment, if we had to title it, the ``Children's Right to Have Their Congress Know,'' because part of this amendment, again, says it is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. Surely, we can go on record on that. But the other part, I say to the Senator from Illinois, really is an important impact that we require, which we really should do in this rush to pass this agenda--and I want to talk more about the economics of this a little later on. We owe it to the children of this country-- do we not always want to have photo opportunities next to children?--we owe it to the children of this country that we do an analysis of the impact of the legislation that we pass out of committee. We should do that. That is the right thing to do. It is the policy thing to do, it is the justice thing to do, and it is certainly the right thing to do for the children in this country. So this is an amendment that is meant to be part of the law of the Nation. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank the senior Senator for his patience.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to offer an amendment during the Senate's consideration of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, and that provisions of my amendment would require that: First, whenever a committee reports legislation, that committee must publish a detailed analysis of the impact such legislation might have on children; and second, it will not be in order for the Senate to consider such legislation if the committee has not published such an analysis.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, pursuant to rule 5, paragraph 1 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give written notice of my intention to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. Mr. President, yesterday, in introducing an amendment with Senator Levin of Michigan, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg which dealt with lobby disclosure but mainly with gift bans, I on the floor of the Senate read from what I think is a very, very interesting, very important, and very revealing piece in Roll Call of October 17, 1994. The title is, ``How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work.'' This memo, obtained by Roll Call, says one prominent D.C. firm lays out 1994 strategy, And we talked yesterday about trips. Mr. President, the amendment that I am going to introduce today focuses on lobbying. Yesterday, what I urged my colleagues--since so many of us ran on a reform agenda and since so many of us have talked about the need to make this process more accountable, open, and honest--I asked my colleagues really, under the leadership of Senator Levin, to vote on an amendment which would say that we would put an end to this taking of gifts. The vote was ``no.'' So today, focusing on the same question, I am going to, in this amendment, essentially say to my colleagues if you are going to vote ``no'' against the taking of gifts, the gift ban part, at least let us put a stop to this, I think, insidious connection between the lobbying and the taking of cash and campaign contributions. So this amendment is going to prohibit lobbyists who may lobby within the preceding year from making contributions to or soliciting contributions for Members of Congress and from lobbying Members of Congress to whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have solicited funds within the previous year. In other words, if you have made a contribution or you have instructed a PAC you control to make a contribution to a candidate, then for 1 year thereafter you should not be lobbying that candidate or staff. Vice versa, if you have been in that office lobbying a Senator or lobbying staff, then there is a 1-year window here whereby you would not be allowed to make a campaign contribution. This amendment is all about congressional accountability. Let me repeat that. This amendment is all about congressional accountability. And it is designed to sever the connection between lobbyists and big PAC contributions to Members of Congress. This covers congressional staff, and it would prohibit lobbyists from lobbying new Members of Congress to whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have solicited funds during the past year which I think, from the point of view of the new class, also represents real reform. Mr. President, this amendment was part of S. 3, which the Senate passed by a very lopsided vote. Senators then said that they thought this was an important reform idea, or I should say an important reform measure. It would prohibit the practice whereby a lobbyist who lobbies a Member for a client then directs that client to make a contribution to the Member. It closes the potential loophole allowing lobbyists to get around the prohibition by having clients make contributions to Members to further their lobbying efforts. In other words, it is not just a question of lobbyists not being able to do it, but it is also a question of a lobbyist not being able to instruct a client to make such a contribution. This amendment will also prohibit a lobbyist from directing that a contribution be made by a political action committee to a Member of Congress whom that lobbyist has lobbied during the past year, a key element of any reform effort designed to sever--let me emphasize that-- the connection, big money connection, between large lobbying firms, their clients, and PAC's. Mr. President, one more time, we have before us the Congressional Accountability Act. We are talking about how to make this process more accountable. Reform is in the air in America. We started out this session on the basis of a focus on reform, and this particular amendment speaks to that question. Yesterday, I urged my colleagues to vote for an amendment that I thought was a huge step forward--not a small step forward, but a huge step forward--in changing the political culture of Washington in putting a stop to taking these gifts. Many Senators, though I am proud to say by no means all Senators, but certainly many Senators, and on the other side of the aisle, all Senators on the other side of the aisle--I guess there were two exceptions--voted ``no.'' With this amendment, I am saying if you are not willing to put an end to the accepting of gifts, at least put an end to this insidious connection between lobbying and the giving of money. If there is one thing we have heard from people in the country, it is that they do not like this mix of money and politics. They do not like the fact that some people march on Washington every day. They do not like the fact that this is such a closed loop in which they do not feel as if they participate. And I cannot think of an amendment that would speak more clearly and more directly to people's concerns than this amendment. Mr. President, this provision, when this amendment was first brought up for S. 3--which again I remind my colleagues was passed by an overwhelmingly positive vote--was crafted narrowly to withstand the test of constitutionality. The Court has said that any seeming infringement on first amendment speech rights has to be balanced against concerns about corruption or the appearance of corruption. That is what we are talking about here, the appearance of corruption. If you run for office and you are elected, lobbyists come in and lobby you, and then later there is a contribution. Or, vice versa, you receive a contribution and lobbyists instruct a PAC or client to make a contribution to you, and then shortly thereafter the lobbyist is in your office. If you want to talk about the appearance of corruption and if you want to talk about a way of making this process more accountable and you want to talk about a way that Senators can live up to our mandate to be reformers, this amendment speaks directly to this question. Mr. President, again, this amendment meets that test. It is directed narrowly at the question of the appearance of corruption or impropriety. Let me emphasis that again. It is directed narrowly at the question of the appearance of corruption or impropriety. And it covers only those situations where a lobbyist has made a lobbying contact and then contributes, solicits on behalf of, or directs that a contribution be made to a Member. It attempts to define who is a lobbyist. By the way, so no mistake will be made, we simply go by the current definition. We get into none of the debate and argument on the reform of lobby disclosure. We just go with the current definition which--and by the way, I think all of us agree, if our words are to be believed--eventually has to be changed. There are many who lobby who are not officially registered as lobbyists today. Mr. President, I also want to include in the Record a letter from the White House, January 5, 1995, which was addressed to the Speaker, in which the focus is on congressional reform, with a strong focus on this whole question of lobbying reform. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, before the vote on this amendment I just would like to be very direct with my colleagues. This amendment speaks to a very real problem. Mr. President, this amendment is not an abstract amendment. It does speak to a very real problem. We are talking about part of the political culture in Washington. Let me lay it on the line at the very end, because that is what this amendment is about. I will just lay it on the line. It is not uncommon for a Senator to be lobbied by a registered lobbyist and a month later to get a $5,000 PAC check. It happens. Let me just be very blunt and direct at the very end of this debate. The reason that I introduced this amendment as part of the campaign finance reform bill--and that bill got overwhelming support in the Senate--and the reason I bring this amendment today as part of the Congressional Accountability Act abstract arguments. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that all too often lobbyists come in to see a Senator, and shortly thereafter the money flows in. All too often, lobby money flows into campaigns, and shortly thereafter lobbyists and groups and organizations represented by lobbyists appear. That is egregious. That does not give people confidence in this process. That does not make the Congress very accountable to the many. That is what this amendment is all about. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleagues that if you are serious about reform, then this amendment is a test case of that commitment to reform. I do not know how any of us can go back to any of the cafes or restaurants in our own States and justify to people how we voted for the continuation of this practice. We ought to end it. It is a good Government reform. It is part of congressional accountability, and I urge my colleagues--urge my colleagues--to support this amendment. They have in the past. Many of my colleagues found this to be a compelling problem and issue in the past. It is just as compelling today. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber for a moment?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. For the moment, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent-- if I have to and I am not sure I have to--that I reserve for myself the final 2 or 3 minutes before the vote, if I am so inclined, and before the motion to table.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me be very clear. I said this yesterday and I want to say it again to my colleagues, I am very supportive of this Congressional Accountability Act. I think this piece of legislation should and must be passed. That is why I did not want this to be open-ended. I wanted this debate to be within a reasonable period of time. But if we are going to say that we are trying to make the Congress-- the Senate accountable, we can do much better. There is no reason why we cannot strengthen this piece of legislation. We do that all the time on the floor of the Senate. That is the very essence of our accountability. Senators come out with amendments to strengthen a piece of legislation and we vote on those amendments up or down and then we are held accountable for our votes. This amendment was part of a campaign finance reform bill which was passed June 17, 1993, I guess at 2:11 p.m. This was the vote: 60 yeas, 38 nays. This amendment was part of this piece of legislation that was passed by many Senators who now still serve in this body. These arguments, and really they are smokescreen arguments, about the ACLU-- colleagues come out and say, ``The ACLU said this, therefore we better not vote for it.'' I have to smile, because I have never in the past noticed that was the litmus test for my colleagues, that the ACLU took a position therefore that is our position. That is a smokescreen argument. One more time, Mr. President. If we want to talk about, agree or disagree with one of the major Court decisions about this whole issue of campaign finance, it was Buckley versus Valeo. It was made crystal clear by the Court that any potential infringement on first amendment speech rights has to be balanced against concerns about I want to say to my colleagues, I am not talking about corruption. I am talking about the appearance of corruption. What this amendment says--and I went over it very carefully this morning--is that if a lobbyist comes into your office to see you or staff, then at least a year ought to go by before that lobbyist contributes money to you or instructs a client to do so. Or if a lobbyist, or a client instructed by a lobbyist, a PAC instructed by a lobbyist, contributes money to you in your race--I say that to those Senators who have just come to the Senate--a year ought to go by before that lobbyist is allowed to come in and lobby you. We voted for this before. There was strong support for it before. We are talking about congressional accountability. If my colleagues think they can hide behind a smokescreen argument--you know, different Senators have different views about how to interpret legislation. Of course someone can stand up and say the ACLU says it is not constitutional, therefore it is not constitutional. Many of us voted for it before. And I would think that many of my colleagues who ran on a reform agenda, who said they were interested in reform, would vote for it now. I do not think we should trivialize this issue. We are focusing on congressional accountability. We are focusing specifically on an essential problem with the way Government operates. I have heard a lot about the way Government operates. If we want the Government to operate in such a way that the citizens we represent back in our States feel that Government is open and accountable and responsive to them, and not just those folks who march on Washington every day--that is to say who are here every day, well heeled, well oiled, well financed, with lobbyists, having way too much access and say--then certainly we can break this link. This is an extremely modest amendment. I am astounded, frankly, that there is any real opposition to it. I really am. Mr. President, yesterday I came out on the floor with Senator Levin, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg. And we said at the very beginning of the session, let us send a strong message to the people we represent. As long as we are talking about congressional accountability, let us pass an amendment that focuses on prohibiting the taking of these gifts, trips to the Bahamas or Hawaii paid for by whomever; meals, tickets, you name it; not because we think that Senators or Representatives are corrupt--we do not believe that, we are proud of being in the Senate--but because we know that the people we represent--I have heard this standard over and over again; I have heard Senators announce this standard on the floor--we know that the people we represent do not receive those gifts and it is inappropriate. It is really unacceptable. Let it go. Yesterday the vote was against that amendment. Really the only argument I heard was the control argument. We are in control. We are in control here, and therefore there are not going to be any amendments on this bill. It was not the merit of the amendment. It did not have anything to do with at the beginning of the session making it clear to people we were for reform. It was control. Well, Senators did not vote for that. Today I have an amendment that says at the very minimum, if we are going to talk about reform and accountability, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I think it sends a very positive signal to the people we represent, which is we are not going to take one thing while we campaign, and then vote against it on the floor of the Senate. We are not going to hide behind the ACLU. We vote it up or down. We are not going to hide behind a control issue. Our party is in power; therefore, we are not accepting any amendments. I have even heard some of my colleagues say--I think, I do not have the particular day or time--that campaign finance reform is off the agenda this Congress. Mr. President, it is not off the agenda. The reason it is not off the agenda is that each and every Senator has a right to come to the floor with amendments that focus in on what a Senator believes are important issues to the people he or she represents. I happen to believe that for Minnesotans this is an extremely important issue. By the way, not that polls always make the difference. I actually hope they do not because I hope every Senator votes his or her conscience when that is the case. But if you were to do a poll in the cafes of Minnesota as to whether or not we ought to vote for an amendment to put an end to this sort of insidious connection between the lobbying and the giving and the taking of money with at least a not outright prohibition but at least a 1-year moratorium, 99.9999 percent of the people in Minnesota would agree. What is the hesitation? Why would my colleagues be opposed to it? Mr. President, I had actually looked forward to more debate on this. So far we have heard about the American Civil Liberties Union's position and that is it. So I have to assume that is the reason my colleagues are going to vote against this, if they are going to vote against this. I have not heard another Senator come to the floor with any other substantive reason given for voting against this amendment. I can tell you, Mr. President, in the spirit of accountability--and we are talking a congressional accountability act--I would think Senators would be clear as to why they are opposed. I have not heard that. And in the absence of hearing that opposition, though one Senator, Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky certainly spoke against it, I look forward to this vote and I believe that this amendment should be passed by the Senate. And certainly as to those Senators who voted for this campaign finance reform bill, which included this amendment before, I look forward to their support and the support of some of my colleagues who are new to this Senate whom I know are very strong reformers. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks and yield the rest of my time. I think we are going to have a motion to table at 1:45. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. So, Mr. President, the point is that we are talking about a very clear nexus here between lobbying and the giving of money. Just so my colleagues understand, this amendment is designed to prohibit lobbyists from making contributions to or soliciting contributions for Members of Congress whom they have lobbied within the preceding year--1 year, that is what we are talking about--and from lobbying Members of Congress to whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have solicited funds within the previous year. Now, Mr. President, this amendment was part of S. 3, which passed by a fairly significant margin in the Senate. At the very end of the last session, we had a filibuster which prevented the campaign finance reform bill from going to conference committee, as I remember. But many Senators voted for this amendment. It was in the bill. And once again, Mr. President, I am just simply responding to the bill before us. I am trying to improve this bill. It is called congressional accountability. Yesterday, Senators said they would not vote for the proposition that we should not take the gifts. Today, I am saying should we not at least go on record, if we are interested in a more accountable process, that we do not take these contributions within this 1-year period of time? I think this is, of course, open to a challenge, a constitutional challenge, as is much of the legislation that we pass. But with all due respect--I am not a lawyer, Mr. President, but I can just tell you that there are two sides to this question. The fact that the ACLU does not agree with this amendment does not mean, therefore, that this amendment, ipso facto, should be declared unconstitutional by my colleagues. That is simply not the case. I think it will withstand the scrutiny of the courts. In any case, the real issue here is about reform, is about the influence of lobbyists, is about making sure that we make this process more accountable, and it is about breaking this connection between money and lobbying and at least having this 1-year window. That is what this is about. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. We are in a colloquy, but I think the Senator will be better able to ask me a question if I can just finish my point.

Mr. WELLSTONE. In just a moment. I would like to finish my analysis, if I may.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the reason I make this point is the American Civil Liberties Union is not always right, and I think all of my colleagues understand that. I do not think they are right on this issue. I do not think the American Civil Liberties Union was right on the lobbying disclosure. They take a certain position. I think my colleagues know, including, Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky, that my record, my passion about the importance of first amendment rights is clear, very clear. But the American Civil Liberties Union is simply wrong again. Mr. President, what the Supreme Court has said in Bellotti is that any significant infringement on first amendment speech rights has to be balanced against concerns about corruption or appearance of corruption. Mr. President, understand what this is all about, this is trying to break this very clear nexus----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have enjoyed having colloquies and discussion with the Senator from Kentucky in the past and always respect what he has to say. Let me start out by saying that I just bet there is one thing the Senator from Kentucky and I will agree on, and what we will agree on is that the American Civil Liberties Union is not always right. Does the Senator from Kentucky agree with me on that?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Instead of asking a question, I wonder if I may have some time to respond. Then, of course, the Senator from Kentucky----

Mr. WELLSTONE. No.