Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for some questions?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to call my wife, Sheila, and we will go over our records and be pleased to announce when we made a contribution, if we did.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Actually, Mr. President, instead, the Senator from Indiana wants to speak to the same amendment. I wondered whether I could just respond for a moment first to the Senator from Kentucky, if the Senator from Indiana will give me that courtesy.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do withdraw my initial unanimous-consent request.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to either proposition. If Senators want to debate this--and certainly there should be debate on this amendment, as that is what we are all about, and it is an important debate--I would be pleased to have this amendment out on the floor. I will be back at 11 and I will be pleased to respond. If other Senators come with amendments and there are not Senators speaking directly to this amendment, I would be pleased to have this amendment set aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa that that course is very reasonable, as long as I would have time to respond. I will be back here at 11.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that if there was no further debate at the moment, that my amendment be temporarily set aside. I have another engagement, but I will be back at 11 and ready to debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I, in a short period of time, have to get ready for a call-in that I do back with Minnesotans. So not seeing anybody, I am wondering whether colleagues are interested in debating this. If not, I will ask unanimous consent that this amendment, for the moment, be set aside.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to summarize, 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, and from lobbying Members of Congress to whom they have contributed or on whose behalf they have solicited funds within the previous year. If you have gone in--this includes staff as well--if you have gone in to see one of the Senators as a lobbyist or gone in to lobby with staff, then for 1 year--that is what we are talking about--you are not allowed to make campaign contributions. If you have contributed to a Senator, then within a 1-year period of time, you are prohibited from lobbying the Senator or staff. This is all about making this process more open. This is all about reform. This is all about making sure we have a system in our country of democracy for the many and not democracy for the few. This is all about congressional accountability. And yesterday, too many of my colleagues--as it did not get a majority vote--voted against ending this practice of receiving the gifts, the argument being we will get to it later. By the way, since I have been here in the Senate, I have heard that argument over and over and over again. I think we will get to it later this term. I know I will bring this up over and over and over again until we do get to it. Today I say this to my colleagues: If you are not going to agree with the proposition that we should put an end to the taking of these gifts now, then at least agree to the proposition--if we are talking about congressional accountability--that we ought not to be taking this money from lobbyists. At least agree there ought to be a 1-year period of time between the lobbying activity and the giving of money. Does it not seem as if this is reasonable? Does it not seem as if this is a prudent course? Does it not seem that if we are talking about reform, we ought to vote for this? We cannot separate the legislative lives we live and how we vote from the words we speak. Amendment No. 5 (Purpose: To restrict political contributions by lobbyists)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just summarize for my colleagues, because I think that we will be casting an important vote on this amendment, I think it is an important vote because this is sort of a litmus test as to how committed we are to reform. I cite this as a relevant document: Roll Call, Monday, October 17, where the whole focus is on meals and travel and campaign contributions, as ways of having access for clients. Mr. President, if you want to talk about a memo that tells it all, if you want to talk about a memo that, unfortunately, sort of speaks to the very concerns that people have about this process, this is an example. I ask unanimous consent that this Roll Call piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleague from Maine wants to speak now, I would be willing to follow him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I might follow the Senator from Maine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, let me not talk about this issue in terms of parties, which is I think part of what is now going on before the Senate. Let me talk about this issue as an issue, as an When I was campaigning for office back in Minnesota in 1988 and 1989 and just talking with people in cafes, I was surprised then--and that goes back 5 or 6 years--at the extent to which people did not feel well represented, the extent to which people felt ripped off, the extent to which people felt that politics, especially politics in Washington, was a game that a few played but not them, not their families. So I came here, Mr. President, requesting a very strong reform orientation. Ever since I came to the Senate, this has been my primary focus. Mr. President, I came here convinced that whereas, when I was a political science teacher I used to talk about some of the reform issues as issues that maybe the good government people cared about, unfortunately I would say in class, most of the people do not. People care fiercely about a political process that has integrity, that is open and is accountable to them. While we delay, let me just read from an AP story today. ``The revolution may have hit Congress on Wednesday, but lobbyists were still picking up the tab for the food and drinks. A sumptuous spread covered tables''--and I will leave out the committee and names--``in the committee's ornate meeting room put on to honor its new Republican chairman''--and I will leave out the name. ``Lobbyists from Tenneco, Dow Chemical, Southwestern Bell, and Exxon munched and chatted with committee members and aides.'' Those lobbyists went on to describe this as a networking opportunity. Mr. President, for the life of me, I do not understand what the delay is all about. This is not even a debatable proposition. I say to my colleagues, many of whom are in their first term, many of whom are in their first year, who came here with a strong reform orientation, I can really appreciate their perspective. I am fairly new to the Senate. The argument to people is, well, you know, I had a chance to vote on banning these trips and these gifts and these meals and these tickets--because you know and I know this is an unacceptable practice--I had a chance to vote on it, but I voted against it. The reason I voted against it is because my party said to me that they wanted to put it off, and later on we would get to it. This is a matter of how you draw the line between Republicans and Democrats. I thought we were operating in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. President. I do not think I will get into any pointing of the finger, but I could probably do a fairly good content analysis, when we hear about being able to govern, of the number of amendments, in just the years that I have been here, that have been brought out to a variety of different bills, many of them not even germane amendments, by the then minority party. This amendment meets the germaneness test. This is all about congressional accountability. This is called the Congressional Accountability Act. There is not one word in this Contract With America about lobbying disclosure, about gift ban, or about campaign finance reform. Last session, at the end of the session, some 37 Republicans voted for exactly the language of this amendment, understanding that Senator Levin has now a sense-of-the-Senate resolution dealing with lobby disclosure: Mr. Dole, for himself; Mr. Simpson; Mr. Nickles; Mr. Cochran; Mr. McConnell; Mr. Smith; Mr. D'Amato; Mr. Domenici; Mr. Coats; Mr. Lott; Mrs. Hutchison; Mr. Bennett; Mr. Shelby, now Republican; Mr. Gregg; Mr. Coverdell; Mr. Durenberger; Mr. Packwood; Mr. Gorton; Mr. Kempthorne; Mr. Thurmond; Mrs. Kassebaum; Mr. Brown; Mr. Mack; Mr. Warner; Mr. Faircloth; Mr. Gramm; Mr. Hatch; Mr. Burns; Mr. Helms; Mr. McCain; Mr. Grassley; Mr. Lugar; Mr. Bond; Mr. Craig; Mr. Roth; Mr. Pressler; Mr. Cohen; and Mr. Chafee. It is the exact same gift ban provision. Mr. President, for those who voted for it before, why is it not as compelling an issue today? Since this practice goes on--I just read from a story that dealt with the giving of gifts yesterday--why is this not a compelling reform issue today? For those in the Senate who were not here last session but who ran for office on such a strong reform agenda and said they wanted to change business as usual in Washington, why would you vote no? Why would you vote no? I guess you could make the argument, well, later on we will get to it. The only thing I can say, and I have been hearing that argument ever since I came to the Senate: Delay and delay and delay. Maybe later on, we will get to it. I can assure you that if we lose the vote today, we will keep pressing on this issue and we will hold everyone accountable. But if an amendment makes sense, if an amendment to a piece of legislation is a part of governing, the Senate is an amendment body. I do not quite understand the argument that we will not take any amendments. I mean, the Senate is an amendment body. That is the way most of us operate as legislators in the Senate. We bring amendments to the floor. This particular amendment, without a doubt, is certainly germane. It is all about accountability. We are being told by some of our colleagues that they will not support the very gift ban that they supported before. Why? Why? Why the delay? Is this all about progress? Is this all about who is running the Senate? Because, Mr. President, people in the country are the ones who run the Senate. People in the country want to see the reform. People in the country have said over and over and over again, ``Nobody comes up to us.'' My neighbors in Northfield, if they had a chance to talk to Senators, would say: No one comes up to us and says, ``Listen, would you like to take a trip, wherever?'' Or, ``Are you interested in going to some athletic event?'' Or, ``We would like to take you out to dinner.'' People do not have lobbyists coming up to them. Regular people do not have lobbyists or other special interests or other folks coming up to them to make an offer. Who are we trying to kid? This is a real problem, a compelling issue. It is a compelling issue today. There is no reason why any Senator should vote against this. There is a reason on substantive grounds. But it has overwhelming support, including from almost all of our colleagues on the other side, unless this is just a case of power and prerogative. What a shame that would be. If a good idea comes from this side of the aisle, and it is relevant to an important piece of legislation which deals with congressional accountability, I ask my colleagues, why do you vote against it? How ironic it would be, Mr. President, if on this piece of legislation, called the Congressional Accountability Act, we exempt ourselves from the very rules that the executive branch lives by, which is precisely what this amendment attempts to rectify. Why the delay? Mr. President, Roll Call, on Monday, October 17, 1994--and I will try to be very careful about not using names--has a very interesting and revealing piece called ``How Lobbyists Put Meals, Gifts to Work.'' This memo, obtained by Roll Call, says one prominent D.C. firm lays out 1994 strategy, including meals, campaign contributions, and participation in leadership races. It is Timothy Burger's piece: During the protracted debate over new lobbying and gift rules which went down to stunning defeat in the waning days of the second session, Members argued violently over the influence of lobbyist-paid meals and campaign contributions. Now, a Big Mac will not buy influence from anybody. ``I am sure $15,000 will not buy influence from anybody,'' Representative Dan Burton, Republican, Indiana, said on the floor. Retiring House minority leader Bob Michel said, ``Here we are, demeaning ourselves, saying, `Please stop me before I accept another cup of coffee and a Danish, and I am sure he was sincere about that because he is known to be that kind of Representative. The article goes on to say, ``Despite such protests, meals and contributions are fixtures in the lobbying world, and internal documents from a prominent Washington lobbying firm demonstrate just how central they are to conducting business.'' I will not name lobbying firms and name different Representatives. And so on and so forth. But it is very revealing. Mr. President, again, 37 Republicans supported precisely the language of this amendment which puts an end to accepting gifts from lobbyists and other special interests. It is wrong. We should not do it. Each and every one of us, and I know each and every one of us, does fit within this framework who cares about this institution, each and every one of us who wants to see some increase in public confidence and trust and each and every one of us--and I bet I am speaking for every single colleague on this point who is tired of the bashing and the denigration of public service and who is tired of this indiscriminate attack on everybody in public service and who understands that this is not good for representative democracy. And it is not, Mr. President. If that is the case, then there is simply no reason why you would vote against this. Do not vote against this on a party basis. Do not vote against this on the issue of prerogative. Do not vote against this again delaying. Do not be obstructionistic about this. Move forward on it. For those of you who were here before, you voted for it once, vote for it again, and for those of you who are new--and I know you have a strong reform orientation--there is no reason in the world why you should not support this amendment. Finally--and I know Senator Feingold wants to speak--finally, Mr. President, let me just say that if we really want to change the political culture in Washington and if we want to talk reform out of one side of our mouth, then we are going to have to act on what we say in terms of how we vote and what we do. I will just say to my colleagues, as painful as this issue is and as disliked as this reform effort is by some, this is the right thing to do and we can no longer be accepting these gifts and expect people to respect this process, much less respect each and every one of us. I will have more to say about this, Mr. President, as we get into the thick of the debate, and I assume that we will have a debate about this because I think it is an extremely important issue that goes to the heart of whether or not the political process in this country is going to work well and is going to be honest and is going to be open and is going to be accountable to citizens. For now, I will conclude my remarks and yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just want to respond to some of the comments from my colleague from Kentucky about this amendment, the gift ban provisions. My colleague said that he thought it could be improved upon, but again I point out that this is precisely the language of the proposal introduced by the majority leader and 36 other Republicans. Mr. President, I can go through the provisions of this gifts proposal-- and I guess I would like to ask my colleague, what would you want to improve on? What do you want in and what do you want out? Mr. President, what I have heard on the floor of the Senate in the last hour or so really startled me. And I think it is going to be a huge problem for our country. The word ``governing'' was used earlier. Again, Mr. President, people were talking about meals. It is not just meals. There are examples of trade association-paid trips to the Bahamas, Hawaii, you name it. We ought to end this practice. But I would like people in the country to know--and I was amazed that I heard my colleague from Kentucky just say it so clearly. He said, ``This is about control.'' That is what this is about? So, colleagues, this is not about merit, this is not about reform. When everyone ran for office, they talked about reform. I doubt whether very many of my colleagues talked about control. That is what this issue is about. Do not vote for an amendment that puts an end to a practice that leads people in our country to believe that something is wrong with the way we conduct business in Washington. Do not respond to what people want us to do now. Continue with this practice, as egregious as it is, and do it because of control. That is what I heard my colleague say from Kentucky, that this is about control. I thought it was about merit. I thought this was about reform. I thought this was about the Congressional Accountability Act. I thought this was about making Senators more accountable. I thought this was about good government. Mr. President, I may or may not be a little out of line. I am just speaking for myself as one Senator from Minnesota, but if the definition of control now in the Senate is that, by definition, any amendment introduced from our side of the aisle bumps up against control and, regardless of merit, will be voted down, that is very different from the way in which I thought the Senate operated--at least during the time I have been here. If that is what this is all about-- control--then I will have this amendment on gift ban up on the floor over and over and over again, and I guess we will be talking about control and control and control over and over again. I thought that this was a legislative process, a democratic process, an amendment body, and Senators voted amendments up or down on the basis of their own independence and on the basis of merit, not on the basis of control. So, Mr. President, I yield the floor for the moment, but I would be interested in some response by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, since I do not think people in the United States of America in this past election voted for control. They voted for good change. They voted for reform. They voted for reaching beyond our parties. They voted for doing the right thing, albeit people have different definitions of doing the right thing. They did not vote for control. I think this debate now about this amendment has become bigger than the amendment. It has a great deal to do with the way we are going to conduct ourselves here in the Senate. I would be interested in a response from my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleagues, Senator Grassley, Senator Glenn, Senator Lieberman, and others, for their fine work on this piece of legislation. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and I assume that includes you, Mr. President, are going to be caucusing at 3:15. And I certainly will not take more than 10 minutes, if that. Mr. President, a little later on, it would be my honor to be on the floor with an amendment with Senator Levin, and, I am sure, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, I know the minority leader also feels very strongly about this. I think it will be a very important amendment when we do have the debate on this amendment before the Senate. This amendment deals with lobbying disclosure, but with a special focus on the gift ban. This is a piece of legislation that probably Senator Levin and Senator Cohen, among others, have exerted tremendous leadership on. My strong interest in this, Mr. President, has been on the gift ban part. I have heard my colleagues for the last several hours speak with a considerable amount of eloquence about the mood in the country. I think probably Senator Glenn from Ohio did this as well as any would when he talked about how strongly he feels about this piece of legislation and the fact that it is above and beyond the politics of it all; that is to say, it certainly does not look very good when we try to live by other workplace rules than the people that we represent. Well, I think from the point of view of the right thing to do, and that is what Senator Glenn has focused on, this piece of legislation is extremely important. But, Mr. President, if we are going to talk about congressional accountability, I think that we can do much better. I believe that this amendment, which will later on be on the floor of the Senate at least before this bill is finally voted up or down that deals especially with the gift ban, is extremely important. Mr. President, when my colleagues talked about what they have heard back home from the people they represent in our different States, I can just tell you that in the cafes in Minnesota, there just is not even any debate about the following proposition. And the following proposition is as follows: It is just simply wrong for Senators to be receiving gifts in the form of paid trips for recreation or meals or tickets to athletic games, or whatever the case, from lobbyists and others. I mean, Mr. President, to the 99.99 percent of people in the country, it is wrong because this, to them, represents a process where people attempt to buy access, to buy influence. Though I am not talking about the individual wrongdoing of any Senator, because I do not think that that is the issue and I would certainly hope that there is very little of that, or maybe in the best of all worlds none of that, the fact of the matter is that this amendment which, in part, deals with ending these gifts, the giving of these gifts and the taking of these gifts, is an amendment that has everything in the world to do with accountability. Mr. President, we can do a lot of things to change the political culture here in Washington. We can do a lot of things to make this political process more open and more honest and more accountable. We can do a lot of things to rebuild the trust of people in this political process. But, Mr. President, I just will tell you, and I would say this to my colleagues as well, that cutting committees or cutting some staff may be fine. It may be the appropriate thing to do. Certainly, the focus on living by the same workplace rules is a huge step in the right direction. But if we are serious about making this process more accountable and more open and more then there is not one reason in the world why Senators, on this bill, would not want to make us accountable. It is called the Congressional Accountability Act. One of the ways we can be accountable to the people we represent is to say to them in no uncertain terms that we are not going to be at the receiving end of these gifts. We are not going to take them, not because necessarily taking these gifts that are sometimes lavished upon us has anything to do with any kind of corruption, but rather because we know it does not look good, we know Senators do not need it, and we know people want to have trust in this process. We will simply say to them by passing this amendment that, indeed, we agree with the people we represent on this question. Mr. President, one of the interesting things about this amendment, of course, is that toward the very end of the very end, indeed, the very end of the last Congress, the 103d Congress, while there was some disagreement about some features of the lobby disclosure gift ban bill--and I want to focus just on the gift ban part, because that is what I have been working on for several years--as a matter of fact, toward the very end of the session, I believe that the majority leader, along with 36 or 37 of his colleagues, came out on the floor, supporting the gift ban provision. So there is strong bipartisan support. I have somewhere in my documents the names of every Senator who supports that gift ban, Democrats and also Republicans. So from my point of view, it is the beginning of the session. I do not think it is just my point of view, but I think it will be the point of view of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think it has to be the point of view of colleagues on both sides of the aisle because it is the collective point of view of people within our country that if we are going to get off to the right start--and we will talk about reform, and we will say we want to make this process more open and accountable, and we will talk about congressional accountability--then there is not one reason for any further delay in getting serious about accountabilities. I do look forward, later on, with Senator Levin and the minority leader, and Senators Feingold and Lautenberg, and I am sure other Senators as well on both sides of the aisle, to having this discussion. I certainly hope that my colleagues will vote for this very important amendment. Mr. President, I will not argue that this amendment will be the final step that we should take. I think it greatly strengthens this bill. We have been putting off this gift ban for too long a period of time. Over and over and over again, we have put off taking action on it. I think that that is unconscionable. I think we want people to believe in this institution. I think we want people to believe in the legislation we pass. And I think the way that that will happen is when people believe in the political process. That is what this amendment is all about. Now, I do hope that some time in the near future, we can also deal with another part of this which has to do with campaign finance reform. I think, ultimately, if we want to talk about accountability, the whole mix of money and politics is another part of the equation, and I do look forward to that discussion and that debate and those amendments when that happens on the floor of the Senate, as well. But, again, Mr. President, I do not want to take up any more time. I understand that my colleagues are going to be maybe breaking for conference, at least on the other side, and if other Senators want to speak right now, I will be glad to simply be done. So, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks for now. I see other Senators on the floor. I hope I did not take too much time. I wanted to alert Senators that this amendment will be coming up.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress begins today, I am reintroducing two key pieces of reform legislation that I had pushed hard to enact during the last Congress. The first is a bill which I believe should serve as a benchmark for profound and far-reaching reform of the way we finance our election campaigns here in Congress. According to the Federal record $589.5 million on their 1994 campaigns through November 28. Final totals for the 1994 elections will be available next month, and are expected to be much higher. This out-of-control spending must be controlled, and thorough reform of our campaign laws is the only way to do it. The second initiative I am introducing is my bill to ban gifts, meals, lobbyist-sponsored vacation travel, and other perks to Members of Congress and staffers, which was killed at the end of last year by a Republican-led filibuster. I intend to work with Senator Levin and others to make sure that the lobbying and gift ban bill is enacted into law as a part of the Congressional Accountability Act to be considered by the Senate later this week. This year's election returns sent a signal to Congress loud and clear: Americans want us to clean up the political system, and rid it of the influence of special interests. They know that these huge amounts of money and special interest perks have an effect on the decisionmaking process here in Washington, because they give special access and undue influence to those who are well-heeled and well- positioned to lobby Members of Congress directly. They continue to have grave and justifiable concerns about the rules under which we finance campaigns, and are demanding that we do something to radically reform this system. My campaign reform bill is an attempt to finally address that concern. I have been frustrated that for so many years real campaign reform has been killed in this body by those who prefer the status quo. Last year, even the modest reform package that had been agreed to, which was less far-reaching than my bill, was killed by a Republican filibuster in the final days of the session. Tough, sweeping reforms are needed if we are to begin to restore the confidence of Americans in the legislative process. We ought to enact it this year. In addition to real campaign reform, another means of special interest influence must be curbed, and that is the giving of gifts, lobbyist-sponsored vacation travel, and other perks to Members of Congress by lobbyists and others. That is why I am re-introducing today tough, comprehensive gift ban legislation similar to the bill I coauthored last year which was killed by Republican objections raised against S. 349, the underlying lobby disclosure bill to which it was attached. These objections were baseless; a frenzied campaign of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations about the impact of the bill on grassroots organizations who hire lobbyists to lobby Congress; some call these people astroturf lobbyists, to distinguish them from true grassroots political organizations. This campaign was generated by the House Republican leadership and rightwing radio talk show hosts, and was widely condemned by reporters and others who had followed closely the details of the debate. This bill would help to significantly change the Washington culture of special interest perks, favors, meals, travel, and gifts being provided to Members of Congress. These bills combined, and other similar reform initiatives such as that offered by the minority leader to extend coverage of certain Federal laws to Congress, are the kind of tough, comprehensive congressional reform that Americans have been demanding for years. I intend to work with my colleagues in the coming days to ensure that gift reform legislation is enacted as soon as possible. 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 bill imposes a sweeping ban on gifts, meals, entertainment, and lobbyist- sponsored vacation travel, and imposes tough new restrictions on nonlobbyists. Its provisions should be passed this week, 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. It is not by chance that the so-called Contract with America contains not a word about real reforms like these that would clean up the way Washington works. I noticed to my surprise that the majority leader said this past Sunday on one of the talk shows that he would make an effort to kill any lobbying and gift reform amendments to the Congressional Accountability Act. I say I was surprised because it was only a couple of months ago that he and 36 or 37 of his Republican colleagues had introduced a virtually identifical gift ban bill, Senate Resolution 274, when they saw that the tough, comprehensive, Democratically sponsored bill that had come out of a bipartisan House- Senate conference included the gift ban provisions for which we had pushed so hard. Whatever the ostensible Republican arguments were against the underlying lobby registration bill, one thing is clear--the gift provisions which I have long fought for should now have the support of virtually every Member of this body, since almost all of us have already voted for these same restrictions. In fact, as I said, Majority Leader Dole, Senators McConnell, Stevens, and 35 others on the now majority side cosponsored virtually identical gift provisions during the last days of the 103d Congress, in an attempt to inoculate themselves politically from media criticism for opposing the lobby ban/ gift reform bill. This year, I will be fighting to get these new rules enacted as soon as possible, including on the Congressional coverage bill. There is no reason for further delay or obstruction on gift and lobby reform. When Americans are clamoring for real change which reduces the influence of special interests, it would be bitterly ironic if we voted to exempt ourselves from conflict-of-interest gift rules under which the executive branch has lived for years--especially in a reform bill that extends coverage of many Federal laws to Congress. There is no way to justify that kind of exemption. That is why we must include the gift ban in the congressional coverage bill. The same kind of Republican opposition to and obstruction of the reform agenda could also be seen on campaign finance reform. Last year, after long and hard-fought battles in both the House and Senate, our Republican colleagues killed a compromise proposal that had been made by the Democratic House-Senate leadership, refusing even to allow a formal House-Senate conference to meet and discuss the measure. While I had hoped for even more far-reaching reforms than were contained in that compromise proposal, I was frustrated and angry that, again, those who had presented themselves to the American people as reformers of the political system were able to block real reform in the form of campaign finance reform legislation--and to get away with it. Let us make one thing crystal clear: more than any of the institutional changes being proposed--some cosmetic, some real--in congressional caucuses, committees, congressional staff, and the like, efforts to combat special interest influence in the form of real campaign finance and lobby reform are what would really change the way business is done here in Washington. But these reforms are being resisted by the Republican congressional leadership; in fact they apparently will be opposed. They will refuse to accept these immediate steps to limit the influence of wealthy special interests in the legislative process. This year, while the new majority leader and others in the House Republican leadership have made it clear that campaign finance reform is not on their agenda for this Congress, I want to make it equally clear that it will be at the top of the Democratic agenda. They have said political reform is off the table. I am going to ensure it gets back on the table--and stays there. That is why today I am re-introducing the Senate Fair Elections and Grassroots Democracy Act of 1995, legislation which I believe should serve as a benchmark for true campaign finance reform for U.S. Senate campaigns. As I worked on this bill, I had one goal in mind: to develop legislation designed to address the central ethical issue of politics in our time--the way in which big money special interests have come to dominate governmental decisionmaking. Last year's election continued the trend of vast amounts of special interests. Perhaps nowhere can the connection between moneyed special interests and the legislative process be demonstrated more starkly than in the widely reported upon threats by the new House leadership to the corporate PAC's and other wealthy special interests here in Washington: pony up now before the elections with your huge contributions, or you will be iced out of the legislative process. For those PAC directors who refused to contribute to Republican coffers, there was a promise of two long, cold years. That, Mr. President, perhaps more than any other single recent event, reveals the breathtaking hypocrisy of these so- called reformers. That the incoming House leadership would publicly threaten PAC directors and others with retribution or retaliation through the lawmaking process is unprecedented, and signals how far down the road of special interest control we have come. And how desperately the system cries out for reform. And what should be our measure of true reform? The essential standard of a truly representative democracy is this: every person should count as one, and no more than one. I believe my bill squarely meets that standard. For years, Americans have pressed for a complete overhaul of the way we finance and conduct Federal elections--not a set of modest, incremental changes. People feel ripped off by our political system, unrepresented, angry, and frustrated by gridlock. They are demanding change, we have promised change, and I intend to do whatever I can to ensure that the Senate delivers on that promise. They know that without real campaign reform, attempts to restructure America's health care system, create jobs and rebuild our cities, reduce defense spending, and solve other pressing problems will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interest, big-money politics. And they know that too often, their families get outbid in the bidding wars over Federal tax breaks that we seem to be about to embark upon, with virtually all of the tax benefits going to wealthy individuals with large stock portfolios, and wealthy corporations. The American people have demanded fundamental political reform, and they deserve nothing less. If we in the Congress are to earn back the trust of the American people, we must enact sweeping reform now. The Senate Fair Elections and Grassroots Democracy Act provides for individual limits of $100 on contributions to Senate candidates, a total ban on Political Action Committee [PAC] contributions, lower spending limits than in last year's S. 3 based on State voting-age population, a 90 percent reduction in the amount wealthy candidates can contribute to their own campaigns, to eliminate the problem of candidates spending millions of their own money to buy seats in Congress, a prohibition on soft money, plus free broadcast time, reduced mail rates for eligible candidates, and prohibitions of contributions from certain lobbyists--all within a comprehensive system of voluntary public financing of primary and general Senate campaigns patterned after the Presidential system. I believe these elements are key to true reform. This is the best time in two decades for fundamental reform, despite Republican attempts to sweep these much-needed changes under the rug. We must restore the basic democratic principle of one person, one vote by enacting true campaign reform, and ban outright the practice of Members of Congress being lavished with gifts and other perks and special favors from lobbyists. I urge my colleagues to support these bills. I ask unanimous consent that summaries of my comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, and of the lobbyist gift ban provisions from last year's conference report after which my bill is patterned, be printed in the Record at the end of my statement, and in addition, that a copy of a letter from Fred Werthiemer, executive director of Common Cause, to all Members of the Senate urging the prompt passage of these important reforms in both the House and the Senate be printed because I think it speaks to all of us about the need for strong campaign reform and lobbyist gift ban legislation. I ask further unanimous consent that a copy of my gift rule amendment, and the copy of my gift ban bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in accordance with rule 5, paragraph 1, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to offer the following amendment during the Senate's consideration of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, and the provisions of my amendment would amend rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate with respect to gifts: At the appropriate place, insert the following: