[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 3 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S534-S539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:15 
a.m. today the Senate resume consideration of the Wellstone amendment, 
No. 5, and at that point Senator McConnell will be recognized to speak 
for not more than 10 minutes, to be followed by 20 minutes under the 
control of Senator Wellstone.
  I further ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 a.m. the majority 
leader, or his designee, be recognized to make a motion to table the 
Wellstone amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that if the Wellstone amendment is 
not tabled, Senator Brown be recognized to offer a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I have also been informed that Senator Coats will be 
here presently and would like to speak briefly on the Wellstone 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to ask my good friend from 
Minnesota if he was or had ever been a member of the American Civil 
Liberties Union?
   [[Page S535]] Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not think that I am 
now. I make a lot of contributions to a lot of organizations and I 
cannot tell the gentleman for sure. If I had been a member, I would 
have been proud to do so. However, I cannot answer for sure because I 
cannot remember our previous records.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Minnesota.
  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. McCONNELL. I am sure my friend from Minnesota agrees with the 
Senator from Kentucky that the American Civil Liberties Union on many 
occasions has done fine work. Much of it I find myself in disagreement 
with. There have been those times, I think, clearly proving the 
objectivity of the ACLU when I find myself allied with them. The 
American Civil Liberties Union as earlier testified on the proposal 
that the Senator from Minnesota has offered, because it was as he 
indicated, a part of S. 3, an unfortunate measure that the Senate 
mercifully put to rest last year through some effort. The occupant of 
the chair participated in this effort, as well as the Senator from 
Kentucky, regarding the rights of people to participate in the 
political process.
  Now, what the Senator from Minnesota has done is craft a measure 
which I am certain would be quite popular with the people of the United 
States since they have become convinced that lobbyists are odious folks 
who are up here buying influence and subverting the political process. 
Unless, of course, the lobbyists happens to be working for a cause they 
believe in, in which case they think the lobbyist is doing great work 
for America.
  Regardless, this notion that this particular segment of our society 
should be singled out for unconstitutional treatment, it seems to me, 
is completely absurd. Maybe what we ought to do is introduce an 
amendment saying trial lawyers cannot contribute to a campaign, or 
maybe labor unions cannot contribute to campaign. How about bad 
lobbyists cannot contribute to campaigns? Surely there are good 
lobbyists and bad lobbyists. Maybe we would pick out the bad lobbyists 
and they cannot contribute.
  Well, Mr. President, you get my drift. The Constitution clearly does 
not allow us to single out certain kinds of Americans because of their 
professions and take away their constitutional rights. It is simply 
impermissible. It might be popular.
  Somebody told me, and I did not see the survey, somebody told me that 
in recent years many Americans indicated they do not support the Bill 
of Rights. I do not know whether that is true or not. Apparently some 
pollster asked a series of questions based upon the Bill of Rights and 
apparently many people did not support those items.
  It would not surprise me that the amendment as crafted by the Senator 
from Minnesota would probably make for a terrific campaign commercial 
but the point is it trashes the Constitution. It absolutely trashes the 
Constitution. It is not even in the gray area.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to read from the 
testimony of the American Civil Liberties Union before the Senate Rules 
Committee, May 19, 1993, on this point, in testifying on the issue of 
prohibiting contributions from lobbyists. And the testimony said: 
``Another clearly unconstitutional provision in the President's 
proposal''--this was in President Clinton's campaigning finance bill--
``is the ban on political contributions by registered lobbyists (or 
alternatively, the ban on lobbying by political contributors). Lobbying 
is both the essence of political speech and association and is 
specifically protected under the first amendment as the right of the 
people `to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' The 
various expressive rights encompassed by that notion are considered 
indivisible. After all, the first amendment `was fashioned to assure 
the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of legal and 
social change as desired by the people'. Lobbying is nothing more than 
a manifestation of this interchange,'' said the ACLU, ``because 
lobbying is designed to influence public policy, the speech that is 
burdened by this proposal is `at the heart of the first amendment's 
protections'.'' Quoting the case of First National Bank of Boston 
versus Bellotti in 1978 and constitutes ``the essence of self-
government,'' and CBS versus FCC, Garrison versus Louisiana.
  ``Moreover,'' the testimony said, ``it is wholly at odds with the 
guarantees of the first amendment to place legislative restrictions on 
those engaged in 'the discussion of political policy generally or 
advocacy of passage of defeat of legislation'.''
  ``The Court's decision'', the ACLU went on, ``make apparent that 
these activities involve the highest level of constitutional 
protection.''
  The highest level of constitutional protection, Mr. President. We are 
not talking about an issue that is in the gray area. This is not a 
close call, Mr. President. The highest level of constitutional 
protection.
  The ACLU went on,

       Like other provisions in the proposal, the ban on making 
     political contributions is an unconstitutional condition 
     imposed because of the exercise of a constitutional right. It 
     does not matter that it is primarily aimed at those who 
     represented moneyed interests, because the provision will not 
     affect those interests--only their registered lobbying 
     representative.

       Thus, it is both ineffective in accomplishing that goal and 
     in preventing the appearance of corruption. Because the bill 
     already establishes contribution limits in order to cabin the 
     potential for corruption, that potential has been removed 
     from the field of contention. There are no legitimate 
     grounds----

  I repeat, Mr. President, no legitimate grounds--

     to believe that a lobbyist restricted to the same maximum 
     contributions will have any more undue influence over a 
     legislator's views than anyone else. Thus, the specially 
     restrictive treatment of lobbyists can only be viewed as a 
     penalty for their frequent and sustained exercise of their 
     constitutional right to address public policy issues before 
     the political branches of Government.

  This is it, Mr. President. And I see my friend from Indiana is here. 
I am about to wrap it up.

       The Constitution simply does not tolerate that result.

  The Constitution does not tolerate that result.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for some 
questions?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Just for a second.
  I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that a letter 
dated today from the American Civil Liberties Union legislative 
counsel, Robert S. Peck, on the amendment before us, appear in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: This morning, Senator Wellstone 
     proposed an amendment to S. 2 that would prohibit political 
     contributions to federal officeholders by registered 
     lobbyists. The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the 
     amendment as inconsistent with the guarantees of the First 
     Amendment.
       The amendment would prohibit lobbyists from making 
     political contributions during a period of one year following 
     a lobbying contact. Alternatively, if a lobbyist does make a 
     political contribution, the lobbyist would be prohibited from 
     making a lobbying that member of Congress or covered 
     executive branch officers for a one-year period following the 
     contact. Finally, it prohibits lobbyists from suggesting to 
     clients possible recipients of their campaign contributions.
       The First Amendment provides, among other things, broad 
     guarantees of freedom of speech and the right to petition the 
     government for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court, in 
     the case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), held that 
     campaign contributions are a form of free speech that is 
     protected under the Constitution. The Buckley Court approved 
     of a system of campaign contributions limitations that were 
     designed to avoid the appearance of corruption as the least 
     restrictive means of furthering an important governmental 
     interest without unduly obviating a constitutional right. 
     Because these contribution limits still stand, further 
     restrictions on contribution rights, such as the limitation 
     on contributions by lobbyists, do not meet the constitutional 
     requirements of the least-restrictive-means test.
       Moreover, the First Amendment also the right to lobby, 
     denominated in the Constitution as the right ``to petition.'' 
     As the Court 
     [[Page S536]] said in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 
     484
      (1957), the First Amendment ``was fashioned to assure the 
     unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of 
     political and social changes desired by the people.'' 
     Lobbying is nothing more than a manifestation of this 
     interchange. Because lobbying is designed to influence 
     public policy, the speech that is burdened by this 
     proposal is ``at the heart of the First Amendment's 
     protection,'' First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti, 
     435 U.S. 765, 776 (1978), and constitutes ``the essence of 
     self-government.'' CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 US. 367, 396 
     (1981) (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 
     (1964)). Moreover, it is ```wholly at odds with the 
     guarantees of the First Amendment''' to place legislative 
     restrictions on those engaged in ```the discussion of 
     political policy generally or advocacy of passage or 
     defeat of legislation.''' Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 
     428 (1988) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 50, 48 (1976)). 
     The court's decision make apparent that these activities 
     involve the highest level of constitutional protection.
       The ban on making political contributions proposed by this 
     amendment is an unconstitutional condition imposed because of 
     the exercise of a constitutional right. It does not matter 
     that it is primarily aimed at those who represent moneyed 
     interests, because the provision will not affect those 
     interests--only their registered lobbying representative. 
     Thus, it is both ineffective in accomplishing that goal and 
     in preventing the appearance of corruption. The existence of 
     contribution limitations already cabins the potential for 
     corruption. Thus, there are no legitimate grounds to believe 
     that a lobbyist restricted to the same maximum contributions 
     will have any more undue influence over a legislator's views 
     than anyone else.
       The ACLU urges the Senate to reject this amendment, as 
     unconstitutional and ill-conceived.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert S. Peck,
                                              Legislative Counsel.

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Minnesota objecting to the 
request of the Senator from Kentucky?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe I have floor. I do not want 
to unduly detain the Senator from Indiana. I want to wrap it up.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if I may inquire of the Chair of the 
procedure here, it is my understanding that we will move to procedure 
under the unanimous-consent agreement. If that is the case, I will not 
be able to give my statement and I can give it later.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe the vote will be at a quarter to 12. I will 
be through in a minute.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  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. McCONNELL. Why not have the Senator from Minnesota and myself 
simply enter into a colloquy and address the Chair?
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the colloquy is in order.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am pleased to do so.
  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. McCONNELL. I certainly agree with the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. 
President, that the ACLU is not always right. However, it certainly has 
been on the campaign finance issues, and I think they have been a lot 
right on constitutional questions.
  This is an organization, Mr. President, we all know exists to help 
Americans enforce first amendment rights. And what the Senator from 
Minnesota is seeking to do here today is to set aside a type of 
American citizen and say that because you earn your income in this 
particular way, you do not have the constitutional rights that 
everybody else in America has. The ACLU said this is constitutionally 
impermissible. I hope that will be persuasive to my colleagues, and 
that is the reason I raised the point.
  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. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. In just a moment. I would like to finish my analysis, 
if I may.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thought we were in a colloquy here, and I would like 
the Senator to respond to a question, if he can.
  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. McCONNELL. All right.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  The Chair indicates that the Senator from Kentucky, under the 
previous order, is recognized until 11:25, and the Senator from 
Minnesota is to be recognized from 11:25 to 11:45. You, by unanimous 
consent, are engaging in a colloquy, so it is your time.
   [[Page S537]] Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am just going to 
reclaim the floor very briefly, and then I am going to yield the 
remainder of my time to the Senator from Indiana.
  The Senator from Minnesota cites no cases--because there are none--
for the proposition that he suggests. I cited four or five. This is not 
in the gray area. This is clearly unconstitutional. The Senator argues 
that because of the perception problem, the rights of lobbyists should 
be taken away. My guess is there may be a perception that labor unions 
contribute to campaigns, too. Maybe we should take their rights away. 
Or others may think we ought not to have trial lawyers contribute to 
political campaigns and maybe we should take their rights away.
  The Constitution does not make it possible to pick on people by 
taking rights away in legislation. This is not a close call, Mr. 
President. This is clearly, blatantly unconstitutional.
  Mr. President, what time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair indicates the Senator from Kentucky 
has 6 minutes and 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield all of my time to the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I do want 
to state I came to the floor to make a statement on the underlying bill 
and not on this particular amendment. If it would be more appropriate 
to make that statement at a different time, I will be happy to do that. 
The Senator may want to address the specifics of this amendment before 
he yields the time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Indiana, I have said all I 
want to say about this and I am happy to yield the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers fought a 
revolution against what they saw as an imperial government, a 
government that taxed them to the point of despair and denied their 
freedom. From this revolution, they built a country on the idea that 
the preservation of the freedom and the integrity of the common man was 
the measure of good government.
  Last year, on the 8th day of November, the American people rebelled 
once again, this time not against an imperial government but against an 
imperial Congress. They fought this revolution with the legacy of our 
Founding Fathers. They fought it with their vote.
  The American people voted in November to overthrow an entrenched, 
distant Congress. They forcefully demonstrated that they were very 
deeply cynical about their Government and deeply skeptical about its 
ability to create sound public policy. They decided that an institution 
which could not govern itself could not govern the rest of us.
  It was a sobering decision because it is impossible to be 
simultaneously held in contempt by the American public and to be viewed 
as an institution capable of providing leadership on the major problems 
facing our Nation.
  And so the simple conclusion and the simple fact is this. We must 
restore the faith of the American people in their elected 
representatives if major problems are to be effectively addressed and 
endorsed and embraced by the American people. We need to create an 
environment in this body where we can focus on important problems. That 
is the mandate of the election and that requires major reform in the 
way that this institution conducts its business.
  Four years ago I stood before this body to introduce four measures 
designed to rein in an out-of-touch Congress. These measures ensured 
that there would be an end to the midnight pay raises slipped in in the 
back rooms to an otherwise popular bill, hoping to slip it by the 
process that would expose it to debate and allow Members to vote up or 
down and have their constituents know what their vote was. I am pleased 
that this measure has now been adopted into law and is part of the 
Constitution of the United States so that no longer will we be allowed 
to raise or adjust our pay without exposing it to the light of debate 
and putting our yeas and nays in public for the public to judge us on.
  I introduced a measure to reform the way in which we judge each other 
and I introduced a measure that would return this body from one of a 
professional body to a citizen legislature, which I believe our 
Founding Fathers intended.
  Finally, I introduced a measure guaranteeing that the Congress would 
live under the same laws it passes for everyone else. Significantly, we 
are here today debating that fourth measure. It is the worst, most 
obvious hypocrisy, for the Senate to pass legislation that applies to 
every other American except for those who wrote the legislation. It 
sets the Congress apart as a privileged elite, unbound by normal rules 
and standards. And it protects the Congress from the consequences of 
its own failures and excessive burdens. This measure, this one that we 
are debating today and will vote on--this measure ensures that public 
laws would be applied to public servants. Anything less is a dangerous 
double standard.
  From the Clean Air Act, which I supported, to the Americans With 
Disabilities Act, to OSHA regulations, to labor standards, to civil 
rights laws, Congress will be forced to come into compliance with the 
very laws that Congress has passed and imposed on the citizens Congress 
was elected to serve. Knowing that Congress must comply with laws that 
it considers, hopefully we will write better laws or perhaps maybe no 
law at all. I fully expect that we will be overwhelmed and in many 
cases simply unable to comply with the laws already on the books. The 
basement of the Capitol alone will be enough to employ a team of OSHA 
inspectors in perpetuity. Yet, if it is impossible for us to comply, 
perhaps we will finally understand the extent of the burden which we 
have placed on American citizens. Our citizens and families, small 
businesses, the lifeblood of jobs in America, are suffering under the 
weight of unprecedented Government intrusion into the very way they 
live their lives and do their work. The premise is simple enough. We 
will write better laws if we are forced to live under those laws. If it 
is impossible to comply with the law, we should not write it.
  With a vote earned by the sacrifice of so many Americans, the 
American people have staged a second American revolution. The 
Congressional Accountability Act is the first measure in fulfilling the 
promise of that revolution for future generations of Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Indiana has 
expired. Under the previous order, the Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  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 
[[Page S538]] corruption or the appearance of corruption.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. For the moment, Mr. President, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber for a 
moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  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 
[[Page S539]] is that this happens. Let us get away from all of the 
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support campaign finance reform 
legislation and I have cosponsored it repeatedly over the years only to 
have it filibustered or vetoed by the other party.
  For me, taken outside the context of campaign finance reform, this 
amendment is problematic. It would prohibit a Senator from receiving 
support from lobbyists but it would not prevent a challenger from 
receiving contributions from those very same lobbyists. Yet that 
challenger could be an incumbent--a Governor, a State legislator, a 
mayor--and not be subject to the same restrictions. In my most recent 
campaign, I was challenged by the speaker of the house in the New 
Jersey State Legislature. I can tell you that he had the ability, based 
on his contact with various groups and issues, to raise a lot of money 
from lobbyists and special interest groups. So, without a comprehensive 
campaign finance program in place, the prohibition in this amendment 
singles out incumbent Senators--not all incumbents--unfairly.
  Further, comprehensive campaign finance reform set a limit on the 
total amount of money one could spend on a campaign. So even if a 
challenger could receive funds from lobbyists while an incumbent could 
not, the limit on total spending would not necessarily create an uneven 
playing field. In an environment of unlimited spending, however, 
denying one candidate resources which are available to another is not 
equitable.
  I support the goal of the Wellstone amendment--to break the link 
between contributors and any real, or perceived, influence on public 
policy. We can best achieve that goal in the context of overall reform 
of our campaign finance system.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. On behalf of the distinguished majority leader, I move 
to table the Wellstone amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the 
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], the Senator from 
West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. 
Biden] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
absent on official business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 17, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--17

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Campbell
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Gramm
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     McCain
     Robb
     Rockefeller
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________