[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S761-S762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GLENN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Are we back in 
legislative session now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 will take just a few moments because 
I understand from the Senator from Ohio that we will for a short period 
go into recess following my statement, is that correct?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that is correct. The majority leader said 
when we were finished now, we will go into recess until 4:30 when he 
will come to the floor and have a colloquy with Senator Bryan.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thought that while I was here I would 
summarize this past week for other Senators, and just as important, for 
people in the country, action of the Senate on some key political 
reform agenda items that were again blocked here in the Senate.
  The piece of legislation that has been before this body is called the 
Congressional Accountability Act. There were a number of amendments 
introduced on the floor this week that I think spoke to the heart of 
accountability. Many, many Senators have been talking about reform. I 
just want to summarize for a moment the record.
  There was the Wellstone-Levin-Feingold-Lautenberg lobbyist gift ban. 
One of the central political reform item agendas, Mr. President--along 
with lobby registration and real campaign finance reform--and this was 
tabled on virtually a party-line vote. This was, once again, an 
amendment that was connected to what all of us have said we are about, 
which is to end this taking of gifts, expensive meals, and vacation 
travel from lobbyists and other special interests. I believe the 
Senator from Michigan, the occupant of the chair, was actually one of 
the few from his side who voted for this. But with the exception of the 
Senator from Michigan and a couple of other Senators from the majority, 
it was almost a straight party-line vote.
  There was another amendment, the Wellstone amendment, to restrict 
political contributions from lobbyists who have lobbied a Member within 
a year. I think that goes to the heart of this sort of nexus between 
money and lobbying, and the extent to which people in the country feel 
left out of the loop of governing. This, I am sad to say, was not just 
a party vote. There was an overwhelming vote against this, and I really 
believe we are making a big mistake by not, in a very significant way, 
reforming this political process and doing something about the mix of 
money and its influence in politics.
  There was an amendment by Senator Ford, from Kentucky, to prohibit 
the personal use of frequent flier miles by Members of Congress and 
staffers. While Senate rules already prohibit this, this amendment 
would have codified the rule for us and extended the rule to House 
Members.
  Senator McConnell's amendment struck language from the Ford amendment 
that would have applied the prohibition consistently to the House and 
Senate, allowing House Members to continue the practice of using 
frequent flier miles for family vacations, expensive meals, and other 
means of having their lifestyles subsidized indirectly by their 
official travel, paid for by the taxpayer. So Senator Ford's reform 
amendment was unsuccessful, voted down in what was largely a party 
vote.
  There was the Exon amendment to require specificity in how we propose 
to get to a balanced budget and to prohibit outlays in excess of 
revenues in the year 2002.
  Mr. President, what Senator Exon was trying to do was say, let us 
have some truth in budgeting, let us be accountable, let us be honest 
and direct with people about the cuts we are going to be making if we 
pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That amendment 
was defeated by almost a party-line vote. Now, I opposed that amendment 
for other reasons, but I do believe that, at a minimum, Members of 
Congress ought to make clear the huge cuts that would be required by 
the balanced budget amendment before we vote on it. By and large, that 
vote on the Ford amendment was also a party-line vote.
  Again, what Senator Exon was trying to say for those who were for the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget--I am not--is please be 
direct and honest with people and let us be clear about how we propose 
to get there. It was voted down on what was, by and large, a party-line 
vote.
  There was the Kerry amendment to prohibit the personal use of 
campaign funds. It would have imposed tough new rules to prevent abuses 
by some Members of Congress in this area, including the leasing of cars 
for essentially personal use in the Washington area, paying for 
recreational travel, meals, and the like. Again, this amendment was 
tabled.
  There was another attempt to address the problem of personal use of 
frequent flier miles by my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, Senator 
Glenn. The Glenn amendment was to extend to the legislative branch the 
same frequent flier rules that apply to the executive branch. That was 
tabled on essentially a party-line vote.
  And finally, Mr. President, and I summarize, there was the Wellstone 
amendment on children. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have been saying over and over again, ``We are not going to impose cuts 
that are going to hurt children, that would create more hunger or 
homelessness among children.'' This amendment asked Senators to go on 
record voting for what they have been saying. Believe it or not, that 
amendment was tabled on virtually a party-line vote.
  Mr. President, I just present this summary because somewhere, 
someplace in the United States of America, people should know that the 
so-called reformers did not follow through on a great deal of the 
reform agenda; in fact, they are blocking it. Americans should know 
that there is much that we can and should and must do to make this 
process more open, more accountable, more honest. And over and over and 
over again, on many important amendments, we had virtually straight 
party-line votes defeating these reform efforts by people who ran for 
office on a reform agenda.
  Mr. President, I know that the majority leader on ``Face the Nation'' 
a couple of weeks ago, in talking about the gift ban said something to 
the effect that: ``We're in control of the Congress now, and we're 
going to set the agenda.''
  Party control has shifted, and the majority leader is a skillful 
legislator and a skillful leader. But my question, Mr. President, 
looking at the past week is: When are we going to get beyond party-line 
votes? When are we going to get to the merits of amendments if, every 
time a Senator brings 
 [[Page S762]] an amendment to the floor, it is automatically tabled 
because the majority leader says that is not what our party is going to 
support?
  My question for my colleagues is: When are we going to see a little 
more independence?
  I hope that we follow through on commitments we have made to the 
people in this country, which is that we are going to be serious about 
reforming this process. The Congressional Accountability Act is a good, 
sound, positive piece of legislation in that direction, but we had an 
opportunity to do much more, and I have given examples of amendment 
after amendment after amendment that I bet 90-plus percent of Americans 
would support which were tabled on virtually party-line votes. I 
thought people wanted us to get beyond that. I thought people wanted 
each and every one of us to be independent, to vote on the merits of 
the legislation, to vote on what we think would be good for the people 
back home.
  Did Senators vote against an amendment saying we would not do 
anything to create more hunger and homelessness among children because 
they thought this amendment was not good for the people they represent 
back home? Did Senators vote against gift ban or abuses of frequent 
flier miles or other campaign finance reform measures because they 
thought the people back home whom they represent did not want them to 
vote for these amendments? It was virtually a straight party-line vote.
  So, Mr. President, we will see, with the unfunded mandates bill that 
will be before the body within the next day or so, but I certainly hope 
as soon as possible, Senators will consider each and every amendment 
based on their merits, not based on party calculation--based upon what 
the people back home would want them to do--or based on their own 
personal convictions and independence, regardless of what they think 
the majority of people back home want to do.
  Different people have different models of how they represent their 
States. Right now, what I have seen, by and large, is virtually a 
straight party-line vote, all about control, all about power, and not 
about the merits of the amendments or the legislation, but a retreat 
from the very reform agenda that many of my colleagues said they were 
committed to.
  So I look forward to the next piece of legislation, and I hope that 
we will do better. I intend to continue to fight for this political 
reform agenda, including lobbying registration and gift ban reform, and 
tough, comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation here in the 
Senate. I commend my colleagues on their work on the Congressional 
Accountability Act, which I wholeheartedly support. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Iowa.
  

                          ____________________