Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to seek a time agreement. If we are going to plan for it around 8:30, 30 minutes would be fine, equally divided. I ask, if the other side does not need 15 minutes, I might need a little bit more than 15 minutes. Is that all right?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi, the majority whip, is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho. Mr. President, first of all, just so my colleagues have a full understanding of what is at issue here, this amendment is not in opposition to this unfunded mandates legislation at all. And the fact that, Mr. President, that local school board official or others say that they think the unfunded mandates bill would benefit children does not in any way, shape, or form detract from this amendment. This amendment is actually meant to just support this piece of legislation. This amendment speaks not to the unfunded mandates bill, but this amendment speaks to where we are heading with our budget cuts. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho will hear from many locally elected officials, including school officials, who are very worried that if, in fact, we cut into all of these kinds of programs, starting with child nutrition programs, that States and/or local governments are going to have to pick them up--maybe school districts-- out of a property tax. Actually, what the Senator was talking about was kind of an apples and oranges proposition. This amendment is not in opposition to the unfunded mandates legislation. This amendment just says that if we are going to look at the impact of what we are doing on State governments or if we look at the impact on what we are doing on companies, we ought to look at the impact of what we are doing on children. That is all this amendment says. This amendment says that if a committee is going to file a report, and if the committee is working on legislation or budget cuts that affect children, then there ought to be a children's impact statement. That is all this amendment says. One more time, it strengthens this piece of legislation. It just gives the Senate the same concern about children, that we are at least willing to look at the impact of what we are doing on children. And Mr. President, these numbers by Children's Defense Fund, that are backed up by numbers by a lot of organizations, suggest we could very well be going in the direction with this Contract With America of cutting programs that provide essential support for the most vulnerable citizens in this country--children. I am saying before we rush headlong down that path, at least let Senators be intellectually honest and policy honest and have the child impact statement. Again, I do not really understand the opposition from my colleagues. We want to look at the impact of what we do on State governments. We want to look at the impact of what we do on businesses. But for some reason, we do not want to look at the impact of what we do on children in America.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his courtesy. I yield the rest of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, all I am asking of my colleagues is, given the direction we could very well be going, before we pass legislation, pass amendments, make cuts that are going to hurt children in America, those citizens that are most vulnerable, that could very well take the poorest of citizens in our country and put them in a worse position, if we are considering legislation that says we should consider the impact of what we do on businesses, on State governments, on county governments, is it too much for me to ask my colleagues that we pass an amendment that committees with their accompanying report have in that report a children's impact statement; that is to say, what is the impact of this legislation on children in this country? And, if not, then there could be a point of order lodged. I do not know how many of my colleagues right now are watching C- SPAN, but let me just be blunt. Sometimes we do not know--I say this to my good friend from Idaho--sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. Let me repeat that. Sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. And I think this may be an example. The only thing this amendment asks us to do is to make sure that in our legislative work we have a children's impact statement. It could very well be that, as a result of where we are heading with this contract, where we are heading with this balanced budget amendment, we are not going to make any cuts in oil or coal subsidies or military contracts but we are going to make cuts in programs that provide basic nutritional assistance to children in this country. Is it too much for me to ask of my colleagues that they agree that we do impact statements in reports that accompany committee legislation? What is anyone afraid of? Why would anyone vote against this? What is unreasonable about this? Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I think we should have 100 votes for this. This is a moderate proposal. The only reason that I can see why Senators would vote against this is because, in fact, the Children's Defense Fund's projections about what we are going to do in 2002 are correct. Mr. President, I would like to finish on this note. I am a U.S. Senator from Minnesota. The floor is where we bring amendments. The floor is where we do our work. I am not trying to put people in a politically embarrassing position on votes. Senators can vote any way they want to. But I want to say to my colleagues, I am going to fight hard on these issues and I am going to come back with this amendment, I am going to come back with another amendment on this bill--I am hoping I can get support for this amendment--because I want people in the United States of America to know the direction we are going in. There is too much goodness in this country to support these kinds of cuts. There is too much goodness in this country to end up hurting children. And now I have an amendment to just ask my colleagues to go on record to do an impact statement on legislation that comes out of committee with an accompanying report. I heard there is going to be a motion to table. I want people in the country to see that. I want people in the country to understand that I am going to come back over and over again. And I do not care whether any of this is ever used in any 10-second, 15-second or 30-second ads. As a matter of fact, I am told that conventional wisdom these days is that it is ``not a winner'' to be so active on children's issues. But I do not believe that. I think people care about goodness. I think people care about fairness. I think people care about opportunity. And I do not think the citizens in this country, the citizens in Minnesota, think it is unreasonable that we do a children's impact statement on the legislation that we are dealing with and on the budget cuts that we are dealing with. Again, sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. At least should we not be willing to include the children's impact statement? I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. Again, I do want to make sure that Senator Dodd is listed as an original cosponsor. I would be pleased to speak a little more, but the Senator from Idaho may want to respond. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I may have 5 more minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho, and I appreciate the work he is doing on the floor. Mr. President, I have to say to my colleague, whom I really respect, that I am disappointed and a little bit dismayed at what would be, I gather, a motion to table this amendment. Mr. President, I have a State-by-State projection of what could very well be the impact of the balanced budget amendment on children in the United States. This report was written by the Children's Defense Fund. I intend to distribute a copy to all of my colleagues, so they can see these projections for themselves. Mr. President, one more time, first let me start with some pretty amazing figures. I just do not quite think we are grasping this here in the Chamber, right here in this legislative body. ``One Day in the Life of American Children,'' was the Children's Defense Fund yearbook of 1994. I never heard anybody refute these statistics, by the way. I would like to persuade the Senator from Idaho to have a different motion. ``One Day in the Life of American Children'': 3 children die from child abuse in the United States of America; 9 children are murdered; 13 children die from guns; 27 children in the classroom die from poverty; 30 children are wounded by guns; 63 babies die before they are 1 month old; 101 babies die before their first birthday; 145 babies are born at very low birthweight; 102 children are arrested for drug offenses; 207 children are arrested for crimes of violence; 340 children are arrested for drinking or drunken driving. I could go on and on and on. Mr. President, again, here are some figures that I have used: Every 5 seconds a child drops out of school in the country; every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty; 1 out of 5 children in the country today is poor, going on 1 out of 4; 1 out of every 2 children of color are poor; every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born severely underweight. I combine these with these figures. Now we are talking about a Contract With America, where, by the way, there is not one word or one sentence in this Contract With America that calls on any large financial institution, any large corporation, to make any sacrifice whatsoever. My fear--and I have to tell you by this motion to table that I fear my fear is being confirmed--is that what we are going to do is have deficit reduction. We can have deficit reduction without riding roughshod over children. All that I am asking my colleagues to do, on both sides of the aisle, is given these projections, 1,992,550 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women would lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements, in the year 2002, given where we are heading--I could be wrong--I hope I am wrong-- but I could be right.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Hyman Bookbinder. On October 2, 1994, Bookie was honored by the National Jewish Democratic Council as the recipient of the First Annual Hubert H. Humphrey Humanitarian Award. It was very fitting that this honor was bestowed on Bookie. Over the years, Hyman Bookbinder has been indefatigable in his efforts to spread the message on labor, civil rights, and economic justice with a commitment to American ideals. Admired, loved by family, friends, and colleagues, Bookie has served our country and the Jewish community with honor and distinction. His commitment to his faith and humanity is truly an inspiration. His distinguished career and many contributions was a cause for celebration by NJDC. All of us owe him a debt of gratitude for his many years of dedicated and exemplary service to others. The celebration of Hyman Bookbinder as the first recipient of the Hubert H. Humphrey Humanitarian Award was a significant milestone in the life of this extraordinary man. I am pleased to submit to my colleagues, Bookie's remarks upon receiving the Hubert H. Humphrey Award. NJDC Hubert Humphrey Humanitarian Award (Response by Hyman Bookbinder) This is the nicest ``This Is Your Life'' episode I've ever seen! As I look at the names of the Honorary chairs, the list of speakers, the names on the Tribute Committee--and, above all, as I look around this room, I know how lucky I have been all my life to have had such friends and associates. Some of us go back more than sixty years. To have been part of your lives, and you part of mine, to have at times shared with you great pain over society's delinquencies, but at other times to celebrate together over some victories--labor's right to organize, breakthroughs in civil rights, commitment to end poverty, our nation's embrace of Holocaust remembrance and security for Israel--to have been associated with you in pursuit of these and other causes, I express my profound appreciation. Oh, how I would like to go around the room and identify and thank each of you and say what you individually have meant to me. But limited time, and fear of leaving out some, compels me merely to note how gratified I am to see associates from the earliest days of my trade union work, the Amalgamated and the CIO and the AFL-CIO, from six decades of civil rights alliances and battles, from the halls of Congress since 1950--including its current senior member and chair of a non- existent Jewish caucus--from the war on poverty, including its founding general (although his name is Sargent), from three decades with the American Jewish Committee, including its outgoing President getting ready now to become Ambassador to Romania--and from every campaign since Harry Truman. . . . I've had a special spot in my heart for our Honorary Chairman for fifteen years now. When another black leader declared that black anger at Jews at the time was just a declaration of independence, Vernon Jordan publicly rebuked him, saying that what was needed was a declaration of inter- dependence. And there is one name above all, of course, that I wish I could point to. Oh, how I wish he were still with us. Oh, what a different country this might have been if in 1968 a few hundred thousand more Americans had voted for him. I cannot begin to tell you what an honor you have bestowed on me by linking my name with that of Hubert Humphrey. And what an honor to have his son and his sister with us tonight. Others have already commented on the meaning and the goals of NJDC. Let me add a few words. I'm proud to get its award because its very name--National Jewish Democratic--combines three great commitments and loyalties of my life. National means to me, despite its failures and defaults, a nation we can and do love for its underlying compassion and respect for individual freedom. Jewish in our NJDC stands for a Judaism we love because it seeks to live by Hillel's admonition to be not only for ourselves. Democratic, because it is the party that best lives up to our American and our Jewish ideals. Small wonder that such large majorities of Jewish voters have consistently supported Democratic candidates. I am proud of all three of these identifications and loyalties--and am reminded of that story about Henry Kissinger and Golda Meir. After a long argument with Henry, Golda looked sternly at him and said, ``I'm really quite upset with you--you, a Jew!'' At which point, Kissinger started to pontificate. ``Madam Prime Minister,'' he said, ``I want you to know that first I am a human being, a citizen of the world. Then I am an American. And then I am a Jew.'' ``That may be OK for you in America,'' Golda responded, ``but here we read from right to left.'' I hope that nothing I have said smacks of chauvinism. I am a proud American. But I have known many great people who are not American. I am a proud Jew, but--if you will pardon the expression--some of my best friends are not Jewish. I am a proud Democrat, but have had high regard for some--not many, but some--Republicans. Three years ago, I tried to capture some of the exciting, poignant moments in my life in a book with the sub-title ``Memoirs of a Public Affairs Junkie.'' Permit me to cite briefly two of those precious memoirs that sort of sum up the public passions of my life--one fifty years ago, the second fifteen years ago. In the late Forties, I was active in the campaign to raise the Federal minimum wage to 75 cents an hour--yes, 75 cents. I helped locate a garment worker in Tennessee who would testify on what 75 cents an hour might mean for her. All we did was urge her to talk frankly to the members of the Senate Labor committee. I sat next to her, not to prompt her, but to put her at ease. Ora Green was her name, and from the official transcript, here are some of her words: ``My youngest girl, she's nine now, goes straight to the piano when we go to a house where they have one. She wants to play so bad. I've thought that maybe I could save fifty cents or a dollar a week to buy a second hand piano for her, no matter how old or battered. But try as hard as I can, and save and squeeze, I haven't found a way to do it. By this time, the Senators had stopped shuffling their papers before them. They had leaned forward and were looking directly at this woman from Tennessee. She went on: ``Maybe I've been foolish to talk to you about music for one of my children when the main problem is getting enough to eat or wear, or blankets to put on the bed, or even a chair to sit on. But down in Tennessee we love music, and factory workers don't live by bread alone any more than anyone else does.'' I cherish that moment because it tells us so much. It tells us that in every human being there is indeed a spark of the divine, that with all its imperfections, our American democracy makes possible such magical moments to occur, and it reminds us how great it is to have a labor movement that cares about the Ora Greens of the world. Oh, yes. One of the freshman Senators at that hearing was Hubert Humphrey. My second story. . . The year was 1979. I was one of fifteen Americans appointed by Jimmy Carter to the President's Commission on the Holocaust. Miles Lerman, the present Chairman of the Holocaust Council and the Museum, was another. And so was Ben Meed, the chief co-ordinator of the world's survivors. Both are here tonight. And then there was Bayard Rustin, the late, great black trade unionist and civil rights leader. To help us develop recommendations for a suitable American memorial, we visited a number of concentration camps and existing memorials in Europe and Israel. On this particular day, after a painful tour through Auschwitz and Birkenau, we stopped for a short outdoor service at a row of memorial tablets. In front of the one inscribed in Hebrew, Elie Wiesel spoke as only he can speak. We joined in reciting the Kaddish. As we were about to leave, Bayard whispered to me, ``Should I?'' I knew exactly what he meant; I said ``Sure'' and asked the group to remain. Accompanied only by the soft winds of the vast open expanse, Bayard started to sing one of his favorite Negro spirituals: ``Freedom, oh Freedom, oh Freedom over me,'' he sang. ``And before I'd be a slave, I'd be buried in my grave, And go home to my Lord and be free.'' When he finished, there wasn't a dry eye. Tears were being shed, tears not only in reverent memory of six million Jews, but also for untold millions of American slaves who had been deprived of lives of dignity and freedom. Tears, we were reminded, have no color. On the last page of my book, I quoted some words I had spoken on an earlier occasion. I'd like to conclude tonight with those words. ``If it should be true that in my lifetime I have helped even one Jew or one Haitian or one Pole escape persecution; if I have helped even one ghetto youngster escape poverty; if I have helped one daughter of a Tennessee shirtmaker get to play on her own piano . . . If these things are indeed true, then all that is left to say is that I thank God that I was little easier, a little sweeter, a little more secure, for some fellow human beings.'' And I thank every one of you for being here tonight to share this proud moment. Thank you very much.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just so my colleague from Oklahoma and others following will know what I am trying to do here, like the Senator from California, I am anxious to get on with amendments. My understanding was that the committee amendment on page 33, if we could put aside this committee amendment and move to that committee amendment, I might be able to offer an amendment to that amendment. I do not think it is an amendment that is controversial. I am trying to get an amendment up on the floor which deals with the whole issue of whether or not as a part of how we look at accountability committees would not be required, if they were going to file reports, to have a child-impact statement. So it is an amendment that is straightforward. I am prepared to agree to a time limit. It is an extremely important amendment. That is the amendment I am trying to bring to the floor. I gather that my colleague from Oklahoma has not changed his view on this matter. Mr. President, I have tried with all my might, and I am blocked from bringing up the amendment at this point. I am anxious to get going with amendments and a discussion, and I hope soon there will be some sort of break in this impasse. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending committee amendment and call up the committee amendment on page 33 so that I can offer an amendment to that amendment.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just would like to say to people in the country, citizens around the country, that quite often--I have only been in the Senate now for 4 years; that puts me in my first term--but quite often what we could be doing, the deliberative body that we are, is while we are working on a piece of legislation when there are compelling issues before us, then we bring amendments out that we think are important whereby the Senate takes a position on an extremely important question. I have to say, given the murders that have taken place in this country recently--and murder is never legitimate--the amendment of the Senator from California is extremely important. I think people should know that basically what has happened here is that she is blocked from offering her amendment. Mr. President, for the life of me, I do not understand why we could not bring this amendment out on the floor, why it could not be a sense of the Senate passed. I think it is a terribly important amendment. It is a sense of the Senate, but it is an amendment that says that all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, care fiercely about law and order and care fiercely about protecting people's constitutional rights, that we are opposed to murder, that we are willing to take a strong position on this. So I thank the Senator for her amendment. I hope that we will be able to bring this to the floor and have an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, if there are no other Senators seeking recognition or interested in speaking right now, I would be pleased to yield the floor. Otherwise, I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum. I would like to see whether I cannot get an amendment to the floor. But could I, first of all, suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. I would like to thank the Senator from California for her words on the floor of the Senate. As I understand it, this is a sense of the Senate. It is the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Attorney General should fully enforce the law and recommend to the Congress any further, necessary measures to protect persons seeking to provide, or obtain or assist in providing or obtaining, reproductive health services from violent attack. Might I ask the Senator, is this what she wants the U.S. Senate to go on record for?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator. I was going to ask the Senator whether I could get unanimous consent to lay the committee amendment aside so I could offer an amendment. From listening to what the Senator has now said, I gather the answer would be no; am I correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am disappointed, because I am anxious to get going with an amendment. But as I understand what the Senator is trying to say to other Senators of both parties, and for that matter, to people in the country, the position he is taking has nothing to do with what might be his final decision, pro or con, but more with his firm conviction that this is a major, important piece of legislation and he believes Senators should have an opportunity to carefully analyze it and understand it; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. So that is the reason I would not be able to move now on an amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I respect the Senator from West Virginia. I understand what he is trying to do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, say to my colleague from Montana, I will be very brief. After having heard Senator Glenn just emphasize the importance of not doing any finger pointing, I am reluctant to do so. But, Mr. President, One is if, in fact, I hear the argument much more about delay or obstructionism, I will come to the floor and perhaps just go through every single amendment offered on the other side of the aisle which was not germane or relevant to different bills that we had on the floor. It is really rather amazing--really rather amazing. So I think we have to move forward, and the past is the past, but I would not want to let certain Senators get away with that argument. My second point, Mr. President, which has nothing to do with the past but has to do with the now of this session, is having been a Senator out on the floor this past week with some amendments, I just would like to say to my colleagues--though I did not hear some of the arguments that were made--that if we are going to talk about congressional accountability, I think to talk about gift ban, I think to talk about trying to make this Congress more accountable, this process more open, this process more honest, is hardly irrelevant. The third point I want to make, not at all in a defensive mode but it is something I feel very strongly about, is I think if my colleague from Oklahoma would check with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, one of the things he will find out is that unlike the past Congress where there was discussion of offering hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of amendments and not agreeing to time limits, I always said to the Senator from Iowa on the last bill, ``I am going to vote for the piece of legislation. I will be willing to do this within a reasonable period of time. Here I am on the floor, ready to go with amendments.'' So, A, this sort of finger pointing does not work because, frankly, it is not credible given what happened last Congress. The fact that the obstructionism and the filibusters of last Congress is not credible does not mean that we on this side of the aisle should do the same thing. But I would like to say, since the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] is not here, that I do believe a Senator has a right to make what I think is a reasonable request, which is that when we deal with a piece of legislation--which, by the way, I may vote for as I am not necessarily opposed to this piece of legislation; it depends upon how it all works out on amendments--a Senator has a right to say this deals with the very core of the interrelationship between the Federal Government and State governments. We do not have the budget report. I want to be able to look at that. I want this to be a thoughtful, important debate. We are about to make major, major decisions. That hardly represents obstructionism. That is called careful analysis of legislation, and that is what I think we will do. I think we will have an important debate. I am sure there will be amendments, and I think we will move forward. But, Mr. President, having been someone who was working very hard on campaign finance reform, on gift ban lobbying legislation, much less health care--all of which was stopped toward the end in one way or the other--I find it a little difficult to let some of these arguments go by. I certainly will be back in the Chamber. As a matter of fact, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I was hoping the Senator from West Virginia would be willing to lay the committee amendment aside so I could get started on an amendment today. I am ready to do so. I am ready to have a vote. And by the way, it will deal with children. And by the way, it will deal with making sure that we have an amendment to this piece of legislation that says when we look at the impact of the legislation we pass on State and local governments or on businesses, we certainly can look at the impact of this legislation on children. We all want to have photo opportunities next to children, and before we pass bills or amendments or we make cuts that in fact could impose some real pain on children in this country, I think we ought to be willing to look at the impact. I cannot do it yet because the Senator from West Virginia has made I think a credible argument, which is we need to have the full analysis of this legislation. So, Mr. President, I have no more to say now. I yield the floor. I did not want to, while I just was kind of passing by the Chamber, let other Senators talk about gridlock and filibusters and obstructionism based upon what happened last session, based upon a very valid set of concerns the Senator from West Virginia has, and based on the fact that I am going to be here in the Chamber with amendments holding colleagues accountable. I hope to pass those amendments, to do it because I love being a legislator, having the honor of being a Senator from Minnesota, and I am not going to let anybody call that obstructionism. I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just wanted to acknowledge the work of Senator Kennedy in crafting this important legislation which we are introducing today to increase the Federal minimum wage. I had introduced a similar bill in the last Congress, which would have increased the minimum wage even further than is provided for in this bill, and have been a long-time supporter of making sure that low- income people are paid a decent and just minimum wage. I may be reintroducing that bill later this year, because in addition to a higher target wage, it also provided for indexing of the Federal minimum wage--a key element of any minimum wage increase legislation, in my view. This measure provides for modest, incremental increases over 3 years in the Federal minimum wage, and then for a study to be ready at the end of the third year to address other key issues like indexation. I am delighted to join as an original cosponsor of this measure.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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 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.

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?