[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 106 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9192-S9196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         RESTORATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULE XVI--Continued

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the 
question that we will vote on at 5:30; namely, will we restore the 
meaning of rule XVI?
  Over the last 2 or 3 months, there has been a lot of debate and 
discussion among us in the Senate on this issue. One part of that 
debate has been that it was the Republicans who changed the rule by 
voting to override it a couple of years ago. The Democrats at that time 
voted not to override it.

[[Page S9193]]

  Today, you have the anomaly on the floor where the Republicans are 
saying let's restore that rule because it was a mistake to override it, 
and the minority is saying we don't want to restore that rule because 
it is something that we are able to use as a tool in the current 
climate.
  I wasn't here 2 years ago. I am in the seventh month of my first year 
in the Senate. I wasn't a part of that debate. But I can go back to 7 
years ago now when I ran for Congress. I ran for the House of 
Representatives. One of the things I said then was that I thought a 
problem in our system in Washington was the fact that amendments were 
being put forward by Members of the House and the Senate--Republican 
and Democrat--that were not related to that legislation.
  I come from Idaho. In the Idaho Legislature, that is not allowed. You 
can't offer an amendment to a bill that doesn't relate to the bill on 
which you are working. I think that is probably the way it is in most 
State legislatures. It is the way the Senate rules require that we 
operate.
  I think one of the other Senators who was debating it earlier in the 
day indicated that these are not new rules we are fighting over now in 
this rather partisan era of politics. The genesis of this approach was 
way back in, I think, 1868 in one of the earlier predecessors to this 
rule XVI, when it was recognized by the Members of the Senate that 
proper legislative protocol was that the bill on the floor should be 
amended by amendments that were related only to that bill.

  Why would we have a big debate over that concept?
  When I was running for office 6 years ago, I thought there was a 
pretty strong national understanding that one of the problems we were 
facing in the Federal Government was the fact that legislation was 
proliferating, spending was proliferating, and there seemed to be no 
way to bring it under control. Part of the problem was all of the 
nongermane or unrelated legislation that was being tacked on as riders 
to legislation that was moving through. Legislation that wouldn't 
necessarily have the ability to move on its own was being attached to a 
vehicle that was moving through, and then that vehicle would carry it 
through to success and enactment into law.
  I believe that is wrong legislating. That is the wrong policy under 
which we should legislate. I think it results in bad policy decisions 
being worked into law because they are attached to something else that 
has the ability to carry them over the finish line when they themselves 
don't have the merit to be enacted.
  I believe that is why in 1868 the Senate proposed the predecessor to 
this rule that would start the Senate down the road of having a 
protocol that you could not put amendments on legislation that was not 
relevant to that legislation.
  What does rule XVI say? What does the rule we are fighting over say?
  Sometimes people say to me these procedural issues are arcane and you 
shouldn't spend so much time worrying about them. But, frankly, I think 
it is critical. There is an issue that is important to this 
institution, and it is important to America. It has a very big impact 
on the kinds of policy decisions that this Nation will make.
  What does the rule we are fighting over say? It says:

       On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment 
     offered by any other Senator which proposes general 
     legislation shall be received to any general appropriations 
     bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the 
     subject matter contained in the bill be received, nor shall 
     any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received 
     which does not directly relate thereto.

  That is a sensible statement of what the policy should be. This rule 
says as to appropriations bills--I think that we should have it be that 
way with regard to all bills--an amendment that doesn't relate to that 
bill is not in order.
  That is the issue we are debating today.
  I was on the floor earlier when several of my colleagues from the 
other side gave very strong and impassioned arguments as to why they 
are going to vote against this legislation.
  Actually, as Senator Gramm from Texas indicated, after listening to 
those same arguments, I found very little that I disagreed with in 
their debate about what they believe should be the protocol of the 
Senate and what they believe should be our attitude toward this great 
institution of government.
  The argument that seems to be made is that because we are not able to 
get all of our agenda put forward on the bills that we want to see put 
forward, we need the opportunity to bring nongermane amendments to 
appropriations bills. It was said that the opportunity to bring their 
issues forward was not being allowed to them.
  I agree that they should have that opportunity, although I find it a 
little difficult to see that they are not having it.
  I remember 2 or 3 weeks ago when this issue came to a point when we 
were debating the agriculture appropriations bill. An amendment related 
to health care was brought and debated on the floor of this Senate with 
regard to the agriculture appropriations bill. At the time, what 
happened? We had a lot of debate about whether we should be debating 
health care on an agriculture bill. Ultimately we reached a resolution 
by which we took the agriculture appropriations bill off the floor, 
came back a week or so later, and brought the health care legislation 
to the floor, had a full week of debate on the health care issue, and 
finally a vote on that health care issue.

  To me, the question of whether the legislation is moving forward or 
the issues the minority wants to see brought forward can be brought 
forward is one that has to be focused on closely. In the Senate--and 
the good Senator from West Virginia very well and very carefully 
explained the difference between the House and the Senate--in the 
Senate, as compared to the House, the minority rights do give the 
minority many powerful opportunities to bring forth their legislation 
and their ideas, not the least of which are the filibuster, the hold, 
and any number of other procedural opportunities they may have. I am 
convinced the minority's rights to bring forward their issues for 
argument are well protected. I would say to the Senators who are 
concerned about that, I agree with them, they should be protected.
  The way a legislature should operate is that both sides should be 
able to bring forward their issues and the clash of ideas should take 
place on the floor of the Senate. The Senate should then vote based on 
principle, on what the policy of the country should be on the issue 
being debated.
  What should not happen is that, as an important bill that is moving 
forward is being debated, something that cannot survive the clash of 
ideas gets attached to it as a rider and then slides through into law 
without that opportunity for the clear and concise focus that would be 
followed if rule XVI were followed.
  Although we are debating a procedural issue today, the issue could 
not be more important to the governance of this Senate and to the 
governance of this country. I do not remember who it was, but one of 
the great political leaders of the country once said: If you give me 
control over the procedure, I can control the outcome. Procedures are 
critical to the proper outcome in a legislative body. I agree 
wholeheartedly with my colleagues; our procedures must be fair; they 
must be balanced. In that context, I would willingly support any 
efforts to make the system here more fair and more balanced.
  I look at this not as a Republican or a Democrat. As I said, I was 
not here 2 years ago when the fight took place to change the rule from 
what it was before. I believe Republicans and Democrats break the 
spirit of this rule regularly in the Senate. To me, we have to look at 
what is the right principle by which this great institution should be 
governed. When we identify the principle by which we should be 
governed, without partisan considerations, we should enact that 
principle into our rules. That is what I believe was done in 1868. I 
think that is what the Senate has done historically with what is now 
rule XVI and with the principle that we should not allow nongermane 
riders to be attached to legislation being considered on the floor of 
the Senate.
  I would like to conclude my remarks by going back to a theme that has 
been brought up by the Senator from West Virginia, and that is his 
respect for this great institution. It is one of the

[[Page S9194]]

greatest honors that ever could be bestowed on anyone to have the 
privilege to serve in this Chamber, the Senate. I feel about my 
opportunity that deeply. I want to do nothing other than to make this 
institution the great institution our Founding Fathers intended for it 
to be. It will be that kind of institution if we look beyond 
partisanship, beyond politics, and beyond personal attacks, and 
identify the principles by which we should govern ourselves, put those 
principles into place, and then operate within their limits.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding the order of 
business is S. Res. 160, a resolution to restore an interpretation of 
rule XVI of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, it is my understanding this interpretation of 
the rule would allow a Senator to make a point of order against any 
amendment to an appropriations bill that is not germane to 
appropriations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The issue is legislation on an appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So in effect it would not allow a Senator to legislate 
policy changes on appropriations bills if a point of order was made 
against the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I think this is one of the most significant 
opportunities this body has had in some time to address an internal 
disregard for our responsibility. As a consequence, I rise in strong 
support of S. Res. 160, the resolution, that would overturn the rule 
XVI precedent the Senate adopted on March 16, 1995, which effectively 
hijacked the authorization process by allowing Senators to routinely 
offer legislative amendments on general appropriations bills.
  Doing a little research, it was less than a year ago when the Senate 
voted on the 4,000-page, 40-pound, $540 billion omnibus appropriations 
bill. Not only did that bill contain funding for various Federal 
agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, State, and 
Justice, the District of Columbia, Foreign Ops, Interior, and Labor-
HHS; but it also included numerous authorization bills. A few of them 
contained in that package were the American Competitiveness Act, the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Internet Decency Act, the Vacancies Act, 
the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the 
Drug Free Workplace Act, the Drug Demand Reauthorization Act, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Chemical Weapons 
Convention Implementation Act--I could go on and on.
  In addition, that monstrosity of a bill included tax extender 
legislation and more than $20 billion of so-called emergency spending.
  One has to ask the question why we need authorizing committees when 
we allow appropriations bills to include authorizing legislation. Why 
should the Finance Committee, for example, exist if the appropriators 
can include tax legislation in their bills? Why should the Commerce 
Committee hold meetings when the American Competitiveness Act can be 
included in an appropriations bill?
  We have example after example. I recall not so long ago the battle we 
fought over the fiscal 1998 Interior appropriations. The Clinton 
administration at that time decided on its own to acquire the 
Headwaters Forest in northern California--that was at a cost of $315 
million--further, the Administration also decided to acquire the New 
World Mine site in Montana, at a cost of $65 million.
  I am not going to speak to the merits of these acquisitions, but I am 
going to speak to the manner in which they were done because here you 
have an administration that prides itself on public participation. 
These decisions were made with no congressional involvement. The 
administration sought to bypass the authorizing committees entirely and 
have the appropriators essentially just write a check for the purchase 
of those properties, and that is just what they did.
  I happen to be chairman of the authorizing committee with 
jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I wanted the 
opportunity for the committee to carefully review the merits of these 
acquisitions. We tried, but the argument failed, and the authorization 
and funding were included in the 1998 Interior appropriations bill. 
That was much to the administration's delight. They got their way. But 
the public, the process, the committee of jurisdiction, had no 
opportunity to review these significant purchases, no opportunity to 
hold hearings, no opportunity for open debate or any type of public 
review. That is what is wrong with this system.
  Today we have an opportunity to begin to change that. Moreover, what 
has happened since this precedent was changed in 1995 is that 
appropriations bills become far more difficult to pass. As we know--we 
have seen it lately--they are held hostage to nonappropriations issues, 
and the delays in getting them completed raise the specter of a 
Government shutdown at the end of each session. We saw it just 3 weeks 
ago, an example of how authorizing legislation stands in the way of the 
appropriations process.
  For nearly a full week, the agriculture appropriations bill was 
stalled because Members on the other side of the aisle demanded we 
consider the Patients' Bill of Rights. As a result, the Senate had to 
stop the appropriations process for an entire week as we debated this 
important health issue.
  I happen to support the Patients' Bill of Rights that was adopted by 
the Senate. I believe we should, first of all, have completed all of 
the appropriations bills before we engaged in that debate and other 
debates. As of today, we still have not moved forward on the 
agriculture bill.
  Because of the delays in the appropriations process, what has been 
happening in recent years is that when the end of the fiscal year 
approaches, the appropriators and the leadership have to come together 
to engage in a negotiation with the White House to ensure the 
Government continues to function. As was demonstrated last year, 
authorizing bills and appropriations bills get mixed in together in a 
single omnibus bill which is negotiated by a hand-picked group of 
people. Authorizers do not participate in the process and, therefore, 
have no say in the substance of the legislation.
  This is wrong. This is not the way the Senate was set up to function.
  As a consequence, as we look at where we are today, the founders 
intended the Senate to operate with a representative process with the 
authorizing committees doing their job. They were not created simply to 
provide oversight. Those committees do important things such as holding 
hearings, drafting legislation based on their knowledge gained from 
such hearings, and that is why we have the structure of the 
authorization committees because they have expertise and their 
professional staffs have an expertise on much of the complicated issues 
before us. If we continue to allow appropriations bills to be laden 
with authorization legislation, I can assure my colleagues we are going 
to see a repeat of last year's last-minute omnibus bill.
  In closing, I will make a reference to how we are seen by the 
administration, and I am speaking as an authorizer, as chairman of an 
authorizing committee.
  One Secretary, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, has 
become adept at circumventing the Congress. Babbitt has indicated that 
he is proud of his procedure and proud of the way he is doing it. I 
quote:

       . . . ``We've switched the rules of the game. We're not 
     trying to do anything legislatively,'' says Babbitt.

  That is the National Journal, May 22, 1999.
  A further quote from Secretary Babbitt:

       One of the hardest things to divine is the intent of 
     Congress because most of the time . . . legislation is put 
     together usually in kind of a House/Senate kind of thing 
     where it's the munchkins--

  The munchkins, Mr. President--

       who actually draft this legislation at midnight in a 
     conference committee and it goes out.

  It is a statement from Cobel v. Babbitt, page 3668.
  Lastly, from Secretary Babbitt:

       I am on record around this town as saying that the real 
     business on these issues is done in the appropriation 
     committees, and I, I am a regular and frequent participant at 
     all levels in those. That's, that's where the action

[[Page S9195]]

     is, that's where things get done. The authorizing committees 
     are partisan wrangles of the first order. I mean, nothing 
     ever gets done on any level in the authorizing committees.

  Cobel v. Babbitt, page 3811-3812.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a brief question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have one brief statement, and then I will yield.
  It is my hope we will overturn this precedent and return the Senate 
to the way it has operated for nearly all of its history. Otherwise, we 
might just as well abandon our authorizing committees and enlarge the 
size of the Appropriations Committee to all 100 Members.

  I believe my friend from Nevada has a question.
  Mr. REID. I do have a brief question to ask the chairman of the most 
important Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I asked a similar 
question--in fact, the same question--earlier this morning of the 
senior Senator from Wyoming who shares a lot of the interests of the 
Senator from Alaska.
  He said he felt it was appropriate to change rule XVI. The minority 
leader is going to file a motion to amend rule XXVIII for that to go 
back the way it used to be.
  In 1996, on the FAA authorization bill, a point of order was raised 
that the conferees brought back information and material that was not 
contained in either bill of the House or the Senate. A point of order 
was raised that it was not. The Chair ruled that it was true. It was 
overruled.
  I say to my friend from Alaska in the form of a question, I hope in 
his support to change rule XVI that he will also look at rule XXVIII 
because, as the senior Senator from New York who spoke earlier today 
said and the senior Senator from West Virginia said, the problem we are 
facing is magnified even more so than what the Senator from Alaska 
stated. The Senator from Alaska was called back from his State, and I 
was called back from my State last fall, and we voted on a 1,500-page 
bill he had not read and, I am sorry to say, I had not read. I probably 
could not lift that bill, let alone read it.
  The fact is, there was so much material contained in that, material 
to which I am sure the Secretary of Interior referred. He had stuff in 
that bill with which the Senator from Alaska had nothing to do with and 
it was put in, even though he is the chairman of the committee of 
jurisdiction. Certainly the appropriators did not work on it. It was 
done by the Chief of Staff of the White House principally, a few people 
from the Senate, a few people from the House, and they did the work for 
all of us.
  I hope that my friend from Alaska, who certainly has so much to do 
with what we do around here, especially those of us in the Western 
United States, will look favorably also at changing rule XXVIII back 
the way it used to be.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate my friend from Nevada 
highlighting the inequity associated with the responsibility of the 
authorizers because, as I indicated in my statement, we get down to a 
situation where we are out of time and, as I stated, a few hand-picked 
individuals come together with the White House and basically negotiate 
a resolve with no participation from the authorizers. As a consequence, 
as he pointed out, we cannot read the material. It is basically put 
together simultaneously with the process of negotiation. We are 
shortchanging our responsibility. I very much appreciate his attention 
given to this matter.
  Mr. REID. I will also say to my friend from Alaska, the Senator from 
Wyoming said he agreed with us that the rule should be changed.
  I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Evan 
Bayh.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair. It is an honor for me to be in the 
Chamber of this great institution once again with you serving as our 
Presiding Officer this afternoon. I thank my colleagues also for being 
here today.
  Before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my time, my colleague from Minnesota be recognized. He 
has very graciously allowed me to cut ahead of him in line this 
afternoon. I want him, if there is no objection, to be recognized at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I am pleased to be 
here, and I rise in opposition to Senate Resolution 160 because I 
believe that it represents bad public policy. It represents a lack of 
conviction and consistency on the part of the majority in this Chamber, 
and it represents a continuing erosion of the traditions of this great 
body which imperil the very vitality of our democracy.
  I say these things, although I have no doubt that if we asked many 
who are in the galleries today or the citizens in my State exactly what 
rule XVI involves, they would have very little awareness of this or of 
the significance of the change that has been proposed. I do believe 
that if the citizens of our country understood the importance, the 
symbolic changes this resolution represents, they would be concerned, 
indeed, because the citizens of our country do care about good public 
policy.
  The best avenue to ensuring that the people of our country have good 
public policy, with the fostering of vigorous, open debate, is the 
contest of ideas right here in the well of the Senate, where the good 
ideas triumph and the bad ones are weeded out.
  Someone said, the best disinfectant is sunshine. That holds true in 
the Senate as it does in other forums. We will not get the best 
Government that the people of our country deserve if the minority in 
this Chamber is not given the privilege of introducing our ideas before 
the American people and debating them in a free and open forum.
  Think with me for a moment of some of the ideas that would not have 
been allowed to come up over the last 6 months that I have been 
privileged to serve in the Senate if this resolution proposed before us 
today were adopted.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights is important to every citizen across our 
country. Mr. President, if you believe in the right to have access to a 
specialist, in emergency care, you should care about this resolution. 
If you believe in the right to have an effective appeal to the denial 
of coverage, you should support defeat of this resolution.
  Likewise, the juvenile justice bill, which we addressed in the tragic 
aftermath of the Columbine incident, would never have come before this 
Chamber if this resolution that we consider today were in effect.
  Something I worked very hard on, with a bipartisan group, to ensure 
that the States have access to the proceeds from the tobacco 
litigation, would never have come before this Chamber and would not 
have been a part of the emergency supplemental passed into law if this 
resolution we consider today had been in effect.
  Important issues of public policy, my fellow Americans, would not be 
heard on the floor of this great body, the greatest deliberative body 
in the history of man, if the resolution proposed before us goes into 
effect.
  Your well-being, the well-being of our country, and those about whom 
we care will be substantially affected if this resolution is adopted. 
We should not let that happen to future debates about education or the 
minimum wage or other things that we, as Americans, care about.
  Likewise, Mr. President, I am distressed to state it, but I believe 
this resolution represents a very real lack of conviction, a lack of 
conviction on the part of the majority now controlling this Chamber. If 
they truly have the best ideas, if their ideas are in the best 
interests of the American people, why not have them subjected to 
amendment and debate on the floor of the Senate?
  Moreover, I ask those here in our presence today, and those viewing 
us at home, if our ideas on this side of the Chamber are so weak, so 
lacking in merit, what is the fear in allowing us to debate them and 
vote on them in the Senate?
  My friends, I think the answer is distressingly clear. There are some 
Members of this body who do not want to cast the tough votes. They do 
not want to be forced to make the tough decisions. They do not want to 
have to address the compelling challenges of our time. They would 
rather limit debate and too often gag the Members of the minority from 
presenting our ideas.
  The answer to this, Mr. President, is simple: It is not to stifle 
debate, it is

[[Page S9196]]

not to prevent votes. If you do not believe in having a vigorous debate 
on the floor of the Senate, why run for the office in the first place?
  As Harry Truman once said: If you can't stand the heat, you better 
not go into the kitchen. That is what this resolution is really all 
about.
  Next, this resolution, unfortunately, represents a real lack of 
consistency on the part of the majority. It is a flip-flop, more worthy 
of a gymnastics contest than a debate on the floor of the Senate.
  Just 4 short years ago, the majority voted to overturn the historic 
practice of not allowing legislation on appropriations. Now they 
propose to change it back. I could not blame Americans listening to our 
comments today if they thought what was really holding sway on the 
floor of the Senate had more to do with expediency in politics than 
consistency of principle.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, it represents something that Americans 
have come to view as too often is the case in Washington today, and 
that is the pursuit of power above all else--certainly, the pursuit of 
power above principle, all too frequently. And that is not how it 
should be.
  I remind my colleagues, the majority, that the test of character is 
not how you behave when you are weak; the real test of character is 
when we see how you behave when you are strong. That is what we see 
today. I am afraid we are not passing this test if we go forward and 
gag and muzzle the minority from offering our ideas to the American 
people.
  Let me offer this observation in conclusion.
  I represent a State of 6 million souls. I believe I was elected to 
represent them on the floor of the Senate, to offer the ideas that will 
best serve to increase the opportunity that they will have in their 
lives. That is why I was sent to the Senate. It is not right to muzzle 
their elected Representative from offering the ideas that I believe 
will serve them best, or the Senator of Nevada believes will serve his 
constituents best, or the Senator from Minnesota or the other Senators 
in this body.
  I have hanging in my office a print entitled ``The United States 
Senate,'' circa 1850. It is a wonderful print that I believe embodies 
the history and the legacy of this institution at its finest.
  In the center of this print is Henry Clay, speaking on the floor of 
the Senate in the historic Old Senate Chamber. And listening intently 
to him on the floor of the Senate were some of the giants in the 
Senate: Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton. Future 
Presidents of the United States were in attendance listening to the 
debate.
  They were not debating an arcane subject that would be of no interest 
to the people of this country. They were debating the very union that 
is the foundation upon which our Nation is built. What would our 
forefathers think of the changes that have taken place in this Senate 
if they felt that the issues of union and disunion, States rights and 
Federal rights, the very liberties we hold dear, were no longer allowed 
to be debated on the floor of the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I believe they would be distressed, as I am 
today, and as people would be today if they understood what was at 
stake here. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to 
uphold the traditions of our Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I might not even need to 
take that much time.
  First of all, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his comments. I 
was thinking about what he said. When I was a college teacher, I used 
to talk a bit about Birch Bayh, some of the Senators who took strong, 
principled stands. The Senator mentioned other great Senators, but I 
think the Senator represents a really wonderful tradition.
  I think what Senator Bayh said at the very end of his remarks is what 
is most important to me. I was thinking about when I ran for the Senate 
from Minnesota. It would be an honor to be a Member of the House of 
Representatives; the Presiding Officer was a Member of the House of 
Representatives. As a Senator, you could do a much better job of being 
an advocate for the people in your State, because the rules of the 
Senate were such that you could come to the floor, even if it was you 
alone --maybe others would not agree with you, but hopefully you could 
get a majority--if you thought the Senate was in a disconnect with the 
people, to the concerns and circumstances of people you represented, to 
express your concerns.
  I just mention a gathering I was at the Dahl farm in northwest 
Minnesota. It is a huge problem in Arkansas, too. Farmers showed up, 
coming from a long distance away. It was a desperate situation. In the 
Senate you can come to the floor and say: I have to come to the floor 
and fight for family farmers. I have to come to the floor to talk about 
comprehensive health care. I have to come to the floor and figure out a 
vehicle whereby I can talk about ending this discrimination when it 
comes to people who are struggling with mental illness. I have to come 
to the floor to talk about poor children in America. I have to come to 
the floor to talk about veterans health care and the gap in veterans 
health care in Minnesota and around the country.
  The great thing about being a Senator is you can come to the floor 
with an amendment and you can fight for it.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. REID. You are a former professor of government. It is true, is it 
not, that the Constitution was drawn to protect the minority, not the 
majority?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is true.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it true that there is nobody better to protect the 
Constitution and the minority than the Senate?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is part of the genius of the 
Senate and the way Senators have conducted themselves over the years.
  Mr. REID. Do I understand the Senator to say, unless we have more of 
an opportunity to speak out on issues, that those minorities, in 
effect, are not represented here?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the reason I am going to vote against 
this resolution is, to be very direct--I am not full of hatred about 
this; I am just making a political point, and we do make political 
points on the floor of the Senate--when I look at the context of what 
has been going on here, I am in profound opposition to what the 
majority leader and the majority party have been doing, which is to 
sort of what we call fill up the tree, basically denying Senators the 
right to come to the floor with amendments, to try to make sure we 
don't have to debate tough and controversial questions, to try to make 
sure we can't move forward agendas that we, as Senators, think are 
important to the people of our States.
  I am absolutely opposed to what I think is being done here. 
Therefore, I think this resolution fits into that pattern of trying to 
stifle dissent, trying to stifle a minority opinion, trying to stifle 
individual Senators from coming to the floor and doing their absolute 
best to be the strongest possible advocates for the people of their 
States. That is why I am voting against this resolution.
  It is sort of two issues. One is the question that the Senator from 
Nevada spoke on, which is, what is the role of the Senate in relation 
to the House of Representatives, in relation to making sure that we 
have respect for minority rights, so on and forth, what is the role of 
the Senate as a deliberative body, as a debate body. The other issue, 
which is even more important to me, is whether or not I can, as a 
Senator, do the best possible job for the people of my State. That is 
why I am going to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________