[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2892-S2893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SENATE BUSINESS

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to build on the comments of my 
colleague, Senator Durbin--not in a shrill way but I guess in a 
determined way.
  A good friend of mine has really become a dear friend. I love his 
work. Jonathan Kozol wrote a book called ``Amazing Grace: The Lives of 
Children and the Conscience of a Nation.'' He has now written another 
book. I think people in the country, as is the case with all of 
Jonathan's work--and I wouldn't be surprised if the Chair in his 
commitment to children hasn't read some of his work--have read his work 
because it is very important. He sent to me yesterday in the mail--I 
didn't bring it with me to the floor because I didn't realize I had a 
chance to speak--some data about per pupil expenditures in New York 
City and surrounding suburbs.
  The long and the short of it is that the suburbs surrounding the 
city, because of the wealth of the communities with strong reliance on 
property taxes, are able to spend about twice as much per pupil as the 
inner city. Not surprisingly, their teachers are certified and 
qualified, which is not the case necessarily in the city in terms of 
having had the experience of certification or expertise in the subject 
matter. Not surprisingly, therefore, there is tremendous variation in 
terms of those children and their opportunities to succeed.
  I raise this question because I hope that soon we will have the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act out on the floor. When we do, I 
hope it will be the Senate at its best.
  I am going to register the same, if you will, grievance or sharp 
dissent from the majority leader. I haven't done it behind his back. He 
knows what my position is about the way we have been operating.
  I hope when this bill comes to the floor this will not be yet another 
case of the majority leader essentially saying: Look, only the 
following amendments will be in order. Any other amendments will not 
be. What happens is there is no agreement, and the majority leader 
files cloture. Then cloture is not invoked. Then the bill is pulled. I 
hope we don't see that.
  Last week, or the week before our recess, we had this debate over the 
marriage penalty tax. There were a number of us who wanted to bring out 
amendments that we thought were terribly important dealing with 
prescription drug costs. Again, the majority leader said: This isn't 
relevant, and therefore I choose not to go forward. We had a debate 
about it and cloture was invoked. We will have that debate again. Or 
there was an effort to invoke cloture, cloture was not obtained, and 
the bill was pulled.
  I think that is what happened, and, as a result, I think the Senate 
has lost its vitality.
  I was elected in 1991. Honest to goodness, I think it is the truth. I 
don't think anybody can present evidence to the contrary. The way I 
remember it was that up until fairly recently, this was the pattern: A 
bill would come to the floor. Senators would come with amendments. We 
might have 60 or 90 amendments. Some would drop off and some of them 
wouldn't. We could go at it. We would start in the morning, go into the 
evening, and take a week, or 10 days, or 2 weeks. But we had debates. 
We had discussion. We had votes. We dealt with issues that were 
important to people's lives. We voted yes. We voted no. We had some 
vitality.
  I say to the majority leader that I believe we have moved away from 
that to the detriment of this institution. I think we are sucking the 
vitality out of the Senate by the way we are conducting business. I 
strongly dissent from the majority leader in the way he has been 
proceeding. It is true that in this way people do not have to vote on 
amendments. But what representative democracy is all about is 
accountability. What the Senate is all about is it is an amendment 
body. It is a debate body. And individual Senators, whether you have a 
lot of seniority or whether you don't, can make a difference in the 
Senate--or could make a difference in the Senate before--because you 
could bring amendments and have at it.
  I started out focusing on children and education. I am real 
interested, as long as we are talking about high standards, in making 
sure every child has the same opportunity to meet those standards. I 
would like to talk about that.
  You and I, Mr. President, talked some about early childhood 
development and how important it is pre-K. Why isn't the Federal 
Government more of a player? Why aren't we getting more resources? Your 
colleague from Ohio feels just as strongly about it. You and I talked 
about it. Why is it that people working with children ages 3 and 4 do 
such important work, and then all of their work is so devalued in terms 
of the pay they make? How can we provide the incentive for men and 
women to go into the field?
  I am concerned, as is Senator Durbin, coming from a State such as 
mine that only one-third of senior citizens in our State have 
prescription drug coverage at all. I see it all the time in terms of 
what this has done to people. It is not atypical to talk to a single 
elderly woman whose husband has passed away. She might be 75. Her 
monthly income might be $600 and $300 of it is for prescription drug 
costs.
  I want to come out here to talk about a bill Senator Dorgan and I 
have worked on that would make a huge difference in terms of costs. 
But, no, we couldn't have that debate.
  I am from an agricultural State. We have an economic convulsion in 
agriculture. Many people who I love and respect work so hard. No one 
can say they don't work hard. It doesn't matter; they can work 19 hours 
a day. They can be the greatest managers in the world. They are being 
spit out of the economy and they are losing their farms in this 
economy. I want to talk about how we can make some changes to the farm 
bill passed in 1996 called Freedom to Farm--some of us call it 
``freedom to fail''--so we can deal with the price crises. I would like 
to talk about whether we can reach an agreement on the antitrust action 
so producers can have a level playing field.

  Mr. President, there are many issues that are important to people's 
lives, whether people live in metro, urban, rural, or suburban 
communities. There are many issues that are important to children to 
make sure that we as a nation at least come closer to reaching our 
national vow of equal opportunity for every child. There are issues 
that deal with reform and, God knows, I would think all of us would 
hate the mix of money in politics. I can't stand raising money. I can't 
bear it. I hate getting on the phone. I think, systemically, it creates 
tremendous problems in terms of undercutting representative democracy, 
where some people have too much access to both parties at an 
institutional level and too many people don't.
  I would like to see us focus on reform. I have just mentioned some

[[Page S2893]]

issues and I have taken up more than 5 minutes. I make the appeal to 
the majority leader in particular that we have at it, with the 
opportunity to bring amendments to the floor. Let's debate and operate 
the Senate at its best. We can be good Senators and be at our best. 
Some Senators can be great Senators if they have the opportunity to 
offer amendments and have adequate debate and vote them up or down and 
vote the legislation up or down.
  I am speaking in morning business. I am sick of morning business at 
quarter to 11. I want a bill out here. I want amendments. I want 
substantive debate and up-or-down votes, and I want us to be 
accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________