[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   GRIDLOCK, GREEDLOCK, OR DEMOCRACY?

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have reluctantly come to the 
conclusion that some modification of our filibuster rules are in order.
  There should be occasions when more than a majority is needed to pass 
something. The Constitution spells out eight of those different types 
of occasions, and I favor a ninth, when we create deficits.
  But the filibuster has been so abused that it is used on things that 
totally lack a major significance.
  Recently, our former colleague, Charles ``Mac'' Mathias, has an op-ed 
piece in the Washington Post that explains his position. I ask to 
insert it into the Record at the end of my remarks.
  If we were to change the rule to 55 to have cloture or something like 
that, or a requirement that a certain number of people has to sign 
before 41 Members of the Senate could block consideration for 3 weeks, 
so that Congress would not, in an emotional frenzy, do something 
unwise.
  I don't know what the modification should be, but I do believe we 
have abused the filibuster and change is in order.
  The article follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 27, 1994]

                   Gridlock, Greedlock or Democracy?

                       (By Charles McC. Mathias)

       When I came to the Senate in 1969, a filibuster was a major 
     event. In order to prevent a majority from voting to pass a 
     bill, determined opponents would refuse to end debate. Their 
     strategy was to bring all Senate action to a halt until the 
     Senate gave up its attempt to pass the legislation.
       It was a rare and awesome maneuver played on the national 
     stage in full glare of the spotlights. It focused national 
     attention on the issue being considered while it reduced the 
     Senate legislative schedule to shreds. Drama mounted as 
     filibustering senators talked through the night and troops 
     brought Army cots to Senate corridors so beleaguered senators 
     could camp on the job for days at a time.
       Today, filibusters are far less visible but far more 
     frequent. The filibuster has become an epidemic, used 
     whenever a coalition can find 41 votes to oppose legislation. 
     The distinction between voting against legislation and 
     blocking a vote, between opposing and obstructing, has nearly 
     disappeared. In the last four years alone, the Senate has had 
     to attempt to end filibusters an average of 22 times per 
     year--compared with less than once a year in the half-century 
     before I entered the Senate.
       Senators no longer need to talk through the night to 
     sustain their filibuster; they often need not talk through 
     the day or hour. In times past, the majority leader 
     occasionally asked for and received unanimous consent to 
     temporarily suspend the filibuster in order to dispatch some 
     critical business in which time was essential. Thereafter, 
     the filibuster resumed. This practical response to an 
     emergency has now become routine. Today a single senator may 
     simply inform the Senate leaders that he or she won't allow a 
     vote on a particular bill. The Senate then typically agrees 
     to temporarily put that bill aside and move on to other 
     business.
       Since the Senate's Rule 22 says it takes 60 senators--
     three-fifths of the entire Senate--to break a filibuster, 59 
     senators seeking to take action can be blocked by 41 or 
     fewer. The only reminder that a filibuster is in progress may 
     be an occasional vote on ``cloture'' to see whether 
     supporters of the bill have been able to assemble the 
     necessary 60 votes. Often the issue simply withers away in 
     obscurity. If the public is aware of the filibuster at all, 
     it often mistakenly assumes that the ``gridlock'' it sees 
     occurs because a majority can't agree on action.
       The majority must accept paralysis or meet the demands of 
     the minority--often by agreeing to legislation so eviscerated 
     or loaded with interest group favors that it can't begin to 
     meet our nation's challenges.
       In just the past few years, filibusters have blocked, 
     delayed or forced changes in bills dealing with crime, 
     campaign finance reform, gun control, environmental 
     protection, school improvement, labor law, Head Start, 
     National Service, Hatch Act reform, family medical leave, 
     voting rights, inoculation of children against disease, and 
     dozens of other issues.
       Scores of other bills are changed to avoid filibusters. For 
     example, while Americans may be unsure which health care 
     proposal is better, they do know we need action on health 
     care reform. Yet some senators are already suggesting they 
     may block majority action. And in the ``bidding war'' to find 
     a 60th vote to end or prevent a filibuster, corporations with 
     millions of dollars at stake (and millions to spend) will be 
     on the prowl to find one or two senators willing to demand 
     favorable provisions in return for letting the Senate vote.
       Last month the federal government was required by law to 
     sell mining rights to an estimated $8 billion of gold on 
     federal land for only $9,765. Why? Because a threatened 
     filibuster has blocked changes in Gold Rush-era mining laws. 
     So taxpayers convey potential billions in forced sales to 
     mining corporations--and then pay for the cleanup when 
     thousands of used-up mines leak dangerous toxins into streams 
     and rivers.
       No principle is more central to democracy than the 
     principle of majority rule. Today, that fundamental principle 
     is in grave jeopardy in the U.S. Senate. Over and over again, 
     Congress' ability to make decisions is thwarted because a 
     minority of senators filibuster.
       As a Republican whose party was in the minority for two of 
     my three Senate terms and my entire service in the House, I 
     know the majority must allow adequate time for minority views 
     to be heard. I also know the frustration that fosters the 
     filibuster. On rare occasions, I even succumbed and voted 
     against cloture myself. But it becomes clearer each year 
     where this path leads.
       Those who wrote our Constitution struck a delicate balance. 
     Separation of powers, federalism, bicameralism and the Bill 
     of Rights protect minorities. The approval of two-thirds of 
     senators present is required for a few extraordinary actions, 
     such as constitutional amendments and presidential 
     impeachment. But our Founding Fathers understood, as James 
     Madison explained, that if they required more than majority 
     approval for other actions, ``the fundamental principle of 
     free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the 
     majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to 
     the minority.''
       Filibusters are not limited to any party or ideology. The 
     issue is not whether particular bills are good or bad. It is 
     whether we believe in democracy, or a tyranny of the 
     minority. It is whether we want a government capable of 
     making decisions, or one hamstrung by gridlock and greed.
       ``If the . . . smaller number can overrule the greater,'' 
     warned Alexander Hamilton, the result will be ``tedious 
     delays, continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible 
     compromises of the public good.''
       Our Founding Fathers never considered Rule 22, or dreamed 
     that some senators would circumvent majority rule by refusing 
     to allow a vote at all.
       To safeguard our democracy, each of us must look beyond our 
     own support or opposition for any particular legislation. We 
     must call upon all senators to respect majority rule, stop 
     abusing the filibuster, and get on with the business of 
     meeting America's challenges.

                          ____________________