[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               FILIBUSTER

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to briefly respond to various 
Senators' comments in the past days concerning the supposed Republican 
love affair with the filibuster. At a later date I intend to address 
the Senate in greater detail, armed with book, page and hymn number, 
and to provide a more detailed statistical corroboration to my 
comments.
  For those observers of the legislative process here on the floor of 
the Senate, it may be apparent to all, as I said last week, that we 
Republicans are portrayed as a bunch of rabid Cro-Magnon individuals, 
wielding clubs in the mouths of our musty caves while utilizing arcane 
legislative procedures to disrupt the greatest and loftiest ideas of 
the enlightened who wish to assure an ever-expanding Federal role in 
our daily lives.
  The implication by Senators who have criticized our use of this 
procedural check on a Government controlled by one party is that 
somehow we are acting in bad faith, considering ``what the American 
people truly want us to do.'' which is the usual pitch.
  It is unfortunate that such a view is incredibly narrow and 
simplistic and does not reflect the several different reasons we have 
to avail ourselves of this procedural right and, may I also add, 
``procedural defense.''
  It is in fact used as ``a defense,'' but you do not read about that 
in the civics texts. Republicans were duly elected, too. I know that is 
strange to hear. The voters elected us, too, based on the principles we 
believe in. We ought to have the same right to have those principles 
judged by a majority of this Senate. However, that is not often the 
case. It is not true in every committee, but it is true in more of them 
than I would prefer, that Republican ideas for legislation are not 
allowed to see the light of day. Bills we introduce are frequently not 
given a place on some committee agendas. Amendments that we think are 
excellent never breathe. And, believe it or not-- ``Believe it or 
not,'' as Ripley said--some of the things that Republicans believe in 
are very popular with the American people and are darned good policy, 
too. But in the area where most of the legislative work takes place--
committees--we Republicans too often get stiffed. We get stiffed.
  Frequently, our only opportunity after being stiffed is to have our 
legislation judged on the merits on the floor of the Senate. Under our 
rules, an amendment does not have to specifically relate to the 
underlying bill, meaning it need not be germane. The majority party 
calculates and fully realizes that some of our ideas are worthwhile and 
are supported by most Americans. Yet they may not enjoy the full-
throated support of certain liberal activists in the Democratic Party. 
Therefore, one option available to the majority is to eliminate even 
the possibility of voting on the Republican initiatives. How is that 
done? It is done by the filing of a cloture motion. That is what 
happens here. Because if they win that one, with 60 votes to invoke 
cloture, then only those amendments which are germane to the underlying 
bill are allowed. No more playing around with those embarrassing and 
pesky nongermane amendments, which probably would pass.
  And, be clearly aware that some of these cloture petitions which have 
been so swiftly filed are cited as evidence of the horrid proliferation 
of the filibuster. We do not even have to wait anymore. You put up a 
bill and they say, ``uh, oh, with their nongermane amendments, get 
them.'' These are really nothing more than offensive maneuvers--both 
meanings of the word--by the majority to prevent a minority from having 
our amendments offered to legislation and considered on the merits at 
the only juncture of the process that is left to us, and that is the 
Senate floor.
  An example is product liability. I was on the other side of that one. 
Democrats filibustered that one, a lot of them. In order to get a vote 
on that issue, that measure had to be offered as a nongermane 
amendment. The fact we could defeat cloture is also the way we were 
able to get a vote on this administration's absolutely absurd policy 
proposal on admitting HIV-positive persons under our immigration 
system, and similar popular measures that we could not have raised 
without a nongermane amendment.
  So what is the real underlying problem that leads to this frequent 
use of the filibuster? It is the lack of consultation. When our party 
had the White House, or at least one body in the Congress, consultation 
was critical. It was necessary. During the course of this Congress, 
consultation has too often been the exception and not the rule. It is 
very understandable to a politician how this happens. It is, ``We have 
the White House. We have the Senate. We have the House of 
Representatives. So let us stiff them. We don't need them. We've got 
the horses.''
  It has not worked. It has been a very drastic and dramatic failure. 
And I am not talking about those old, tired, rhetorical statements 
about how we are going to consult with Republicans. We have all heard 
those. We hear it on the floor quite often. I mean real, honest-to-God 
consultation. That is what I am talking about.
  Republicans in the Senate have grown accustomed to being partners in 
the process--yes, sometimes junior partners, sometimes senior 
partners--but always we have had some higher level of participation.
  Let us look at the record of this Congress, and there is quite a 
sizable positive record of legislation passed. You would never know 
that because all we hear about is gridlock and filibuster. That is not 
even part of it. We disagreed on the merits of the so-called stimulus 
package. What is worse is that we were not consulted about our views. 
Our compromise efforts--with certain Democrats joining us were stiffed. 
The signal went up very clearly in this body as to what was going to 
happen to that bill. So we were stiffed. We were closed off from even 
offering amendments. Ultimately we defeated that ill-conceived package, 
and I think the record has shown that we did the right thing.
  Let us take another example, western Senators, both Democrats and 
Republicans. We felt aggrieved by the rangeland reform initiatives 
which were plopped down in the middle of the night in the Interior 
appropriations bill without sufficient hearings. This was not about 
grazing fees. What great revenue source is going to come to America 
from adding to the grazing fees currently paid by a bunch of 
Westerners? Let's say two or three bucks an AUM--it could get the 
Government $30 million? But I have to stand here and watch $5.2 billion 
in subsidies go to the corn guys, come on.
  Much of that was an effort to get cattle off the western range, and 
to get human beings off the public lands. Certain people have been 
waiting 12 years, salivating at the chops to get rid of Reagan and Bush 
so they could get on with an agenda which they have not been able to 
pursue successfully. That proposal was plopped down in front of us 
without sufficient hearings, and in a bipartisan fashion that effort 
was rejected.
  Striker replacement was another bipartisan effort to derail what even 
the Washington Post editorialized was a ``bad bill.'' Of course, that 
was not obstructionist, that was just ``good policy.''
  So in order to force good-faith modifications and force consultation 
on legislation we have utilized the filibuster to save billions of 
dollars in Federal spending this Congress.
  Examples are the reduced spending levels we obtained in the so-called 
``Competitiveness Act.'' That was the only way we could get those 
changes.
  As to the National Service Act, we were told: ``Here it is. It is all 
yours. You are not players.''
  We said, Yes, we are. There are 44 of us, and we are players.'' So, 
we changed that to a more rational bill, and I think with the honest 
approval of many of our reasonable and thoughtful colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle.
  We cannot have any major impact on committee votes, and when we go to 
conference committee, you really can be gunned down in this league. 
Maybe that is going to change next year, by virtue of some of the 
already announced retirements. Sometimes in conference committee our 
efforts ignored even when our amendments pass 100 to 0. Now that is 
pretty sad. We get tired of it. So we are going to use what tools we 
can to try to improve a bill on the floor, since we cannot have any 
major impact on the votes in committee.
  Some committees are much better than others. I serve on the 
Judiciary, and Joe Biden is extremely fair with us, even though I do 
not concur with him with regard to some matters. Max Baucus on 
Environment and Public Works, tries very desperately to work in a 
bipartisan way. Other committees, just line them up, tee them up, and 
knock them down the fairway. There you are. Sorry, we could not 
consider your amendment. Sorry you feel that way. We have the horse. 
They flash their proxies and then move on. Then they wonder what 
happens to their product here on the floor. You know what happens to it 
here. Here the rules assure that we get heard.
  So we were able to force consultation in improving the Hatch Act, 
which I did think was a turkey, but nevertheless we made some changes 
in it to make it better.
  Motor voter--which we refer to as ``auto fraudo'' in our party --we 
improved that bill, too.
  The crime bill was not what I wanted, but it was a better bill when 
it left the Senate. A good, bipartisan crime bill left the Senate. It 
got 93 votes. When it got over there, they just whooped it up. ``We 
have the horses. Wait until we get to conference and really stiff 
them.'' That is the way it works. The American people have to 
understand that.
  So we stick together, when we can. I use the word ``we'' a little bit 
loosely, perhaps. Most successful efforts to defeat cloture are 
bipartisan. We have a few in our party, different ones each time, who 
choose to not support cloture efforts, for very valid reasons, but we 
usually get some bipartisan support for our efforts.
  So let us look at what happened yesterday. Five Democrats joined 38 
Republicans to prevent the so-called campaign finance bill from going 
to conference. Senators of the other faith who criticized the use of 
the filibuster in their statements did not utter a peep, or mention the 
five Democrat colleagues who had defected only the Republicans. ``Those 
wretched, rascal Republicans.'' This is not the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I think too many people may have come here thinking 
this is some continuation of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 
way they conduct the Nation's business there. This is not. This is not 
where a majority party has abused the minority for nearly 50 years.
  It is odd, to me, that the Democrat-controlled House of 
Representatives, at least in all of my dealings with them in conference 
activity, is there to protect every minority known to the human mind. 
Every single minority, whether flora, fauna, ethnic, whatever. But 
there is one minority that is impossible for them to accede to, and 
they are called ``Republicans'' and they are an abused minority.
  This is not the House. This is the U.S. Senate. And it has a proud 
history of protecting the rights of a minority, and even a minority 
within a minority, whether based on party, philosophy, region, or 
ideology.
  If the complaining Senators want to see less frequent use of the 
filibuster, I respectfully suggest that those in the majority consider 
the idea of greater consultation with us, the Republicans.
  When we work together, the entire institution benefits. Remember 
NAFTA. That was consultation. Honest-to-God consultation between the 
White House and the Democrats and the Republicans in both Houses. We 
helped pass that. And at no time had the popularity of this President 
been higher. No time. That is what people expected.
  So now he sinks in the polls as his party's stick-it-to-'em 
partisanship rises. It rises in the Senate, it rises in the House, and 
is hurting the President of their party.
  I wanted to share those things.
  We are here. You cannot shake us. We are part of this body. You 
really will not be able to escape us. I know you would like to, 
perhaps.
  So, since we are here, every day, and draw the same pay, and do the 
same work, all indoors, no real heavy lifting, why not work with us? 
Then you would see less filibusters. And we are ready to do that. I 
think that is very important for the American people to understand.
  I thank the Chair, and appreciate the courtesies. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The Clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask to be recognized to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________