[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          CHANGE AND GRIDLOCK

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I always enjoy hearing my friend from 
Texas. After listening to him, I sometimes wonder what Government he is 
talking about.
  I just want to make one broad point and then I will yield the floor.
  The Senator says two things that many of his colleagues say these 
days. That is, first he says: You know, we are a party that wants to 
repeal. We are a party that does not want to add--meaning Republican 
Party. He went through this thing about how he looks forward to the day 
when there are 640-something laws eliminated or whatever.
  Then he says: But I want to cooperate with this President. I want to 
work with him. I do not understand why he does not come to me and say 
why do you not work with me? Why do you not cooperate with me?
  The issue is not whether the Clinton health care plan failed or 
succeeded. Very seldom does any major initiative any President puts 
forward end up being what is in fact the law. It is always the case 
where the agenda is set by the President and they start the debate. So 
the issue is not whether you should hold someone accountable or not 
accountable for killing the health care plan. The issue is, if you like 
health care just the way it is--those millions of Americans who do not 
have any, those tens of millions who are about to lose it, the rest of 
them who cannot leave their job in order to keep health insurance--if 
you like it exactly the way it is then, fine, no problem. You should 
vote to give Senator Gramm a full measure of credit.
  But if you think the system is not working very well, if you think we 
should get together and cooperate and work on something that is going 
to provide health insurance for the people who do not have it, if you 
think we should get together and make sure people who worked like the 
devil all their lives, middle-class Americans who live in fear of 
losing their jobs, live in fear of what will happen to their families 
if they get ill--also look to Senator Gramm. He is going to run for 
President, I think. Look to him. Look to him and say: Phil, it is great 
that you made sure my sister, who is making $18,000 a year, with three 
kids, cannot have any health insurance. I am proud of you. It is a good 
thing you did. Keep the system just the way it is.
  I also find it fascinating to listen and hear about what gridlock is. 
Let us talk about what gridlock is--my definition of gridlock. My 
definition of gridlock is when you have a clear majority of the elected 
representatives of the American people who work in the U.S. Congress--
Democrat and Republican, House and Senate--when a clear, undisputed 
majority want to do something and a minority repeatedly comes along and 
says we are not going to even let you vote on whether or not we are 
going to do that--that seems to me to be gridlock, or obstruction. The 
irony is, the things that have been opposed are things that I do not 
even understand why they opposed them, because they have voted for them 
in the past. I mean, it is like the crime bill. A vast majority voted 
for it. And when it came back from the House essentially the same bill, 
all of a sudden it was a bad bill, because some pollster said ``By the 
way, if the crime bill passes, the President will get credit, so don't 
let it pass.''

  Now, that is gridlock. I am not taking issue with anybody's views on 
the floor. I am not taking issue with their views, if they believe them 
as a matter of principle and that is the only reason. There are a lot 
of crazy ideas that are reflected in the American public and the 
American psyche and the U.S. Senate. I have been the father of some of 
those crazy ideas. So, I respect that. But the gridlock here--a case in 
point--is the California desert bill, and it is, by the way, within the 
rights of Senators under the rules. I want to make it clear.
  But the American people do not understand, nor should they have to 
understand, the technicalities--such as with the legal system and the 
complexities of the operation of the fifth amendment and the fourth 
amendment and the second amendment and the first amendment. They look 
at it and say, ``Wait a minute now, this is right and this is wrong. 
Why are we doing this?''
  For example, I heard comments about the attempt of lawyers to 
suppress evidence in the O.J. Simpson case. ``Well, if he is not 
guilty, why would they try to suppress?'' They are complicated notions.
  One of the things the American people, I think, also understand and 
view the same way is their Government. We all in this body know any 
Senator is within his rights to engage in a filibuster, to use the 
parliamentary rules to his or her advantage to keep a majority from 
prevailing--and there is an underlying, solid rationale for that having 
been put in the Senate rules. Notwithstanding that, I think the 
American people have had to wonder a little bit: Why is it that when 
repeatedly, time after time after time, an overwhelming majority of 
Members of both Houses of the U.S. Congress say they want to do 
something, our Republican friends stand up and just say no. The party 
of no.
  Now, is campaign reform a bad idea? I want the American people to go 
out and judge. If they, in fact, use the same standard that Senator 
Gramm said, if you like the way we finance our elections now, give 
Senator Gramm credit. Give him credit. Election day, walk up and say, 
``I like this idea that you can go out to these super wealthy people 
and get large amounts of money. I like it. That's why I'm for you, 
Senator.''
  Now, if you also like the fact that we cannot reform the system 
whereby we require lobbyists to be what most Americans would say in a 
mode of full disclosure, you like the idea that lobbyists permeate this 
place and this town the way it is, with very little regulation, thank 
him, thank the Republicans. Go tell them, ``I like it. I like it the 
way it is.'' Give them credit.
  Do you like the way that we are allowed to, under the rules go play 
golf or all the stuff you read about in the paper, which we tried to 
change?. You like that? Give them credit for killing reform, they 
deserve it. They deserve the credit. I do not want to be the one to 
deny them the credit. They deserve every bit of the credit that they 
should be given, because he stands up and says, ``Give us credit for 
stopping this stuff.''
  How about the California desert bill? I believe my friend from 
Wyoming feels very strongly about this. He does. Under the rules, he 
can do whatever he wants. But if we adjourn here without the California 
desert bill passing, the environment being protected, give them credit, 
give credit where credit is due.
  They have been exceptionally--exceptionally--good at stopping things. 
I acknowledge that. I have been here 22 years. I have never seen a more 
adept--more adept--group of individuals able to stop campaign reform, 
any change at all in the health care system. We are not just arguing 
about whether or not we have the Clinton health care bill. That was 
dead when it came here. Guys like me never supported it. A lot of 
people did. But everybody knew it was a starting point. There were 
three, four, five, seven other plans. What did we do? Nothing. Nothing. 
Nothing.
  Maybe the Senator is correct, that the American people do not like 
the Clinton health care plan. I did not like it. So maybe I am with the 
American people. But I did not think the alternative was if I did not 
like that, we were not going to cooperate and not going to deal with 
the health care problem in America. I thought that is what we were 
supposed to do. We disagree, we negotiate, we debate, we compromise and 
we act, when there is a majority that wishes to do that.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, again, I will make it clear. I have been 
here long enough to know, and my colleagues who have worked with me 
long enough should know, I am in no way denigrating, in no way casting 
aspersions on or questioning whether or not they have the right under 
the rules to do this. They clearly have the right under the rules to do 
what has been going on this last year.
  I thought the beautiful one was what we did on education. This is 
what I think I mean by gridlock. This is what my wife means by 
gridlock. That is what my mom means by gridlock. That is, we have an 
education bill. We are required to get cloture on the bill.
  First of all, there is this long, drawn-out process whether there is 
a hold on the bill, whether the bill can be brought up, what we will do 
if it is brought up, are we going to bring things to a halt and all 
this kind of thing. And then when we finally bring it up they insist on 
cloture. A fancy word. For people who are listening, that means we are 
going to cut off debate. We have to get 60 people to say, ``Stop the 
malarkey, let us vote,'' and then we have to get 50 people to pass. But 
you have to get 60 just to stop it so we can vote.
  So they said on the education bill, we are not going to let that go 
forward. They did not quite say it that way. Everything dragged along 
and sputtered along and finally the leader said, ``We are going to file 
cloture,'' meaning we are going to see if we have 60 votes, if there is 
any support for this bill.
  We went through all this, wasted 3, 4 days, got cloture and 35 people 
voted for it. They even tried to slow down things they are for. Now, 
that is an unusual development. I have not seen that before. I have 
always thought the purpose of the filibuster and the unstated 
filibuster was to stop things you were against. Well, my Lord, we stop 
things on this floor that we are for.
  So, anyway, that is what gridlock is. That is the frustrating part, I 
think, for all of us. It is not that we are saying, ``Well, if you 
really oppose this bill, you should not fight to the death to stop it 
and use everything you can to stop it.'' But everything? Everything? A 
vote on a fellow named Sarokin. We kept trying to get a time agreement. 
This was repeated 100 times this year. What ordinarily would have taken 
a debate that would last 3 or 4 hours took a week. And so finally, I 
went to the majority leader and said we have to file a cloture motion 
to force everybody to the issue. We got a cloture motion. We get 
cloture and then over 70 people vote for the guy.
  Now, in the past, people did not come in here and filibuster on 
things that they did not think they had at least a remote possibility--
a remote possibility--of stopping. I am never as sure as to what the 
American people think as some of my colleagues are. Everybody always 
tells me what the American people think. I have enough trouble figuring 
out what my family thinks, and I am not sure I am good enough to know 
what the American people think. I think I know what the people of 
Delaware think, but as the Senator points out, in 2 years we will know 
whether or not I know, because I am up for reelection, if I run again. 
But I think what people are frustrated about is that there does not 
seem to be any sense of comity or good will to deal with problems 
everyone believes exist.
  I did not sign on to any one of the health care bills because I was 
not enamored with any one of them, but I believe we have to have health 
care reform. I was ready to participate in the process of negotiation, 
compromise, and debate, in order to do something about the health care 
system.
  I think the way we finance our campaigns is a disgrace. I have a way 
I think we should do it. Back as far as 1973, I introduced a bill 
saying we should publicly finance our campaigns so we are beholden to 
no one but our constituency. I do not expect people to accept my view, 
but I do expect us to say we should do something about the way we 
finance our campaigns.
  I do not suggest that my way on how to deal with and reform the 
system of lobbying in this place is the only way, but I do think that 
most Americans and most people in this body think we should do 
something about it.
  What has happened in the last couple of years is an all-or-nothing 
attitude; you do it exactly my way or it is not going to get done. And 
usually doing it exactly my way means you cannot get this done because, 
if you get it done, somebody is going to get credit for it and that 
will hurt my party.
  That is a bad deal. That may be a short-term prescription for 
winning, but I truly believe it is a long-term prescription for 
disaster for a participatory democracy.
  I truly believe that we are running ourselves into a circumstance 
where there is no win for any political party because the American 
people conclude that we cannot as institutions deal with things they 
know have to be fixed--campaign funding, gift bans, lobbying reform, 
health care, crime, which we finally did do after 6 years. It is no 
wonder people are frustrated.
  I know that my friend from Texas is an able, able Senator. I know 
that he has a very coherent, cogent philosophy. I wish we could just 
debate straight up, his philosophy versus mine, how we should govern 
ourselves as people, the Democrats' versus the Republicans' philosophy 
on how to proceed. But then ultimately come to a resolution. When a 
majority of people in this body, in a representative Government, feel 
we should move in one direction, we should be allowed to move.
  (Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BIDEN. Democracy is a very fragile thing, Madam President. It 
rests ultimately on the instinctive trust of the people--that the 
system that is designed to facilitate democratic principles is one that 
can work. My friends are going a long way to accomplish what some have 
publicly stated, that the only way to repair the system is to tear it 
down. If that is the objective, they are succeeding, I am afraid. If 
the objective is to see that there are fewer Democratic desks on this 
side of the aisle next time and the time after, and more Republican 
desks, that may be a very Pyrrhic victory, if it occurs, because 
ultimately what happens is fewer and fewer Americans believe any of us 
here make any difference in their lives.
  I do not know how, in the most heterogeneous democracy in the history 
of mankind, you are able to make it function long term without 
instinctive trust in the institutions that are designed to allow it to 
function.
  I think we are doing a great disservice to this country by refusing 
to act. I am optimistic, Madam President. For all of us, Democrats and 
Republicans, it is an occupational requirement. You must be an optimist 
to be in this business. I am optimistic that although there may be 
momentary lapses, the American people pretty well understand what is 
starting to happen.
  I noticed a shift just in the last 3 days, Madam President. I am no 
political commentator, and I am not an analyst who has any claim on 
being able to tell you what trends are going on in the Nation. But I 
noticed one thing, just a very simple proposition. I commute back and 
forth to my home State every single day. I get on the train at 7:30 in 
the morning, thereabouts, 7:36, and I usually leave here at 8 o'clock 
at night and get home at 10. I do it every single day the Senate is in 
session.
  It is my choice to do it that way. A lot of my colleagues would like 
to do it, too, but they live in Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, 
and Wyoming. There is no trick. I am just lucky. But it is an 
interesting thing. I do not want to make more of this than it is. But 
during the summer, no one had any appreciation or thought about 
anything having to do with gridlock. It was not that. The Democrats 
just could not get their act together. That is what this was all about. 
That is what I would hear on the platform. That is what I would hear 
when I would stop at the 7-Eleven, or when I would stop at a little 
pizza place--the best pizza in the country, Girardo's Pizza. I stop in 
there and they ask me--the woman who runs Girardo's Pizza--``Joe, why 
can't you get this going? What's the matter?''
  Now what I am starting to hear is, ``Why don't Republicans want 
anything to happen?'' I may be wrong. We are going to find out soon. 
But I notice a shift in the paper in the last 3 or 4 days. For the 
first time, the papers are starting to write flat out what, as Barry 
Goldwater would say, in their hearts they have known all along but have 
not written. That is, stopping everything between now and election day 
is part of a broad strategy. Whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, 
anything that passes is viewed as a success. Anything that is a success 
is viewed as a credit to a Democrat.
  I do not believe that is how it works, by the way. But that is how I 
think they think. And any success diminishes the possibility of winning 
and increasing Republican majorities or minorities, and therefore they 
are shutting it all down.
  Well, they may end with the result that is being sought. I have never 
been that good of a political prognosticator. So I cannot tell you what 
is going to happen. All I can tell you is that I truly believe it is 
not good for this country, for the political parties, either one, to 
decide that the road to success is to stop action on the problems that 
face America. I do not think that is a good thing.

  I might conclude, Madam President, by pointing out how much I 
absolutely admire your forbearance. You have been working since you got 
here in the Senate to pass a bill that 73 U.S. Senators think is 
important, that Democrats and Republicans in your State think is 
critical--the California desert bill. She continues to evidence the 
grace and patience that she is known for. I admire it. But I would be 
mildly frustrated. That is not to suggest that my friend from Wyoming 
and others do not have a right to try to stop it. But I think that is 
what the American people mean by gridlock when 73 U.S. Senators and the 
House of Representatives have already acted on a matter that relates to 
putting aside a chunk of America into a system that guarantees its 
continued existence--and it is imperiled.
  This is not a great ideological debate about whether or not we are 
going to have the Government run the health care system or whether or 
not we are going to invade Xanadu. There is no such country, I might 
add. This is about what an overwhelming number of people want in the 
region of the Senator from California. What an overwhelming number of 
U.S. Senators want, and what the House of Representatives already 
decided they want. And because we are getting down to the wire in time, 
it is imperiled. I think that is what people think gridlock is. At 
least that is what I think it is.
  But then again, as I said, I am not nearly as certain as others what 
the American people think and know. All I know is that I think it is a 
shame the way in which we have operated over the last 9 months. We have 
been kept from being able to arrive at intelligent compromises on 
matters that are of great concern to me, my mother, my father, my wife, 
my family, the citizens of my State and I think the vast majority of 
Americans--reforming our campaign system, reforming the gift system, 
reforming the lobbying system, putting Americans back in control rather 
than special interests in control.
  I cannot believe that they do not want us to do anything about those 
things. But, if they do, the real stark choice here is not whether you 
want the Clinton health care bill or any particular bill. At issue is, 
do you want anything done about these issues or do you want nothing 
done? If you want nothing done, give the Republicans credit because 
they have succeeded. Even though we have had a majority of people on 
almost all of these issues, they have succeeded. If you want something 
done and you believe there is a need for constructive change, then also 
give them the blame.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to congratulate and thank 
the Senator from Delaware for his comments. He has been here longer 
than many of us on our side of the aisle. He and I actually began our 
political careers from different angles some 20 or so years ago. But it 
is interesting. I think that both of us came into this process with the 
view that it was an honorable profession that people ought to aspire 
to, and with the goal of trying to do what is in the best interests of 
the country.
  I have been sitting in the Chair presiding for the last hour, and had 
the opportunity, like my colleague from Delaware, to think about the 
U.S. Senate while I listened to my colleague from the other side of the 
aisle. During this time, I was reminded of the great story by Harry 
Truman who once, during the early years of his service in the U.S. 
Senate, used to at times sit over there in the back of this Chamber, 
and write letters home to his mother. One time he wrote her late at 
night during a debate. It was late at night and he was barely a 
freshman. He looked across this great Chamber, he pondered for a 
moment, and then he wrote.

       Dearest Mother: It is another late night in the Senate, and 
     we are debating the great issues of our time. And I look 
     across this great Chamber. And I look across the aisle, and I 
     see the ghosts of great Senators past, and I pinch myself. 
     And I say, ``How the hell did I get here anyway?''

  And then about 4 months later he was again on another late night 
debate out on the Senate floor and again he wrote a letter to his 
mother. He said:

       Dearest Mother: Again a late night in the Senate. Again, we 
     are debating great issues of war and peace, and here I am in 
     this night looking across this great Chamber. And I look 
     across the aisle at my colleagues, and I pinch myself. And I 
     say, ``How the hell did they get here anyway?''

  There really is, it seems to me, a very, very serious problem brewing 
in this institution--not just on the House side but on this side of the 
Capitol; if we do not understand that, if we really do not understand 
and connect to what the American people want us to do relative to and 
compared to what we are doing, then I suppose the American people are 
absolutely correct in saying ``throw them out.'' It is our actions in 
the U.S. Senate and in the Congress that are fueling a term limit 
revolution in this country, which is rather silly when you think about 
it because we already have term limits. The last time I looked, the 
Constitution said our term was 6 years. The last time I looked at the 
Constitution it said the term limit in the House was 2 years.
  But everybody suddenly is saying, my God, we have to have term 
limits. The reason is that the average person cannot connect to the 
American political process. The reason is that there is so much money 
in American politics that the average person cannot run for the U.S. 
Senate or Congress. You have to be like this fellow out in California 
who can pour millions and millions of dollars of his own money into 
his. Even Senator Dole said the other day that the race in California 
is a strange one, because when he goes to one of Mr. Huffington's 
fundraisers, it is Mr. Huffington who gives him money.
  I mean, this is out of proportion to anything that the Founding 
Fathers ever dreamed of. Money is separating the American people from 
their politicians, from the people who are supposed to represent them. 
I think most Americans understand that. Most Americans have said they 
want us to change that. Sixty-three U.S. Senators voted to change that. 
We passed legislation. But because you have to jump through hoops 
several times in this institution to get something done, when what had 
already passed came back to be passed again, a few, a very few Senators 
decided not to let the public have its way. And once again the 
filibuster reared its ugly head.
  Our friend from Texas came to the floor and talked about health care 
and tried to pretend that what the Republicans have been doing is in 
fact preventing Americans from the harm that is going to be done to 
them by overzealous legislators, by a Congress that keeps mucking up 
their lives.
  But when you measure that very appealing rhetoric, when you measure 
that against the reality of what we were in fact trying to do for 
people, it does not stand up. And he knows it. That is why he wants to 
dwell on health care because he wants all of these good people who 
listen to these debates and who try to analyze what is happening in 
Washington to say that what this election really ought to be framed on 
is the failure of the President and the Democrats to get health care. 
And that somehow the failure is due to those who worked for health care 
reform, and not to those who prevented it.
  What the Senator from Texas also wants to do is prevent America from 
understanding the real record of accomplishment of this Congress and of 
the President. And the truth sometimes is inescapable, even considering 
the power of negative media and advertisements. As Bobby Kennedy said, 
``It is the truth that sets us free.''
  The truth, Madam President, is that the record is inescapable on what 
has happened to this Congress and this Senate because of filibusters, 
obstructionism, and gridlock. And I know that some of my colleagues on 
other side of the aisle have raised this issue in caucuses and are 
nervous about the potential of this strategy because that is what it 
is--a conscious Republican strategy to benefit their party at the 
expense of the people. It is a strategy to forsake America just to 
impact the elections so that one political party can win; not so that 
America can win, not so that kids in our schools can win, not so that 
people who are subjected to violence in too many communities can win, 
but that one side, one party, can win.
  And as we all know, one party has become particularly adept at 
holding onto the White House; one party always has a White House 
strategy. That, to them, is the only prize--not a good piece of 
legislation, not something better for the country, not to change 
something, improve something, to better the way we provide services, 
not to reduce the size of Government; but simply the ability to be able 
to destroy a sitting President and win back the White House.
  Let the truth speak for itself. In 34 Congresses, from 1919 until 
1986, there were a total of 217 votes on cloture motions. That is an 
average of three per year. From 1919 until 1986, an average of 
approximately three per year. Between 1987--when the politics of this 
country began to radically change in the 1980's--and 1992, there were 
115 votes on cloture motions, which is an average of 19 votes per year. 
Suddenly, a meteoric rise in filibusters.
  In the 100th Congress, there were 43 votes on cloture motions. In the 
101st, there were 24; in the 102d, 48. And now we come to the grand 
103d session. In the the 103d, there have been 72 cloture motions filed 
and 41 recorded cloture votes. A grand record number of cloture votes 
and cloture motions, a proud, recordbreaking amount of obstructionism.
  What does that mean? What does it mean to an American when you 
translate that into what really goes on around here? It means that 
campaign finance reform, the effort to get the money out of American 
politics, was killed by filibuster. I will agree with my colleagues, 
sure, there were some problems in the bill. But Republicans didn't even 
let us get to a conference committee where you are supposed to work 
these problems out. They prevented the U.S. Senate from even doing its 
basic work of reaching a compromise. They simply killed it by 
filibuster.
  The huge number of filibusters mean that health care dies. Stall 
tactics killed the Telecommunications Act. I serve on the Commerce 
Committee, and I know the effort Senator Hollings, Senator Danforth, 
Senator Packwood, and others--a bipartisan group--put into the effort 
to get a telecommunications bill. And we did it with good reason, 
because the communications industry is going crazy in development. This 
country has cable, video, and telephone systems, all of them struggling 
to be able to compete in an increasingly competitive world, and they 
are forced to operate under a system designed 60 years ago.
  So you have a bipartisan bill that came out of committee, that came 
out of committee with a bipartisan vote of 18 to 2. It would have 
passed on the floor of the Senate. But at the last minute, in order to 
prevent another success, in order to stop another change, another piece 
of progress, it was killed by a demand for changes that were so onerous 
and contrary to the compromise that had been worked out, it augured 
filibuster. So it was a silent filibuster in effect. We never even had 
to file a cloture motion. It was just killed.
  The clean water reauthorization. And the lobbying disclosure bill. We 
just had another vote on that here today. The Senator from Delaware was 
absolutely correct. I hope Americans will measure what those who stop 
things have accomplished versus what those who want to change things 
accomplish. Some people in the U.S. Senate--the majority until just 
recently--felt that in order to establish trust with the American 
people, it was our obligation to try to reduce the perception that 
everybody around here can get a free gift, free tickets, free 
everything simply because we are Senators and we vote on legislation. 
So there was a feeling that to try to reestablish trust that ought to 
be eliminated. But what happens?
  There appears a phony kind of grassroots movement at the last moment, 
because some people just did not want a good bill to pass. So now, 
America, this system continues even though everybody in the country 
knows it stinks. So I hope, as the Senator from Delaware said, people 
will measure who is responsible for that.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act. Most people here don't want our kids 
drinking lead or toxics and chemicals that seep into our drinking 
water. We want to do something about the quality of drinking water and 
continue helping communities that are hard pressed to be able to afford 
clean water. But, no, that too was killed.
  Maritime reform. We are losing our maritime industry. We desperately 
need to help our ships, to keep them flying American flags, and keep 
shipbuilders in business in America. This is good for our future. But a 
few Republicans didn't care, so they killed it. It is not as if they 
came in and said: Hey, let's work this out. Here is a compromise, or 
here is a problem in your legislation that really makes a difference to 
my community, and if we were to approach it this way or that way--that 
is the normal thing you're supposed to do around here. But normality is 
not the order of the day here.
  I have said it before and I say it again: There is a scorched Earth 
policy underway to try to prevent anything from happening in Congress 
so that the Congress will look bad so that, hopefully, the Republicans 
will be the beneficiaries, because they can go out to the country and 
they can say: You see, those Democrats are in the majority and they 
cannot run the show. Frankly, Republicans get away with this strategy 
because America does not understand that you have seven different 
cloture opportunities just to get one piece of legislation through 
here. And America does not understand that it takes 60 votes in order 
to break the logjam every time--not just a majority, which the 
Democrats have; not just 51, which the Democrats have--America just 
doesn't understand that a very few people can kill any bill in the 
Chamber. And Republicans can make people look silly and foul the whole 
process up and go out and claim victory.
  The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about this when Carthage was 
pillaged. He said: ``You know, they made a desert and they called it 
peace.''
  That is what is happening here--just ravaging this process, and when 
it is finished, we are going to call it peace, constructive, or 
something positive. I think America knows differently, I really do. I 
trust that and I hope it is true.
  Let me tell you the other reason why the Senator from Texas spent so 
much time on health care. The Senator from Texas is the same Senator 
who came to the floor and told America that the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act--the budget, as we know it, or as Americans know 
it--was going to cost Americans jobs, put us into a depression, and was 
not going to lower the deficit, and was one of the worst economic 
programs in history. That is the same person America just heard telling 
you about gridlock. What is the truth of what happened when we passed 
the budget?
  Well, they do not want to tell you, America, that for the first time 
in 3 years the deficit of the United States of America is going down, 
and this is the first time since Harry Truman was President of the 
United States that you can say that in America. They do not want to 
tell you that.
  So the Senator from Texas comes out here and he talks about health 
care. Republicans do not want to tell you what a great success it was 
for the President to pass NAFTA, to pass the Brady bill, to pass the 
crime bill, to pass interstate banking, to pass the Community 
Development Financial Institutions Act, to pass an increase in student 
loans, to get Goals 2000 through here so we finally begin to elevate 
the standards of our schools, to get the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act through here so we are finally going to redress the 
impoverishment of many of our inner cities and try to equalize 
education for kids in America.
  We hear a lot of talk about values from the very people who are 
stopping these very programs from going through here, and they just do 
not want to acknowledge to Americans that values are not transferred by 
rhetoric, values are not transferred by political party platforms, 
values are not transferred by speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate. 
Values are taught. Values and morals are passed on by teachers in one 
form or another, a teacher as a parent, a teacher as a Sunday school 
instructor or synagogue instructor, a teacher in the context of life in 
a boys and girls school.
  And our friends have filibustered us on every single effort, 
including the crime bill, that tries to deal with those kinds of 
problems, that tries to avoid rhetoric and instead to provide 
opportunities for kids to have prolonged exposure to responsible adults 
with values.
  So, Madam President, that is why they talk about health care. I 
think, as the Senator from Delaware said, they have adopted a very, 
very dangerous strategy indeed, if not dangerous for them personally or 
politically or for a party, certainly dangerous for the country, 
because the bottom line is that we are on the same path today as a 
consequence of this avoidance of decisionmaking as we were a number of 
years ago when everything was avoidance and we were having happy talk 
for politics and no effort to try to choose a realistic set of choices 
for the problems of this country.
  I am like my colleague from Delaware; I did not sign onto a health 
care bill. I thought there were problems in most of them. But I 
certainly was willing to sit down at anybody's table at any time to 
work them out. And the record is also very clear about the number of 
times the President of the United States met with our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, the number of times that Hillary Rodham 
Clinton met with the leadership or individually with Senators on the 
other side of the aisle. And every time Democrats got closer, 
Republicans moved away, moving away even from the very legislation that 
they themselves had introduced and had at one time championed.
  So I think the record is about as clear as you can make a record. But 
for some reason it does not get through very easily in this country 
today.
  The fact is we have created more jobs in the last 2 years than were 
created in the entire Bush administration. Republicans do not like to 
talk about that. The fact is that the deficit of this country has gone 
from 4.5 percent of gross domestic product down to 2.4 percent, one-
half. They do not like to talk about that. The fact is that inflation 
remains low, unemployment is coming down, and we are on a deficit-
reduction line. They do not want to talk about that.
  Then you look at the record of their avoidance--filibustering the 
crime bill; filibustering the national service bill to put young people 
to work for their country; filibustering the Family and Medical Leave 
Act which we finally passed; filibustering the motor-voter bill, which 
we finally passed; trying to stop the Interior appropriations bill, 
which protects parks and forests, which we passed; trying to kill the 
Brady bill which makes it tougher for criminals to buy a gun; trying to 
halt the assault weapons ban which the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
the Senator from California, fought so hard and offered leadership here 
to get through. They filibustered that, too.
  So America has a choice, and my prayer is that the truth is going to 
begin to get out in this country and people will begin to understand 
what the real choices are, and I hope in the next 4 weeks of this 
election people will really tell the true story of what has happened in 
the U.S. Senate in the course of this Congress.
  I am not suggesting that there is not culpability to go around on 
some of the issues. There was procrastination in the House of 
Representatives. There was procrastination on our side of the aisle for 
months about proceeding forward with campaign finance reform. So there 
is certainly a share of blame to spread there, and there have been 
other individualistic efforts and lack of cohesion that we can 
certainly take some credit for.
  But the bottom line is this: almost every Senator on this side of the 
aisle certainly is prepared to vote today, now, and usually has been 
prepared to vote almost immediately on most measures--not always, but 
usually. But on the other side, they'd rather make us look bad than 
vote on anything.
  It is clear to me that if we do not break this process and prove to 
Americans we are willing to be adults and act a little more maturely in 
this process and come together and look for a larger legislative 
product and not just a political one, we are all going to suffer the 
results as a consequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________