[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7798-S7806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    GETTING AMERICA'S BUSINESS DONE

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, we heard a really stern leader 
yesterday talking to both sides of the aisle and to America about 
getting the job of America's business done. I think he made a very 
eloquent case in delineating the strategy on the other side of the 
aisle to bog the Congress down, to keep it gnarled up. At the base of 
it is a political strategy, and that political strategy is ignoring 
America's needs and interests.
  Just yesterday, the other side brought forth an outline of a program 
they call families first. But in the 104th Congress they have made 
American families and America last by stalling and filibustering and 
dragging their feet on issues that are of enormous interest to the 
welfare and benefit of millions of American families.
  I can think of none more important than health care reform. Getting 
that done would put American families first. And stalling it and 
filibustering it is putting American families last.
  Madam President, just to recount for a moment what the leader 
endeavored to move forward on behalf of America yesterday evening, he 
asked unanimous consent that the Senate insist on an amendment to H.R. 
3103 and that the Senate agree to the request for a conference with the 
House and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  Well, that is a lot of process. What that means is moving forward on 
health care reform, something that every American family is looking to 
the 104th Congress to do. And 87 percent of the American public want us 
to move forward on targeted health care reform, but we are in the 80th 
day of filibustering by the Senator from Massachusetts. The leader came 
to the floor and to the assembled body and said, ``I ask unanimous 
consent we go ahead, get the conferees and move forward on health care 
reform.'' The other side objected.
  The leader then asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill. One of the fundamental 
responsibilities of the Government, of the Federal Government, is to 
provide for the defense of the Nation and the keeping and care of our 
integral defense establishment. The other side objected.
  The leader then asked for unanimous consent to move forward with the 
immediate consideration of the White House Travel Office. As he said 
here on the floor, in all probability when that legislation finally 
comes to a vote, it will pass overwhelmingly. The other side objected. 
The leader asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the legislative 
matter that the Presiding Officer has had an interest in for so long, 
the stalking bill. That bill will

[[Page S7799]]

probably ultimately pass 100 to 0. But for days after days it has been 
stalled on the other side.
  When he asked for unanimous consent to turn to the calendar and bring 
up stalking legislation, which the Senator from Texas has pursued for 
so long, what happened? The other side objected.
  He asked for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the nuclear 
waste bill. There is probably not a single piece of legislation that 
has more significance to the environment and the safety of every 
American than the nuclear waste bill. I mean, we have over half the 
States that are deeply involved with how to manage nuclear waste. The 
leader spoke eloquently on the floor before yesterday about the 
importance of this legislation and the environmental impact it would 
have on our country. So he asked unanimous consent to proceed to this 
very important piece of legislation. The other side objected.
  He asked, once again, to proceed to the health insurance reform 
conferees--twice now. There is probably no single piece of legislation 
that would have such a profound effect on the anxiety of working 
families in America than untying health care reform. So again he asked 
for unanimous consent, and, yes, there was an objection on the other 
side of the aisle.
  So here, for all of these important pieces of legislation, it was 
demonstrated conclusively yesterday that the strategy of the other side 
is to just bog everything down. America last, politics first.
  To reinforce the point that I am endeavoring to make, the number of 
legislative items having cloture--that means trying to stop a 
filibuster, Madam President--we in the 104th Congress have 28 times 
tried to shut off a filibuster.
  The minute we return next Tuesday, our first task will be to try to 
shut down these filibusters from the other side.
  The Republican majority has filed 54 percent of their cloture motions 
on the first day a measure was considered. There was an argument that 
we have been doing that too often. But the other side, in the 103d 
Congress, has done it 60 percent of the time. America needs to know, 
particularly in light of a theme that they are putting American 
families first, that on 73 occasions they put American families last. 
They have had 73 filibusters in the 104th Congress on the other side of 
the aisle. The President has conducted 15 major vetoes of legislation 
that the 104th Congress sent to the President in response to America 
calling for major change in America. He vetoed balanced budgets, the 
President vetoed welfare reform, the President has vetoed tax relief, 
even after promising tax relief to the middle class. Over and over 
again, 73 filibusters and 15 vetoes.
  Mr. President, we will talk about a few of the filibusters. Unfunded 
mandates: We began the 104th Congress discussing an issue that had 
become, nationwide, highly visible. America was saying to Washington, 
``Quit mandating costs to our local governments.'' It is like 
appropriating our property taxes at the local level. The Federal 
Government would try to fulfill the need of some special interest up 
here in Washington, send it down to the States and local governments 
and say, ``Here, here is a new program. You pay for it.''
  Finally, in an unprecedented piece of legislation that was introduced 
to begin to control these unfunded mandates, wide support, bipartisan 
support, headed by the junior Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, 
Senate bill 1, we had to file four motions to shut off filibusters--
four of them--and then when we finally got it to a vote, it was 98 to 
2--98 to 2, overwhelming support for this legislation. Yet, we had to 
spend 3 weeks, 3 precious weeks, of the 104th Congress and had to, 4 
times, try to shut off the filibuster on the other side.
  It could not be clearer. It does not take a rocket scientist to 
understand that from day one, it was the intent of the other side to 
bog this Congress down. That was their reaction to the 1994 election 
mandate, drag it out, slow it down, see if we cannot get to another 
election so that all these changes that were talked about in the 1994 
elections could somehow be throttled or choked. Maybe it is just an 
interim phenomena and America will forget all these changes of wanting 
unfunded mandate control, taxes lowered, and welfare. Maybe we can get 
by by stalling and keeping that from happening. We will have 73 
filibusters. We will veto all this legislation and see if we cannot get 
through it.
  The balanced budget amendment, balanced budget amendment, House Joint 
Resolution 1, we had to try three different times to shut off the 
filibuster before we could actually get to a vote. I can go on, from 
product liability to interstate waste.
  Try this one: Antiterrorism. We had to even cut off a filibuster on 
antiterrorism before we could get to that bipartisan proposal. Welfare 
reform, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act took three 
attempts--three--to bring that to a vote. Then, after a tragic 
occurrence, the President wants the legislation to sign. Time and time 
again, 73 times.
  The President, as I said, has vetoed 15 propositions. Product 
liability was one, something the whole country has been endeavoring and 
calling for, product liability reform, the debt ceiling limit, the 
Balanced Budget Act, welfare reform--twice shut it down, stall and see 
if we cannot get to another election.
  There was a story by Carolyn Lockheed, the Washington bureau of the 
Chronicle, appearing July 8. She says: ``For Democrats, the hope is to 
deprive Republicans of any accomplishments.'' Now, is that putting 
American families first, or is that using all of this legislative time 
of the 104th Congress for political strategy? If you are going to put 
American families first, you are not going to have 73 filibusters and 
15 vetoes and veto balanced budgets and tax relief and welfare reform. 
She says, ``For Democrats, the hope is to deprive Republicans of any 
accomplishments.''
  Taking a page from the Republican playbook, unified Senate Democrats 
are filibustering or otherwise blocking and delaying almost anything 
that threatens to move. She says that the Senator from Massachusetts 
has succeeded in discombobulating the Republican majority with the bill 
to raise the minimum wage and has led the fight to stop--stop--the 
hugely popular health insurance reform legislation he cosponsored with 
Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum.
  I might just say, Mr. President, on this issue of health care reform, 
the Senator from Massachusetts often indicates the reason he is into 
his 80th day of filibustering a bill, that millions of Americans are 
suffering because it is not the law, the reason he says he is doing it 
is because we have a possibility that a conference report would include 
medical savings accounts, and that is just not the right thing to do 
because it was not in the Senate version, but it is in the House 
version, Madam President. It is in the House version. That is what 
conference reports are about, to work out the differences between House 
and Senate proposals. I guess he is going to filibuster this until he 
gets some assurance that he can manage what the White House thinks is 
appropriate for health care reform, and override the fact that almost 
half the Members of the Senate agree with the House on medical savings 
accounts.
  Madam President, I will talk for a moment about this filibuster that 
we have from the Senator from Massachusetts on health care reform. That 
is probably the single largest and most extended filibuster that we 
have been dealing with. As I said, Madam President, we are into our 
80th-plus day.
  In the Washington Post, an article quotes a fellow by the name of 
David Nexon, who is Senator Kennedy's health policy director, and the 
quote reads: ``If it''--that is the health care reform proposal--``[the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy health care bill] fails, just a narrow political 
calculation, it helps us''--that is the Democrat side--``more than 
them''--that is the Republican side--``because then we can credibly 
blame the Republicans for killing it.''
  In other words, again, as I said earlier, American families last. The 
American workplace is trying to find an insurance environment that is 
easier for them to deal with, that comes secondary to having a 
political advantage and being able to blame somebody for the fact that 
health care reform, which is so needed, could not get passed. Well, I 
think it is eminently clear that this idea is not going to work. If we 
do not

[[Page S7800]]

have health care reform, it will rest squarely on the shoulders of the 
senior Senator from Massachusetts and this administration because it 
will be clear, and there will be no mistake that they have been engaged 
in an extended filibuster over the interests of American families, who 
are trying to find a better and friendlier health insurance marketplace 
for them and their spouses and their children.
  How about this quote: ``Certainly, his views haven't changed.''
  That is, President Clinton's views. He was addressing an audience of 
health care executives, hospital trustees, and others, at a symposium 
sponsored by the Hospital Association of Rhode Island. Ira Magaziner--
if we remember, he was, along with Mrs. Clinton, a principal architect 
of Government health care, a huge Government-run system. We all 
remember the charts that were shown here on this massive Government 
takeover of medicine. Well, Ira Magaziner said, ``The American public 
still cries out for a comprehensive health care system, and President 
Clinton remains committed to this idea. Indeed, the President will try 
again if a more receptive Congress is ever elected.''
  Well, that means to try again for a massive Government-run health 
care program. That brings up an interesting point.
  Now, the President promised tax relief to the middle class. Just 
yesterday, I pointed to the book called ``People First,'' where, on 
page 15, he promised a middle-class tax cut. But that became virtually 
a half-trillion-dollar tax increase--the exact opposite of what was 
promised. Then, yesterday, we had the Families First Program--from 
People First to Families First. CBO says that could cost another half-
trillion dollars. This Government-run health program that America 
rejected, for which is still harbored hope on the other side to 
resurrect, that was about another $200 billion in tax increases. The 
net effect of all of that, I might add, requires that the average 
working family in America forfeits about another $6,000 to $8,000 of 
their income to the Government. That is what all this adds up to.
  Another quote: ``We're going to get this done, and we're going to 
keep coming back at it * * *. If we can have a big sweep for the 
Democrats in the House and the Senate, we'll get single payer.'' That 
means Government-run health care. Who said that? Well, the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts said that.
  So maybe now it is becoming a little clearer as to exactly why this 
filibuster is going on. The idea is, do not get the targeted health 
care reform that Americans have asked for. Let us throttle that and let 
us see if we cannot stall the 104th Congress, and maybe the American 
people will change the balance here and we can get back to pursuing our 
ultimate goal, which is a national Government-run health care program, 
with massive new taxes to run it, and an opportunity for the Government 
to be expanded even beyond 50 percent of the American economy.
  This is Senator Kennedy's quote: ``I'm strongly in favor of universal 
comprehensive health care for all Americans.'' That was Senator Kennedy 
on ``Larry King Live,'' May 8, 1996.
  Senator Kennedy's key aide said, ``It may be that, ultimately, the 
effect of our bill is to lead the Government to take further steps to 
increase coverage and control costs of health care. My boss still wants 
universal coverage with cost containment * * *.''
  So from his point of view the foot is in the door and that is a good 
thing. There can be no mistake that we are engaged in an attempt to 
throttle targeted health care reform, to stall, and to wait to see if 
there is an opportunity to move to broader health care reform.
  Now, Mr. President, one of the centerpieces of contention that is 
always brought up about the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy, is that the other side, the House, has a proposal called 
medical savings accounts, and somehow that is objectionable.
  Madam President, it has been determined by the General Accounting 
Office that 25 million Americans could be helped by this targeted 
health care reform proposal. We need to understand that, in this 
proposal, there are a number of features that the American public are 
waiting for. One is that it ensures portability. What does that mean? 
The health care reform proposal is designed so that the health care 
insurance can move with the employee if they change jobs. Currently, in 
the workplace, many of the insurance policies, if the employee wants to 
move from job A to job B, the insurance stays with the old employer. So 
they become vulnerable. They have to leave their job, and their 
insurance does not travel with them. That is a very, very important 
problem, one which the health care reform that is being filibustered 
solved.
  The proposal fights fraud and abuse. It creates a national health 
care fraud and abuse control program to coordinate Federal, State, 
local law enforcement actions. Funding is increased for investigation 
and prosecution. I do not talk to many citizens, Madam President, that 
I do not hear a deep concern, usually followed by anecdotal incidents. 
They know of somebody that got in an ambulance and was taken 300 miles 
to another hospital and it was at the cost of the insurance or to the 
Government. They will name some incident they have seen, some bill that 
they got--a bill that is three times the normal cost. They want us to 
pursue this fraud and abuse. This health care reform proposal 
accomplishes that.
  Madam President, this legislation will make health insurance far 
easier to obtain in our workplace, because it deals with the issue of 
preexisting conditions. It makes it more possible for individuals to 
get insurance who do not have it. That is an important ingredient. You 
have many, many Americans today that are worried and concerned that 
they have a preexisting condition and even though they want to be 
responsible and they want to obtain health insurance, they cannot do it 
because they have had a preexisting condition, some health problem in 
their past.
  This measure begins to get at that problem and begins to make it 
easier for people with preexisting conditions to get their insurance.
  Madam President, it also, in the House version, includes a provision 
for medical savings accounts. This is the issue that the Senator from 
Massachusetts focuses on. He uses that as the principal reason for his 
filibuster.
  I suggest that my quotes earlier said that there is another reason. 
He wants to see if he can stall this and block it so that maybe there 
is another chance to go back to the total Government-run health care 
system that America says it clearly does not want. It wants the 
targeted reform, just as I have described. So he has taken this medical 
savings account and set it out as the red herring, as I would call it.
  Just what is a medical savings account? A medical savings account is 
a great new idea and product for the marketplace. It would lower costs 
for people trying to get health insurance. A lot of small companies in 
America do not offer health insurance. A large number of Americans who 
do not have access to health insurance are employed by the very, very 
small companies who cannot afford a health insurance program. The 
medical savings account gets at this target and would take millions of 
Americans off the uninsured rolls and get them into insurance.
  It is a great idea because it basically eliminates the front-end 
deductible and the back-end copayment and at the same time lowers 
costs. I am going to come back to that in just a moment and talk some 
more about medical savings accounts.
  We have been joined by the assistant majority leader, the Senator 
from Oklahoma. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma on 
this subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Thank you very much, Madam President. I compliment my 
friend and colleague from Georgia for bringing to the attention of the 
American people issues which the Senate needs to work, and it needs to 
move forward with the Nation's business. We have found it increasingly 
difficult because we have been frustrated by the obstructionist tactics 
by Members of the Democratic Party in the Senate.
  The Senate is a great body in which to serve. It is a body that has 
rules that are open for debate. I like that. It is a body where it is 
easy to have

[[Page S7801]]

amendments. You can amend anything. You can have any amendment on any 
issue. It does not have to be germane. I happen to like that. I will 
defend that right. It gives the minority enormous power to influence 
and delay and obstruct. Right now we have seen the minority using a lot 
of the Senate rules to obstruct, to delay, and to make it very 
difficult to pass legislation. Unfortunately, a lot of that legislation 
is very much needed.
  We have before the Senate right now for example the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill. I have been around here a long time. I 
cannot remember anybody ever filibustering that bill because we all 
know it needs to pass. We know we need to fund the military. We need to 
make decisions on how many people we are going to have in the Armed 
Forces and what we are going to pay them. We need to have decisions 
made on what we are going to buy as far as airplanes, as far as 
equipment, as far as munitions, and as far as research and development. 
We may have differences of opinion on how much, but we have to make 
those decisions. You cannot make the decision unless you have the bill 
on the floor.
  In this case, we have Senators Inouye and Stevens, two of our more 
respected Members and two of our more talented legislators, who have 
been totally frustrated for 3 days trying to bring that bill to the 
floor. They are ready to go to work. I remember seeing both Senators 
having their notebooks and ready to go to work. That was on Wednesday 
afternoon. We have yet to have any substantive, real debate on the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill because a couple of 
Senators--and I respect their rights--are filibustering that bill 
because they think this will delay consideration of the nuclear waste 
disposal bill, which may come up after DOD. So, if they can filibuster 
and tie up the DOD appropriations bill, maybe that will help protect 
them as far as the nuclear waste bill. I disagree with that strategy.

  I respect the Senators from Nevada, and I respect their right to try 
to protect their State. But by delaying action on the Department of 
Defense bill, I do not think they are helping their case one iota as 
far as Nevada is concerned. That is just the latest tactic. That is 
rather unusual--very unusual, I might say--to filibuster one bill, 
particularly a bill as important as the Department of Defense bill, to 
hopefully influence legislation on the nuclear waste bill, or a bill 
that is coming subsequently; very unusual in my opinion; not a good 
tactic, in my opinion; not helpful for the Senate.
  The Senate needs to do its work on the appropriations bills. If 
people have philosophical differences on different issues which they 
feel strongly about, they have a right to filibuster those, but not 
really on appropriations bills. It does not make any sense to 
filibuster appropriations bills. We know we have to pass these 
appropriations bills. They are all important. They probably all spend 
money that we should not spend, however, if Senators disagree with the 
way some of the money is spent, they can have amendments to strike that 
spending, to reduce the spending or to increase the spending. That is 
the way the system should work.
  We should not filibuster appropriations bills. We should give 
priority to appropriations bills over many others because we know we 
have to do that. We have to pass these bills.
  Again, we can fight, wrestle, argue, and amend over what the amount 
of money should be in those bills. But I think all of them agree that 
we should spend some money in each one of those 13 accounts for 
appropriations. To date, in the Senate, unfortunately, we have only 
passed one--military construction. We need to pass the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill. Hopefully, we will be able to get back to 
that on Tuesday and move forward.
  That is not the only case of obstruction that we have seen from our 
Democratic colleagues. Senator Coverdell mentioned the health care 
bill, the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. That bill passed the Senate 
in April by a vote of 100 to 0. The House has already passed it. The 
normal course of procedure is that we would appoint conferees and work 
out the differences between the House and the Senate.
  We have some differences between the House and the Senate--however, 
these are not real substantive differences in too many areas. But we 
need to go to conference to work them out. Senator Kennedy has 
obstructed that. He has objected to appointing conferees indicating he 
would filibuster any effort to appoint conferees. He may well have the 
opportunity to filibuster it.
  I think we need to make a decision. Are we going to allow one Senator 
to deny us the opportunity to go to conference for final action on a 
bill that passed the Senate 100 to 0? I think Senator Kennedy is wrong 
in objecting to this bill. This bill is an important bill. It bears his 
name--the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. It has a lot of provisions that are 
agreed upon with strong bipartisan support. We made some improvements 
in that bill as originally introduced.
  I remember some of our colleagues saying that we cannot amend that 
bill, that, if we amend it, we threaten the bill. We did amend it.
  We put in a provision that I know is of interest to the Presiding 
Officer that allows the self-employed to have deductions for health 
insurance rising from 30 to 80 percent. That is a very important 
provision, a good provision, one that passed. Nobody objected to it. We 
included it in the Finance Committee action. No one objected to it on 
the Senate floor. It must be a great provision. It certainly is common 
sense. It has some equity for taxes as far as health care is concerned. 
Major corporations get to deduct 100 percent. Why would a self-employed 
person only get to deduct 30 percent? It does not make sense. Now at 
least that is increased to 80 percent. It takes 7 years to get there. 
But that is a positive provision.
  Senator Kennedy right now is objecting to that provision because we 
are not able to get this bill to conference. I find that very 
important. He has objected now for 80 days; almost a record. I cannot 
find any bill that anybody has objected to longer for appointing 
conferees. If he wants to filibuster the bill when it comes out of 
conference, he has that right, and I respect that right. I may not 
agree with him, but at least I respect somebody who is abiding by the 
rules. Under the rules, you can filibuster appointment of conferees. 
That is what he is doing. But what he is doing is denying 25 million 
Americans portability between group insurance and individual insurance. 
In other words, if they leave a group--maybe they are working for a 
company that has health insurance and they are fired, or they quit, or 
they have to move, for whatever reason, and they want to go into a 
different plan--this bill says they will be able to move their 
insurance. They will be able to get coverage either in an individual 
policy or another group policy.
  That is a good provision. It has strong bipartisan support. By 
blocking the appointment of conferees, Senator Kennedy is not allowing 
us to take that up and pass it, and put it on the President's desk and 
have it become law.
  Ostensibly the reason the Democrats are objecting to appointing 
conferees is they do not like medical savings accounts. The House has a 
medical savings accounts provision that basically makes it available as 
an option for, I believe, most Americans. The Senate had a close vote, 
52 to 46, on medical savings accounts. We were not successful in having 
a broad medical savings accounts provision. And so since the Democrats 
do not want medical savings accounts they have refused to let the 
conference go forward. Even yesterday, the minority leader, Senator 
Daschle, said if you will give us the medical savings accounts 
provision or let us define it, then we will go to conference.
  That is not the way we do business. If we did business that way, the 
minority would say, well, we will not let you go to conference until we 
see the final outcome. In other words, the conference does not make any 
difference; we will write the final package or we do not have a bill or 
we will not go to conference.
  I disagree with that. That is a crummy way to legislate. That is not 
good, and we should not let it happen. And, frankly, we are not going 
to let it happen.
  The proposals we have made in an effort to compromise on this bill 
are several. We have already said that we

[[Page S7802]]

would drop medical malpractice liability reform that the House had in 
their bill and we did not have in our bill. We have already said, well, 
that will be dropped. We dropped purchasing alliances for small 
businesses. In my opinion, we should not have dropped it, but we did.
  So we have made several compromises. On medical savings accounts, we 
said that instead of making the medical savings accounts open for all 
people in the country, as I think we should, we will confine it to 
small business, to businesses with 50 or less, and the self-employed. I 
think that is a very minimal move toward medical savings accounts. As 
of yesterday, Senator Kennedy and others think that is still too 
generous. They do not want to give self-employed people the right to 
have a medical savings account or they do not want to give a small 
business with 50 or less employees the right to start a medical savings 
account.
  What are they afraid of? That it is going to work? Are they afraid 
they are going to be popular? Are they afraid they are going to take 
off and be a real success? Frankly, they will be. They will prove you 
can save money and you can provide an option.
  We are not mandating that anybody in America has to have a medical 
savings account. We are saying that should be an option. And if they 
choose it, great. If they do not choose it, that is great. It would be 
their option. It would be another method of obtaining health insurance. 
Individuals and small companies could decide for themselves where they 
would take that couple of thousands of dollars a year and say, well, if 
I do not use it on medical care, I can save if for long-term care.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I yield another 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. So we would allow small businesses the right to offer to 
their employees medical savings accounts as an option--not a mandate, 
as an option--so they could use that money. It would be their money. 
People are a lot more frugal with their own money than they are with 
Government money or they are with their employer's money. So there will 
be savings involved. That is positive. That is good.
  What is Senator Kennedy afraid of, that this is going to work? I have 
heard him say something about, well, this would be utilized by the 
wealthy and the healthy. I disagree with that. We had hearings and 
listened to people, school teachers and others, who really like this 
opportunity.
  The States have given them a small tax advantage. What we would do on 
the Federal level is allow them to have medical savings accounts, treat 
it somewhat like an individual retirement account, and if they do not 
use it for health care purposes, they could use it for long-term health 
care purposes. If they do not use it today, they would accumulate it. 
They do not have to use it or lose it. So people would have an 
incentive not to run up their medical expenses. They could save it and 
use it, if not this year, next year. They could save it for a real 
problem in the future or perhaps save it for dental care that their 
health care did not cover. Or maybe they could use it for long-term 
health care, which most people in this country do not save for, which 
makes eminent good sense.

  Madam President, I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the 
Democrat side have objected to appointing conferees on the health care 
bill which benefits up to 25 million Americans. We should move forward 
on that bill, and we should move forward on it now.
  I appreciate the fact that the majority leader yesterday tried to get 
unanimous consent to move to the health care bill, and once again, I 
think for probably about the eighth time, the Democrats have objected. 
I know that he will be making that motion again on Tuesday. I hope that 
they will reconsider. I have stated my intention to make sure that we 
move toward the health care conferees before we appoint conferees on 
the minimum wage. I think both conferences should be appointed. I do 
not make any bones about that. Both conferences should be appointed.
  We should not be objecting to conferees. We should let the majority 
will of the Senate go forth. But I do think it is important, for a 
little leverage, for Senator Kennedy and others, if they really want 
minimum wage, they are going to have to allow appointment of conferees 
on the health care bill. I hope they will see the wisdom in allowing 
the conferences go forward on both and see that the will of Congress 
can go forward on two very important issues.
  Madam President, again, I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia 
for his time and also for his leadership on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the assistant majority leader for his 
presentation and knowledge on this subject, his assistance in 
participating in our controlled time.
  Madam President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia for his 
leadership and giving us an opportunity to express ourselves on what 
appears to be the state of the Senate today.
  Far be it for me to come over here and argue that it is inappropriate 
for someone to filibuster, and I will not make that argument. The 
Senator from Kentucky is familiar with the procedure, has employed it 
on numerous occasions over the years, to good end, for the Nation.
  What I would like to say to my colleagues this morning, Mr. 
President, is I am not trying to turn the Senate into the House here. I 
understand the Senate is not the House. We all know from high school 
civics that in the House of Representatives, if you have a majority, 
you can run the place. The House of Representatives can be sort of like 
a triangle, with the Speaker and the chairman of the Rules Committee at 
the top of the triangle, and with the concurrence of a mere majority 
the place can be run like a fast train out of the station. The House of 
Representatives was constructed by the framers of our Constitution to 
be a place of great passion and quick reaction. That is the way it has 
always been, and we understand that.
  Many people in the House over the years have referred to the Senate 
as ``the House of Lords,'' with some degree of derision. The Senate was 
a ponderous place, a place in which things were contemplated for quite 
some time. And, boy, that is the way it has worked for 200 years, and, 
in fact, that was the way it was designed. Frequently, we heard the 
Senate described as the saucer underneath the coffee cup where the 
coffee sloshed down the cup into the saucer and cooled off.
  I am here to object to none of that. I am not in favor of changing 
the rules of the Senate. I am not in favor of diminishing the rights of 
the minority. But it seems to me what is going on right now in the 
Senate is different in several measurable ways from what has been 
experienced in the past. I could be wrong about this, but I cannot 
remember in any of the years I have been here in the minority that we 
tried to stop appropriations bills. It is one thing to attempt to stop, 
to pull together 41 people to try to do what you think is best for 
America by stopping a bad piece of legislation.
  We saved the country from ``Clintoncare,'' the Nation's most 
aggressive effort to take over all of health care by the Federal 
Government through the use of the filibuster. I make no apologies about 
that. I am proud of that. We stopped the stimulus package in 1993 
through the use of the filibuster, saved 20-odd billion dollars in 
waste. I make no apologies about that. We stopped an effort by the 
Government to take over all of the political campaigns and snuff out 
the voices of Americans and hand the check to the Treasury to support 
political campaigns. I make no apologies for that.
  However, never in the years I was here in the minority did we try to 
stop appropriations bills, the essential element of operating the 
Government.
  It seems to me that is what is going on here; an orchestrated effort 
on the

[[Page S7803]]

part of our friends on the other side of the aisle, maybe in 
conjunction and concurrence with the administration, to simply create a 
situation where the Government must come to a standstill, and to try to 
do it subtly, somehow to try to get it done in a way that everybody 
does not figure out what is going on.
  By any standard that is a new low. That is not trying to stop an 
issue on the merits because you think it is bad for America. That is 
saying we will not engage in the elementary, basic function of 
Government for which the Congress remains responsible, and that is 
discretionary spending. We cannot control interest on the national 
debt; we cannot control, at least on an annual basis, the entitlements; 
but the one thing we do do around here every year, at a bare minimum, 
is the 13 appropriations bills, the fundamental function of Government.
  So let me cite an example. I am chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee. It is not a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of 
things around here, but this year we will be appropriating about $12 
billion to pursue America's interests around the world through the use 
of means other than sending in the troops; another tool for the No. 1 
country in the world to pursue its interests around the world without 
the deployment of troops.
  Last year we had nine different votes on the foreign operations 
appropriations bill in the House and the Senate on the issue of 
population control, admittedly a very divisive issue upon which Members 
of this body and the other body are divided, on a bipartisan basis. But 
finally, after 5 months of ping-ponging this bill back and forth from 
the House to the Senate, trying to work out some kind of compromise on 
the population control issue that would bring the President's 
signature, we were able to do that. The President signed the bill. He 
signed the bill.
  This year I would say, Mr. President, in an effort to secure a 
signature on the foreign operations bill, the House of Representatives 
inserted into their version of the foreign operations bill exactly the 
language that the President signed in February--exactly. It was an 
effort to reach out to the administration and say, ``Let's not have a 
fight over this issue this year. It was a difficult compromise to 
achieve last year, so we will just put in exactly the language you 
signed in February--now.''
  ``Oh, but that is not good enough. What was good enough in February 
is not good enough now. We will not sign it again. The standard somehow 
has evolved from February until now.''
  What is going on here, Mr. President? There is no other conceivable 
explanation for that, than that the President would like to veto this 
appropriations bill. We have not sent it down to him yet. Hope springs 
eternal. Maybe that will not happen. But it is very difficult to deal 
with an administration that will not stay stuck to any position. These 
people can change positions in the middle of a sentence, and do--
frequently. Why? They are looking for a reason to stop the Government.
  Mr. President, that is what is going on here. I do not know whether 
there is sort of daily coordination between the White House and our 
friends on the other side of the aisle or not, but the effort here is 
to do the country harm--harm, by creating a crisis that does not exist. 
Because we are not arguing, here, in many of these instances, over 
freestanding policy matters. Although we are having a dispute here on 
the minimum wage and the health care bill, I want to say to the 
distinguished occupant of the chair, as someone who has filibustered 
appointment of conferees in the past myself, I think it was entirely 
appropriate for the assistant majority leader to take the position that 
what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to 
object to going to conference on health care, then why not object to 
going to conference on the minimum wage and small business tax bill? I 
think that linkage is appropriate. I think it makes sense. It seems to 
me it might bring about a condition where we can pass two bills that at 
this point clearly ought to pass the Senate and the House.
  But what I fear we are going to see here in the next few months, not 
only on that side of the aisle but also downtown, is an effort to 
create reasons to not engage in the basic function of Government, which 
is to pass these annual appropriations bills. I think it is important 
for the American people to understand what is going on here; basic 
functions of Government, not big ideological disputes about the future 
of the country, but the fundamental activity of the Congress.
  Hopefully, this will not continue much longer. I commend the majority 
leader, who is not on the floor at the moment, but I want to commend 
the majority leader for finally going on and talking about it in 
public. We have been sort of sensing what has been going on around 
here. Everybody has been sort of exasperated about it. You kind of hate 
to admit publicly this body has declined to that level, but it is time 
to talk about it and I commend him for doing that. Hopefully our public 
discussion of this will bring about a more cooperative framework for 
advancing the business of the U.S. Senate.

  With that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Kentucky 
leaves, he has given us a good civics lesson on the nature of the 
Senate, with which I agree. I concur that the rules ought not to be 
changed. But, if I might just make one point that I made before the 
Senator arrived, the Senator has conducted filibusters, and on very 
contentious issues for which there were deep divisions. But we opened 
the 104th Congress on the unfunded mandate bill which passed here 98 to 
2, which was filibustered by the other side for 3 weeks. That is a 
distinction. That was not a filibuster over the issue embraced in the 
bill. It was a strategic design to thwart the interests of the American 
people and it is not families first, it is America last.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator makes a very important point. I thought we 
wanted to pass a health care bill. This is essentially the same bill we 
wanted to pass in 1991. I thought they wanted to pass the minimum wage 
bill. The Senator from Georgia, I think, makes a very important point 
as to what is going on here. This is not about principle. There is no 
principle involved here. This is pure sabotage. I thank my friend from 
Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Kentucky and I turn to the 
distinguished Senator from Texas and yield up to 10 minutes to Senator 
Hutchison of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia, who 
wanted to talk about the gridlock that has come over the Senate, really 
in the last year and a half. But I think it is beginning to show, 
because our distinguished majority leader made the eloquent effort 
yesterday to bring up nine separate bills, and had objections raised to 
every one of them.
  These are bills that range from the health care reform bill that was 
passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, which is being held up from even 
having conferees appointed for it, to a stalking bill that was passed 
unanimously by the House of Representatives and would be passed 
unanimously out of the U.S. Senate but for the objection of one 
colleague from the Democratic side.
  Mr. President, we have had, in the last year and a half since Senator 
Daschle became minority leader, over 65 cloture motions that have been 
required to try to get on with the business of the Senate. Let me just 
give a list of a few of those.
  Unfunded mandates, to keep the States from having to pay for the 
mandates that are dreamed up in Washington, D.C. It took four cloture 
motions to bring the bill up, and once it was brought up the bill 
passed nearly unanimously.
  Balanced budget amendment to the Constitution: That is what the 
people of this country have been asking for, a balanced budget 
amendment so that when we do finally balance the budget, hopefully, we 
will never again see the spectacle of a Congress that will tax our 
future generations for the programs that we ask for today. It took

[[Page S7804]]

three cloture motions before we could debate that bill. And when we 
finally did, we lost it by one vote.
  Striker replacement, line-item veto, health insurance tax deductions 
for the self-employed and the small businesses of this country: Every 
one of these required cloture votes before we could even talk about 
them on the floor, debate the differences and pass them.
  Let's go one step beyond. When we are talking about gridlock, it is 
not just the Democrats in the Senate, it is also President Clinton. It 
is the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Clinton has vetoed 
15 bills, 15 bills that have finally made it through this Congress, and 
of those 15, I want to read you what they are, because I think it is 
important to see the differences between President Clinton and the 
Democrats in Congress and what they would do versus what the 
Republicans would do, as shown by what we have passed in Congress.
  The Bosnia-Herzegovina Self-Defense Act, vetoed by the President. 
This would have allowed the Moslems to arm and train themselves so that 
we might not have had to send Americans with a NATO force to bring 
peace to that country. They might have settled it 2 years earlier if we 
had given them the right to have free access to defend themselves. It 
was vetoed by the President.
  Seven-year balanced budget: The President promised the American 
people a balanced budget. So did Members of Congress. Congress 
produced, and the President vetoed it.
  Securities litigation reform: We were trying to have litigation 
reform that would cut the costs of the securities industry in this 
country and for the investors in this country. It was vetoed by the 
President. That one was overridden.
  Welfare reform: Another promise of the President to the American 
people, a promise kept by the Republican Congress, vetoed by the 
President.
  A ban on partial-birth abortions; a ban on killing babies that are 
halfway out of the mother's womb: Vetoed by the President.
  Product liability reform: The single most important litigation reform 
bill that has been passed by this Congress that would have tried to 
bring down the costs of regulation and the prices to consumers, product 
liability reform, vetoed by the President.
  The rest of the bills vetoed by the President were appropriations 
bills for specific agencies and departments of Government or 
authorization bills to run the departments of Government.
  I think we are beginning to see a pattern here, a pattern of gridlock 
and obstruction, a pattern of broken promises. I think the American 
people deserve to know what Congress is trying to do and what we are 
being obstructed from doing.
  Let's talk about some of the items that our majority leader tried to 
bring up yesterday. He mentioned the stalking bill. The stalking bill 
is my bill. It was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. 
It is being held up because one Senator wants to put a gun control 
amendment on the bill.
  Other Senators had amendments that they had hoped to offer on this 
bill. Senator Feinstein had an amendment. Senator Gramm of Texas had an 
amendment. They were willing to step back because they knew if we 
opened up the bill, we might not be able to get it passed, and, of 
course, we were hoping to send it directly to the President after its 
unanimous passage by the House of Representatives. So they agreed to 
step back and not change it so that it could go directly to the 
President and give to the stalking victims of this country another 
measure to help protect them from threats and harassment that might be 
fulfilled, because we have not passed this bill that would allow the 
FBI to come in and track a stalker that goes from one State to another.
  This is especially important in a State like New York, where many of 
the people who work in the New York metropolitan area live in 
Connecticut or New Jersey. It is especially important where the threats 
become so great that a victim moves to another State to elude the 
threat and harassment and is followed by the stalker, and there is no 
way to have the ability to clamp down on that stalker before he 
fulfills his mission of beating up or murdering the victim. This bill 
is being held up for no good reason.
  Why would we have a holdup on health insurance reform? The American 
people have asked for health insurance reform. They have asked for 
portability so that if they lose their jobs, they will not worry about 
losing their health care coverage. They have asked that we do away with 
preexisting condition clauses because they are worried that if they do 
change jobs, their insurance company will say, ``No, I'm sorry, we 
cannot take you on because you or someone in your family has an illness 
that might be expensive.''
  That is what the bill does that was passed overwhelmingly by the 
Senate and by the House. Why would it be held up? Why would it be 
filibustered for 2 months?
  The Senator from Massachusetts has raised the objections because----
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. FORD. It is medical savings accounts that the Senate turned down, 
and the conferees are all for MSA's. Therefore, we will get something 
that the Senate turned down, and that is the basic objection.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. How would we know----
  Mr. FORD. We absolutely know, if you know what is going on in the 
Senate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If you do not even appoint conferees----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will go through the Chair.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. To the conference committee, because we do not know 
how it is going to come out. MSA's were passed by the House--they were 
not passed by the Senate--by a narrow majority. So why should we not be 
able to work that out? Why would one Senator object to even appointing 
conferees so that we could sit down and work out the differences 
between our two bills? Is that not the way this process works?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 
additional minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, we have already gone beyond 
the 11 o'clock period of time. I had changed appointments to be here at 
11 o'clock because that was the unanimous-consent agreement. I do not 
want to interfere with the distinguished Senator from Texas, but 
somehow or another we are going to have to stay on track. That was the 
unanimous-consent agreement last night, that we would have 11 o'clock. 
Now it is 11:10. And if I give----

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, if I might, for parliamentary 
information, our control of time, as adjusted by unanimous consent, 
runs to 11:10, so it would be under my control to determine whether I 
extend additional time to the Senator from Texas. I yield another 2 
minutes because we have other speakers besides the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has that right.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I think it is unconscionable to hold up health care 
reform that the people of this country expect and that both Houses of 
Congress have passed because we do not want conferees to sit down and 
work out a compromise on medical savings accounts.
  Medical savings accounts, Mr. President, are something very important 
for health care reform in this country. It allows a business to give to 
an employee the amount of money that that employee would have anyway 
and have choices, so that the employee could take that money and 
perhaps save by going to different health care coverage or perhaps save 
money for future rainy day expenses for their health care needs for 
themselves and for their families. What we want is for them to have 
that option and to have the tax breaks to be able to save for those 
health care needs.
  So, Mr. President, we are talking about not allowing the appointment 
of conferees so we can move health care reform as we have promised the 
American people we would do. Mr. President, I also have to say I do not 
know why the Senator from Massachusetts would be so concerned about the 
ability to have medical savings accounts. I will

[[Page S7805]]

just read from his very own health care reform bill in 1994, just 2 
years ago, where his bill says:

       It is the sense of the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources of the Senate that provisions encouraging the 
     establishment of medical savings accounts be included in any 
     health care reform bill passed by the Senate.

  So, Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts' own bill includes 
language encouraging the establishment of medical savings accounts. So 
why will the Senator from Massachusetts not allow us to have conferees 
appointed for that reason? Is he afraid that we cannot sit down and 
discuss it and get the health care reform?
  Mr. President, it does not wash. There is gridlock in the Senate, and 
it has to stop. The majority in the Senate is trying to make that 
happen. I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Texas. I think she makes an 
excellent point when she reminds us that medical saves accounts--which 
is apparently what is holding this up--was an issue for the Senator 
from Massachusetts in his own legislation. That is a very important 
point. I commend the Senator for bringing that to the attention of the 
Senate.
  I now yield 8 minutes, if I might, to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, although I am a new Senator, in my first term, I have 
had association with the Senate going back some 30 years. I started as 
an intern between school years some 30-odd years ago. I have served on 
the Senate staff, been associated with the Senate for a number of 
years. I want to draw on that experience to give a little historical 
perspective to what I think is going on in the Senate here.
  I remember in the days that I have referred to that filibusters used 
to be very rare. When a filibuster occurred, it was a real filibuster. 
I remember the time when the Senators were told, ``Get out the cots. 
You're going to be here around the clock. We're going to have quorum 
calls at 3 o'clock in the morning and do everything we can to break the 
filibuster.'' It was reserved, if you will, for those issues about 
which certain Senators felt most powerfully. The filibuster was not an 
ordinary tool that was used whenever a bill came up that a Senator 
objected to.
  You contrast that to today's strategy when the filibuster is used 
almost routinely, when cloture votes are the most common votes that we 
cast, and you realize something rather fundamental has happened in the 
Senate.
  I think what has happened is that people have discovered that through 
the use of the filibuster, in the present circumstance, they can change 
the political dynamic. It is no longer necessary to have a majority in 
order to work your will in the Senate. Through the use of the 
filibuster, all you need is 40 votes and you can control the Senate and 
you can force your opposition to cast votes that they might not want to 
cast so that you can then go home and campaign against them. The Senate 
has ceased to be a legislative arena and has turned into a campaign 
arena that seems to be ongoing and continuous.

  I will obviously confess to having participated in filibusters in the 
last Congress. There were two issues that were very important, in my 
view, that we engaged in filibusters on. No. 1 was the stimulus package 
offered by the President of the United States. A group of us felt that 
was a serious mistake. We took the floor. We held the floor. We 
ultimately forced the President to back down on that issue. Looking 
back on it, we were right. The stimulus package that he was calling for 
was clearly nothing more than pork. I do not apologize for having tied 
up the Senate to prevent the $19 billion worth of pork that the 
President proposed.
  Other filibusters--I will not take the time to describe them--but the 
one common thread was I participated in filibusters against bills I was 
opposed to. We have seen that going on here now. The two Senators from 
Nevada are involved in a filibuster against a bill that they are 
opposed to.
  What is different in this Congress is that we are seeing filibusters 
against bills that people are for. Yes, they are doing their best to 
delay consideration of bills they intend to vote for. I have had to ask 
myself, what is the motivation behind a filibuster against a bill you 
are for? I have come to this conclusion, Mr. President--I may be wrong; 
and I will be happy to have someone demonstrate that I am wrong--but 
until that demonstration is convincing, I have come to the conclusion 
that the reason filibusters are currently being mounted against bills 
that the participants in the filibuster are, in fact, for is that they 
wish to embarrass the current leadership of the Senate for political 
purposes in November.
  I could understand that when the majority leader was the Republican 
nominee. I did not approve of it, but I could at least understand it, 
people saying, ``OK, we will filibuster this bill. We will make it look 
as if Bob Dole is impotent as a leader so that we can then attack him 
as being an ineffective leader as the nominee.'' Senator Dole 
recognized that that was going on, so he did the thing that surprised 
all of us, and I think perhaps probably disappointed the opposition a 
little, he said, ``OK. I will resign as the majority leader. I will 
even resign from the Senate.''
  He made an interesting comment to us when he announced to Members of 
his own party that he was resigning. He said, ``The people of Kansas 
deserve a full-time Senator, and I can't do that being the nominee. The 
Republicans deserve a full-time leader, and I can't do that being the 
nominee. And the people who nominated me deserve a full-time nominee, 
and I can't do that and stay in the Senate.'' So out of a great sense 
of duty and responsibility, Senator Dole resigned his position in the 
Senate, obviously stepping down as majority leader.
  I thought that would solve it. I thought once Senator Dole was gone 
as a target, that the filibusters slowing down the work of the Senate 
would stop and we could then get ahead with the work of the Senate. It 
turns out I was wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there is a 
deliberate strategy to try to make the leadership of the Senate look 
bad in an effort to then go to the people in the election and say, 
``Change leadership. We will be able to get things through.'' I hope I 
am wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that that is the strategy 
and that that is why people are filibustering bills that they favor.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we will step back and look at this in a 
historic context and say, is this the right thing to do in the Senate? 
Is it the right thing to get us in the habit and the pattern of 
deciding everything that comes before us in a purely political context, 
both sides perhaps equally guilty if we get into that circumstance? Or 
should we all say, let us step back, let us recognize that the 
Presidential campaign is going to be between Bob Dole, no longer a 
Senator, and Bill Clinton, who is not a Member of this body, and let 
them fight their issues out? Let us take our constitutional 
responsibilities seriously and get on with the business of the Senate.
  Let us stop dilatory tactics that are geared not to change the 
content of legislation but to simply slow down the process and tarnish 
the image of the leadership. Let us take our lumps. If we lose, we 
lose. If we feel passionately about an issue, use the filibuster about 
the issue we feel passionately about; but if there is an issue that can 
be decided and will be decided by a majority vote, go ahead and decide 
it by a majority vote and not try to tarnish the effectiveness of the 
leaders we have chosen.
  I voted for Senator Lott as the leader because I feel he is committed 
to moving the business of the Senate forward in a proper, professional 
way, regardless of his ideological position. I think we should give him 
the chance to do that. I think we owe him the courtesy of doing that. I 
think the same would be true if Senator Daschle were the majority 
leader. I would not engage in a filibuster myself on any bill I 
intended to vote for. I think it should be reserved for those bills 
that we opposed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. I yield 
up to the balance of the time remaining to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Out of curiosity, how much time remains?

[[Page S7806]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Georgia, and I thank my colleagues 
for their indulgence.
  Mr. President, I am worried about our ability to serve the American 
people. I am worried about the impression that we are creating and 
giving the taxpayers of America that sent us here to do their work to 
achieve a better Government, to meet the needs of those in our society 
who are less fortunate than we, to fulfill our obligations to national 
security as embodied by the Department of Defense appropriations bill. 
There is no higher calling that this body has than to provide for 
national security. All of that has obviously ground to a halt.
  Mr. President, a lot of things have been said about the gridlock that 
is here today. Unfortunately, it seems to be continuing, particularly 
in light of the fact that we have only a handful of weeks left 
remaining in session.
  Mr. President, I have only been here about 10 years. It is a pretty 
long time in the view of some, too long in the view of a few--I hope 
only a few--but not nearly as long as some Members of the Senate. One 
of the Members of the Senate that I have grown to admire over the 
years, that I have engaged in fierce and sometimes partisan debates 
with, is the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia, Senator 
Byrd, who all of us respect and revere as sort of the institutional 
conscience here.
  Not too long ago, Mr. President, Senator Byrd stated it most 
succinctly and in a most compelling fashion. Senator Byrd, back in 
December of last year, December 15, 1995, said in the Congressional 
Record:

       Under the Constitution, the only real responsibility we 
     elected Members of Congress have to worry ourselves with is 
     that of ensuring the passage of the 13 appropriations bills 
     that fund the Federal Government. That is all we really have 
     to do. This year, while Members of Congress have spent months 
     and months raising the public's expectations for an end to 
     the legislative gridlock and a new blueprint for governing, 
     we seem to be more preoccupied with one petty nuance after 
     another. Instead of ensuring that the people's needs are met, 
     we are arguing over the size of the negotiating table, how 
     many people can attend, and which door of the airplane we can 
     use. All of this is an unnecessary and unwarranted diversion. 
     This year, as always, there are differences in priorities 
     between the Democrats and Republicans and the Congress and 
     the White House.

  Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a position where we cannot 
carry out what Senator Byrd described as the only real responsibility 
we have in Congress. Mr. President, it is interesting what a difference 
a couple years can make in one's viewpoint. It is always interesting to 
me, because back on October 26, 1994, the Vice President of the United 
States, Vice President Gore, was quoted in an Associated Press story of 
October 26, 1994, which read, in part:

       With the President overseas, Vice President Al Gore stepped 
     in to launch a blistering attack on Republicans, who he said 
     were ``determined to wreck Congress in order to control it, 
     and to wreck the Presidency in order to recapture it.'' 
     Urging Americans to rethink their votes 3 weeks before 
     election day, Gore, on Tuesday, labeled Republicans 
     ``advocates of isolationism and defeatism abroad and of a 
     reckless strategy of partisan paralysis at home,'' chastised 
     by name several GOP leaders and a handful of Republican 
     candidates in close Senate races, saying ``their campaign 
     platform would result in giant tax breaks for the wealthy.''

  He takes particular aim, Mr. President, at Senate GOP leader Bob Dole 
and House GOP whip, then-GOP whip, Gingrich. Gore mocked their recent 
statements that they are already planning a transition to a Republican-
controlled Congress. ``We must not and we will not let the future of 
America be trapped in the dark corner of Dole and deadlock Gingrich and 
gridlock reaction and recession,'' Gore said.
  I hope the Vice President of the United States would come over and 
treat us to his views today as to what is going on here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I believe and we all believe that the rights of every 
Senator and the minority party have to be protected. Mr. President, for 
8 of the 10 years I have been here, I was in the minority party. I 
understand and jealously guard those prerogatives and those rights.
  Mr. President, I can cite example after example--and I see my friend 
from Kentucky here on the floor, one of the ferocious defenders of his 
party and its principles and a person who I have grown to know, admire 
and respect in many ways. On this issue, I think the Senator from 
Kentucky would agree with me that there is a time when we have to do 
the people's work we are sent here to do, and we must give the votes 
and the debate to the issues of the day or we are basically derelict in 
our duty.
  Mr. President, I cite several issues I was involved in for years, the 
line-item veto, which I was able to bring up time after time on the 
floor of this body. The gift ban, recently the campaign finance reform 
bill, which, through bipartisan agreement, was allowed a vote. The 
recent progress we made in the Department of Defense authorization 
bill, an agreement we made in order to move forward with a vote on the 
chemical weapons convention, and others. We should be able to sit down 
and reach agreements on these issues.
  Mr. President, I am not in the business of predicting. I always keep 
in mind the words of the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, who said, 
``Never try to predict, especially when you are talking about the 
future.'' But I do predict that the American people will display their 
dissatisfaction in these upcoming elections with Members of both 
parties, if they see we are unable to do the work they sent us here to 
do. I believe they will exact some kind of retribution on both parties 
and send people here who are committed to working out these issues 
which transcend partisanship and transcend personal agendas.
  I hope, Mr. President, that we will all appreciate that their excuse 
that Senator Dole, now departed, now candidate Dole, is responsible for 
deadlock is no longer valid, for gridlock is no longer valid. I suggest 
we, together on both sides of the aisle, should sit down and work out 
an agenda for the rest of this year so we can, at a minimum, work out 
the 13 appropriations bills that are necessary--a continuing resolution 
is an abrogation of our responsibilities--and also the authorizing 
legislation, including important issues such as the chemical weapons 
convention and other issues that are important to the future of this 
Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Arizona his 
time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that, under the previous 
order, the time until 12:10, by an earlier unanimous-consent agreement, 
shall be under the control of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  (The remarks of Mr. Ford, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Heflin pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 1951 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota may desire from the time that we have. I 
yield my portion of the time remaining to his control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota for the balance of the time until the hour of 12:10 p.m.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I inquire, following 12:10, is there 
another 30 minute block of time under the control of the minority 
leader?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from North 
Dakota that there would be another 30 minutes under the control of the 
Democratic leader or his designee.

                          ____________________