Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)

[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.

____________________