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

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7806-S7813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GRIDLOCK IN THE SENATE

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that information. This
morning, I listened with great interest to a menu of opinions that was
offered on the floor of the Senate about why the Senate has not moved
forward more expeditiously to address this issue or that issue, and why
the Senate is not working as well as it really ought to work, who is at
fault, what is wrong. The chorus was a well-rehearsed chorus.
Obviously, a fair amount of time was spent on this tune, because
everybody was singing almost in complete harmony on these issues.
Let me take the most obvious and the easiest one. The U.S. Senate

[[Page S7807]]

passed, by a vote of 100 to 0, a bill dealing with health care. It was
a piece of legislation that almost every American believes is long past
due. It says the kind of commonsense things like this: You ought to be
able to take your health care with you when you move from one job to
another. Your health care plan ought to be portable. This legislation
says to every American family that when you move from one job to
another, you are not going to be threatened by losing your health care
benefits for you or your children.
It says that we ought not have a circumstance where insurance
companies insure people as long as they are well and then cancel
coverage when they are sick. It says we will not allow insurance
companies forever now to say, if you have a child with a heart defect,
a child with a preexisting condition of some sort, or a member of a
family with a preexisting condition, that you are not going to get
insurance coverage because that preexisting condition means you are no
longer insurable.
This piece of legislation addresses all of those issues and more. It
is a piece of legislation that every American family will want. It is
something that should be done. And it was passed 100 to 0 in the U.S.
Senate.
When we debated that bill, however, the then majority leader insisted
that something else be added to it--something that was extraneous, an
issue that was outside of the purview of what was in the Kennedy-
Kassebaum or the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill called medical savings
accounts. I must say, at least from my own standpoint, that I think it
is useful to evaluate with a test program whether medical savings
accounts are a good idea or bad idea, whether they work or do not work.
That is fine with me. It is a new idea certainly. Let us figure out
whether it works.
But to insist on a massive new approach--medical savings accounts,
which many economists and other analysts say would undermine the whole
circumstance of how we pay for health care costs in this country, I do
not know whether they are right; I am just telling you there is a
substantial amount of testimony about that--to suggest that must be
added to this commonsense health care bill in order for it to move just
is out of line. But the then majority leader insisted. He said this
must be added to that bill.
So he brought it to the floor of the Senate, and we had what you call
a democratic vote; two ways. A democratic vote means that we all have a
chance to express our opinion; and, second, the then majority leader
failed. Senator Dole failed. The Senate said no, we do not want to add
medical savings accounts to the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. No, we do not
want to do it. We did not weigh the votes. We counted the votes. When
the votes are counted, those who have the most votes win. The votes
that had the largest tally were votes that said let us not laden this
bill with something else. Let us pass this commonsense health care bill
by itself the way it is, the way the Senate has crafted it. That is the
way it left the Senate.
What has happened since that time? The bill is held hostage. No; not
by the Senator from Massachusetts, or not by a dozen unnamed villains.
The bill is held hostage by those who insist that the only way this
commonsense health care bill will get through this Republican Congress
is if it has medical savings accounts attached to it. If they are not
attached to it, they have no interest in passing this legislation.
That is what is holding this legislation hostage. We are told that
this Senator, that Senator, or some other unnamed Senator holds this
bill, or that bill in the palm--well, it is nonsense. This bill, the
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, has not moved because of some people's
insistence that the only way this will pass the Congress is if other
things are included with it. If we are not able to put other freight on
this train, then we are not going to let the train move. That is the
attitude of some in this Chamber.
We heard a discourse yesterday about gridlock in the Senate. I think
it is a curious thing to see in the U.S. Senate, which is a body where
one would expect the issues of the day to be not just debated but
debated fully, understood and thought out, reasoned, and compromised. I
think it is unusual to see in the Senate a tactic in which the party
that has the majority says the following: We are going to today, on
Tuesday, or Wednesday, or whatever day it is, lay down a piece of
legislation before the Senate. This will be the pending business of the
U.S. Senate. This piece of legislation is what we will now begin
working on today. Then on the same day--the same day--the majority
party says, ``By the way, we have now decided today we will begin
debate. We will also file cloture to shut off debate.'' The same day on
which a bill is filed to begin debate, repeatedly cloture motions are
filed to end debate.
Yesterday we heard from the majority leader that this has been done
before. We are simply learning lessons from what happened in previous
Congresses.
Well, we looked at the 103d Congress. On only one occasion did that
happen, and then it happened because there was uniform agreement on the
procedure by which it would occur. There was no disagreement about it.
It was on product liability. There was agreement by which a procedure
called for two cloture votes and then the bill being withdrawn. It was
the only occasion on which the Democrats would have ever done that in
this Chamber in the 103d Congress. It has been done repeatedly in the
104th Congress--not by consent of anyone, but in a way that is shoved
down someone's throat, a demand that although we begin debating the
bill today, we also insist on shutting off debate today.
That is no way to run the U.S. Senate. If someone wants cooperation
in the Senate on issues, to debate the issues that are important to the
people of this country and to others in the Senate, then they must
allow debate on these matters--not concoct a strategy that says, ``By
the way, we will offer our legislation as we have crafted it behind our
closed doors without your involvement, and the day we offer it we will
tell you, `No debate; no debate.' We are going to shut off your ability
to amend. We are going to shut off your ability to debate, and that is
the way we legislate.''
If you come into this Chamber with that attitude and then wonder why
your vehicle does not develop any speed, I will tell you why it does
not develop any speed. Because that is not the kind of a vehicle you
can drive through a legislative process in something constituted like
the United States is constituted.
There have to be some people who serve in the Congress who believe
that we ought to be debating, amending, and improving legislation that
deals with real issues people are concerned about. There are, to be
sure, substantial disagreements in our philosophies about how to
govern. I understand that.
I think it is really interesting, by the way, that we have a bill on
the floor of the Senate now that calls for $11 billion more in spending
than the Pentagon asked for pushed primarily by people who insist they
want to cut Federal spending--a bill that said let us spend hundreds of
millions more for national missile defense, or a star wars program
which the Pentagon does not want to deploy; a bill that chooses
priorities that say we can afford the extra $11 billion but we have
decided we cannot afford enough money to fully fund a Head Start
Program. So we are going to tell a bunch of little kids that we do not
have any room for you anymore in the Head Start Program. We know that
program works. Do you believe that program does not deal with American
security? Do you believe that program does not strengthen this country?
That is the difference we have in priorities, I guess, in how we spend
our money and how much we spend.

But I just think it is ironic that those who talk so much about
wanting to cut spending on one of the biggest bills before Congress
demands and insists that they spend $11 billion more than the generals
and the admirals in this country felt was necessary to defend our
country.
I am hoping that we will move ahead and deal with a series of issues
in this Congress. I do not want a do-nothing Congress. I want a do-
something Congress. I want to participate in a Congress that makes
progress. I want to do something about the issue of jobs. I want to do
something about shutting down the tax incentives that encourage runaway
plants. I want to do something about health care. I want to pass

[[Page S7808]]

the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill; invest in education to make sure that every
little kid in this country has an opportunity to go to Head Start.
There is a litany of issues that we need to address, and address in a
thoughtful and an appropriate way.
I want the majority leader to be a successful majority leader. I
consider him a friend. I want the Senate to succeed--not as Republicans
or Democrats. I want us to succeed as a Senate by addressing the issues
which we think are appropriate and necessary to address at this point.
But it does no good, it seems to me, for the Senate to spend all of
its time just standing around in a circle pointing fingers saying,
``Well, this person is at fault; that person is at fault.'' The fact is
that you cannot be laying down bills in the U.S. Senate and demanding
on the same day that you are going to shut off debate and then say,
``Well, boy, I am surprised that you object to that. I mean, it doesn't
make any sense that you would object to a procedure by which we say we
have concocted what we want in a locked room someplace outside your
view. Now we bring it to you to show it to you and demand that you have
no voice in determining how it is going to be shaped. Shame on you.''

Well, no, not shame on us. If those who would begin developing this
process would understand the quick way, the best way to get the Senate
to act on these issues is to involve everyone and to reach sensible
compromises and then faithfully represent those compromises as we move
ahead, we would pass far more legislation that is far more beneficial
to the American people than this 104th Congress has done to date.
I have some other things to say, Mr. President, but I will hold them
for a bit. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, is here, and
Senator Wyden from Oregon is present.
Mr. President, I yield such time as may be consumed to the Senator
from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from North
Dakota for this time.
Mr. President, I was in my office this morning listening to activity
in the Chamber of the Senate, and I must say I was amazed to hear the
charges leveled at the minority side by those in the majority. I was
listening in my office, and I heard a litany of complaints against the
minority for bringing gridlock to this Chamber.
Mr. President, it was as if the majority has forgotten that they were
once in the minority and it is though they have forgotten that they are
now in the majority and they are controlling the flow of business in
this Chamber.
I especially found it fascinating that our friends across the aisle
accuse us of stopping Government when it was their side who shut down
the entire Government just a year ago--shut down the entire Government
in order to try to dictate the results of the legislative process. It
was their side that shut down the entire Government of the United
States to try to dictate the results in this Chamber.
That is not the way this Chamber is supposed to function. It is not
the way democracy is supposed to function. If we go back and try to
recall what they were trying to do, I think we can understand why they
had to try to be so heavy-handed. What was it they were trying to do a
year ago? They were trying to cut Medicare $270 billion in order to
provide a $245 billion tax cut that would have been directed mainly at
the wealthiest among us.
That is what they were up to. And there was a reaction against that
because it was too heavy-handed. The other side themselves described
what they were trying to do as ``a revolution.'' That is what they were
seeking to impose on the American people, a revolution, and they did
not want anybody standing in their way. They wanted to trample minority
rights. They wanted to proceed. They had the arrogance of power, and
they abused their power. And as a result there was a strong reaction
against them not only in this Chamber but in the country as well
because the American people did not want a revolution. They wanted
change; they wanted us to get our fiscal house in order; they wanted to
reform the welfare system; they wanted this country to work better;
they wanted more opportunity; but they did not want a revolution, and
they did not want folks taking from those who are middle class to give
to those who are the wealthiest among us. That was not what the
American people wanted.
The other side has engaged in a whole series of tactics to try to
choke off the rights of the minority. We use a lot of words around here
that are foreign to most people--cloture, cloture motion. What do those
things mean? For most people it is not in their vocabulary. Most people
I talk to back home in North Dakota have no idea what cloture is. I am
not sure my colleagues understand all of what cloture means.
Very simply, the tactic that has been engaged by the other side is to
prevent the minority here from being able to offer amendments. Now,
that is basic to the legislative process. The majority leader said
yesterday, ``I just learned this tactic from your leader.'' No, they
did not. Not once when we were in the majority did we lay down cloture
motions on bills that could be amended unless there was an agreement by
the two sides that were in dispute, and that only happened once. That
only happened once, that a cloture motion was laid down which choked
off amendments on the day the bill was introduced. And the only time we
did was when there was agreement between the two sides in dispute. The
other side has engaged in that practice repeatedly, laying down a
cloture motion to choke off, to prevent the minority from offering
amendments, to act as though the minority is not even here, to act as
though the Democratic Party does not exist in the U.S. Senate, to act
as though we have one-party rule.

Mr. President, we do not have one-party rule, and we are not going to
have one-party rule in this country or in this Chamber, and the
majority, I hope, will recognize that that kind of dictatorial stance
has led us to the gridlock we have today. They want to know why there
is gridlock? It is because they have tried to choke off legitimate
minority rights. That is not democratic, that is not American, and it
is not going to be accepted.
There is another way. There is another way. We see what works. We
see, when we work together and we respect each other, that things can
actually get done here. This week we got the minimum wage bill through
this Chamber by an overwhelming vote. This week we got through this
Chamber a significant package of tax cuts for small businesses and
reforms in the pension system and a whole series of other measures to
assist small business. How did it happen? It happened by working
together, not by one side, in a heavyhanded, arrogant way, trying to
dictate to the other side. That way creates gridlock. But, instead, if
we work together, if we respect each other, things can actually get
done here. It happened in the telecommunications bill this year--a
major piece of legislation--when both sides were allowed to participate
in the legislative process.
I hope the majority will remember, this is an institution with two
sides. This is an institution that was formed by our forefathers so
that minority rights would not be trampled. This is a body that was
formed by our forefathers to prevent a monopoly of power. This is a
body that was formed by our forefathers to prevent the arrogance of
power from trampling the legitimate rights of the minority.
I heard other things said on the floor this morning that require a
response. I heard the attack on the President for vetoing some of the
bills that were passed by the Republican majority. You bet the
President vetoed some of those bills. He should have vetoed them. They
were opposed by a majority of the American people.
The American people did not want to have a $270 billion cut in
Medicare in order to finance tax cuts that disproportionately went to
the wealthiest in our country. That is not what the American people
wanted. Of course the President vetoed that legislation. I applaud him
for it. He did exactly the right thing, and the American people agreed
with him.
I also heard on the floor of the Senate this morning that we defeated
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am very proud to
have been one who rose in opposition to that

[[Page S7809]]

phony balanced budget amendment. Boy, if there was ever a hoax tried to
be perpetrated on the American people it was that so-called balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution. I tell you, as more people found
out how they were proposing to balance the budget by looting every
penny of Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 7 years and
call that a balanced budget, the American people would be in
overwhelming opposition to it. That is not any kind of honest balancing
of the budget.
If a private company tried to take the retirement funds of their
employees and throw those into the company's pot and call that a
balanced budget, they would be in violation of Federal law. They would
be headed to a Federal institution, and it would not be the Congress of
the United States. They would be headed to a Federal prison, because
that is a violation of Federal law. But that is exactly what our
friends on the other side were proposing, that we have a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution that would have enshrined in the
Constitution of the United States the definition of a balanced budget
that included looting every penny of Social Security trust fund surplus
over the next 7 years to call it a balanced budget. They were going to
take $525 billion of Social Security surpluses, throw those into the
pot, and call it a balanced budget. What a charade. What a hoax, to
call that a balanced budget.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator recalls the discussions we had,
actually inside the Cloakrooms, in which some members of the majority
party were, in private, saying to us, ``We will stop using the Social
Security funds in 2008,'' while others were out on the floor saying,
``We are not using Social Security funds to balance the budget.'' I
said it was three stages of denial. Actually, there was a third person
on the floor saying, ``There are no Social Security funds.''
So the three stages of denial that were orchestrated, all at the same
time, in total harmony, and I might give them credit for that, are:
First, there are no Social Security trust funds; or, second, there are
Social Security trust funds, but we are not misusing them; and then,
third, back in the Cloakroom here, in their own handwriting, which I
still have, by the way, there are Social Security funds, we are
misusing them, and we promise to stop by the year 2008.
Does the Senator recall that?
Mr. CONRAD. I recall it very well. The other side was negotiating
with the Senator from North Dakota and myself. On the floor, they were
saying, ``Oh, no, we have no intention of using Social Security
surpluses. We have no intention of doing that.'' But right in that
room, right in that Cloakroom, they were telling us, ``Well, yes, we
are going to use them, but we will stop doing it in the year 2008.''
First they said, ``We will stop doing it in the year 2012,'' and we
checked and we found out they were going to be using trillions of
dollars of Social Security surpluses by that time. We said absolutely
not.
They went back out and came back in and said, ``Well, we will stop
using the Social Security surpluses in 2008.'' Again, they would have
taken over $1 trillion of Social Security surpluses, spent every dime,
every penny, and then said they would balance the budget. What a fraud
that would be.
You know, as I was thinking about it, in considering my vote on that
question, I thought if I was the only vote in this Chamber against that
proposition, and if every one of my constituents was on the other side,
I would vote no. Because I would never want it said of me that I had
helped to put in the Constitution of the United States, the organic law
of this country, the document that has made this the greatest country
in human history, something that says you balance the budget when you
have looted trust funds in order to call it balanced.
I just want to conclude by saying, there is gridlock here. There is
gridlock. And there is gridlock because the majority has tried to
stifle the rights of the minority. They have tried to dictate
legislative results. That is not the American way. That is not
democracy. That is not the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate.

The way to get things done here is to respect the legitimate rights
of everyone, to respect everyone and to work together. When we do that,
we get things done. We got the minimum wage passed that way. We got the
telecommunications bill passed that way. We got a substantial package
of tax relief for small business and reform of pension laws of this
country that way. If anybody is serious about trying to get things
done, the way to achieve results is to work together.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me say, as somebody who is new here, as
a new Senator who campaigned for months on the idea that we have to
come together, we have to find common ground, we have to get beyond
some of the partisan labels, I want to come today and speak for a few
moments about the importance of that approach and why I feel it is the
only answer, and how I hope the Senate can get back on track and look
at issues that way.
First, let me say, I have never considered myself particularly a
partisan person. I come from a part of the world, the beautiful
Northwest where we have a history of fresh and creative approaches to
issues before the Government. Our citizens do not get up in the morning
and say, ``Well, whose got the partisan answer? Is it a Democratic
answer? Is it a Republican answer?''
They get up and talk about tackling major issues in a way that is
fair and responsible and meets the needs of the public.
So I have tried to take that kind of philosophy, first as a Member of
the House and now as a new Senator, in terms of attacking the need to
address the concerns of the public.
As the Senator from North Dakota said very clearly, it is obvious
that is how the Senate has made progress. Look at this minimum wage
issue, for example. It seems to me when workers put out the maximum
effort, they deserve a decent minimum wage. The Senate agreed and,
fortunately, Senators of both parties came together, and passed an
important small business package. My State is just chock-full of small
businesses. We have only a handful of big businesses in the State of
Oregon. You can almost count the big businesses on one hand, so we are
a small business State, and those tax incentives that were passed with
bipartisan support are going to make a real difference at home in
Oregon and on Main Street in our country.
The same kind of bipartisan approach was used in the Kennedy-
Kassebaum bill. I think that the health insurance system in our country
needs to work for more than the healthy and the wealthy, and yet, so
often, when somebody gets sick, the whole system falls apart. For a lot
of families, you can only get coverage when you really do not need it,
which is when you are well.
So the Senate came together, a bipartisan bill was passed, and it is
going to make a real difference, because, for the first time, when
citizens are trying to get ahead, when they work hard and play by the
rules, they will not be limited in terms of their job advancement
because they cannot get health insurance as they try to climb up the
ladder in the free enterprise system.
So there have been real successes since I have been here, when
Democrats and Republicans worked together on issues like health and the
minimum wage. I am very hopeful that over the next 7 or 8 weeks of the
session--and I just remind again our colleagues and our friends that
there are only a handful of weeks left in the session. To get real
results on issues like welfare and crime and aviation reforms--many of
us are concerned about the situation with aviation in this country and
want to pass real changes to make sure that the Federal Aviation
Administration's mandate is safety first; that there can be public
disclosure of the safety records of airlines in our country. To get
this kind of work done on crime and welfare and transportation, we are
going to have to have a bipartisan kind of approach, once again, in the
Senate.
I think it has been very unfortunate. I have seen it over the last
couple of

[[Page S7810]]

weeks and hope that it will not be the practice in the last few weeks
in the session that as soon as a bill is essentially introduced--and my
friends from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad, are very
right to say, let's get away from some of these arcane, technical
terms--``cloture'' and the like.
What the bottom line is all about is that for the last few weeks, as
soon as a major bill has been introduced, there has been an effort to
immediately cut off the debate. That bars the minority, especially, but
certainly Members of the majority may have differing views on some of
these issues, and debate, reasonable debate, is what the Senate is
supposed to be all about.

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I both served in the
House. One of the things that we thought was possible about service in
the Senate was to have a bit more time, a reasonable amount of time,
for all sides to have a fair airing of an issue. Sometimes that time is
not available in the House, and sometimes the public's business suffers
as a result of it. So I think this practice of, in effect, trying to
shut off debate, almost as soon as it starts, is something that is
especially unfortunate and is going to make it tougher to get the
public's business done in the last few weeks of this session.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, let me reiterate my interest
and desire in looking at these issues in a bipartisan way. I think, for
example, there are a variety of procedural reforms that would be very
helpful in terms of the work of the Senate.
We know, again, for the last few weeks of the session, one of the
practices that is often abused is a Senator puts a hold on a bill and
does it all in secret. I think the Senator's procedural rights ought to
be protected, but I think there ought to be public disclosure. The hold
is not the problem, but I think secrecy is. So what I have been trying
to do is work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and
Republicans, to try to make a change, to try to get public disclosure
when there is a hold that will make the Senate more open, more
accountable and more efficient and be in the interest of the public, so
that the public's right to know is protected.
I am not trying to do that in a partisan kind of way. I am talking to
Senators on both sides of the aisle, because I think that is the way we
have to do the public's business.
(Mr. STEVENS assumed the chair.)
Mr. WYDEN. So, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I come to take
the floor today to say that in these last 7 or 8 weeks of the session,
when there is so much important work to be done, let us make sure that
the procedural rights of the minority are protected, let us get away
from this unfortunate practice we have seen in the last few weeks of
literally cutting off the debate almost as soon as it starts, and let's
take the kind of approach that folks in my home region, the Pacific
Northwest, take, and that is a bipartisan one.
I believe that it is possible to get some important work done in
these next 7 weeks, to get a welfare reform bill. We have done that in
Oregon. Senator Hatfield, my senior colleague, has done yeoman work in
terms of our jobs plus program. It has a tough work requirement, but we
are also helping with child care and medical care. That kind of
bipartisan approach can be an ideal model for helping the Senate to
come together, Democrats and Republicans, to reform the welfare system
in the last few weeks of this session.
But to reform welfare, to get a good crime bill, to have an important
transportation bill--the Presiding Officer, Mr. Stevens, for so many
years has done outstanding work on these aviation issues. He knows I am
anxious to work with him in the days ahead--to really have progress in
these last few weeks of the session, we are going to have to protect
the rights of the minority; we are going to have to work in a
bipartisan way. That is how we best address the public's needs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by the Senator
from Oregon. We are delighted he is in the Senate. I expect he expected
to come to the Senate from the House of Representatives where they have
substantially different rules and be in a body where there is
substantial debate. Probably a surprising discovery for him is a new
trend here in the Senate of filing cloture motions on amendable issues
in order to prevent amendments and shut off debate on the same day that
a bill is filed in the Senate for debate.

I echo the sentiments of the Senator from Oregon [Senator Wyden]. We
have heard a good many Members come to the floor earlier this morning
describing all the ills of the Senate to be laid at the feet of the
President or the Democrats in the Congress.
Frankly, it is not our interest, it is not my interest, I think it is
not Senator Wyden's interest to impede the progress of the Senate in
addressing the real issues that people want addressed. We are not going
to roll over and play dead when we have people coming to the Senate
saying to us, ``Here's our agenda. If you don't like it, tough luck.
We're going to ram it down your throat and send it to the White House
and demand the President sign it.''
There was a complaint this morning about President Clinton's veto of
some bills. Well, let me say as well, I am glad he vetoed the piece of
legislation that says, by the way, let us take $270 billion out of what
is needed to fund Medicare, and let us use the funds we get by taking
that out of what is needed for the Medicare Program and use it to give
tax cuts, the majority of which will go to the wealthiest Americans. I
am glad the President said, ``Not on my life you are going to do
that.'' He vetoed that. He vetoed that. So a whole series of
overreaching and ill-proposed issues that came to the floor of the
Senate last year the President had to veto.
Now the question is, are we going to do this in a serious way? I
noticed in the paper the other day, ``GOP To Press Missile Defense as
Clinton Test.'' They are going to load the defense bill down with
hundreds of millions of dollars extra for national missile defense,
demanding that money be spent on the system the Pentagon says it does
not want and the defense community says this country does not need,
demanding it be done in order to confront the President with a defense
issue so they can say the President is weak on defense. That is not
from people who are serious about wanting to balance the budget. It is
from people who want to use these issues as a political wedge.
My own interest is that we address the central questions facing
American families. Are there good jobs available for them and for their
children? Is there some security with those jobs? Do they pay well?
What about the schools you send your kids to? Are they doing well? Do
we have enough money for the Head Start Program, enough money for the
WIC Program? Are we able to take care of the children in our country?
What about welfare in this country? Are we going to get able-bodied
people off welfare and to work?
I am proud to have helped construct something called the Work First
Program. It does help enable people to go to work, but not injure the
children. Do not say to a 10-year-old or 8-year-old, get off your
behind and go to work. Two-thirds of those who are on welfare are under
16 years of age. I do not think anyone is suggesting we shove them out
the door and say, ``Get a job.'' Let us take care of the children in
this country, but let us insist able-bodied people go to work.
Let us reform the welfare system. There ought to be enough agreement
on both sides of the aisle to do this in a way that is not politically
gamed so they can construct it and have a veto at the White House, but
in a way that really does reform the welfare system and in a
thoughtful, sensible way.

Health care. I have said before, let us just pass the bill. Let us
pass it through the House and the Senate that has already been passed.
It passed the Senate 100 to 0 dealing with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill.
Portability, preexisting condition, so many things the American
family needs. Pass it. Be done with it. Get the President to sign it.
He will. We will significantly advance the health care that the
families need in this country in the right way.
There are other things that I want to see done. I am sure the Senator
from Oregon shares that.

[[Page S7811]]

Crime. I tell you, I very much want to see us do another initiative
on crime in the right way. I want everyone on parole and probation in
this country to be drug tested, period. End of story. Everyone on
parole and probation in America ought to be drug tested while they are
on parole and probation. If they fail their drug test, it ought to be
revoked.
I also want to change the system so that in every circumstance in
this country, if you are convicted of a violent crime, if you are a
violent criminal and convicted of a violent crime, you spend all of
your time in jail, you do not get good time off for good behavior. No
good time off for people who commit violent crimes. If you go to jail,
you stay in jail and do not get out until the end of your term. Very
simple. If you commit a violent crime, you go to jail. There is no good
time off for good behavior. I would very much like to see us do that.
I would like to see us advance the proposition of victims' rights.
Frankly, there is now a law, which I authored, dealing with, at least
in the Federal court system, if you are a victim in the Federal court
system you have a right to be in court and testify at the sentencing
investigation. The victim has the right to come and say, ``Here is what
this crime meant to me.''
What happens? The criminal comes in, the person that has been
convicted comes in. They get them a new blue suit and haircut and they
bring the minister and the neighbors in and say what a quiet young boy
this was, what a wonderful young person. And you have this story about
what the criminal is about. I want the victim to say, ``Here is what
this person did to me and my family,'' or the victim's family to say,
``Here is what this meant to me.''
I am pleased to tell you that is now in Federal law because I wrote
that provision in the last crime bill. But as you know, the Federal
system only deals with less than 10 percent of the criminal justice
system. I would like to see that in every State and local jurisdiction,
in criminal justice all across America--victims' rights.
The issue of jobs.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. This crime issue is so important. I share the Senator's
view. I just add, this question of violent juvenile crime is especially
important. Again, you see Senators of both parties who have done
excellent work on this, Senators Hatch and Thompson--I have watched
Senator Biden--all of whom have been very helpful to me and my staff in
my early days as a Senator. I think they can help us put together a
package dealing with violent juvenile crime.
In a lot of communities--the adult crime rate is still too high but
has sort of leveled off--but the rate of violent juvenile crime has
just gone through the stratosphere. In fact, the Justice Department had
a study recently that showed, particularly between 3 and 7 o'clock, 3
in the afternoon and 7 in the evening, when you have these at-risk
kids, that is when you really have a great portion of the violent crime
in America.
There is nothing partisan about tackling violent juvenile crime.
There are Senators of both political parties that have dealt with it
and come up with innovative ideas. There are people like the
criminologist, James Q. Wilson, who are advancing approaches that could
be backed by both political parties to try to particularly make sure
that these violent juvenile offenders are accountable.
But we are not going to get the important work done that the Senator
from North Dakota is talking about without thoughtful debate that
ensures that both sides have a reasonable opportunity. I hope the
Senator from North Dakota takes the lead on this crime issue as a
Member of leadership, and the kind of bipartisan approach the Senator
is talking about will prevail, because issues like violent juvenile
crime are issues that we can bring this body together on in a
bipartisan way to deal with. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. DORGAN. The fastest growing area of crime in this country is
juvenile crime, especially violent juvenile crime. I find it
interesting that if you access the NCIC or the III, the Interstate
Identification Index, to find out who is on there, who committed crimes
in this country, what you find is some of the most violent crimes
committed are not in those records because they are committed by a
juvenile. You will not have access, as a judge or a police officer, by
accessing the identification index.
One of the things we worked on for years is very simple, and we are
not there yet. It requires a lot of attention by Congress. That is
having a computer system, so that on a computer in this country we have
the records of every convicted felon in America.
If the Senator from Oregon would go to a department store this
afternoon to buy a shirt and use a credit card to buy a shirt, they
will take that credit card and run it through a little machine that is
an imager that determines the magnetic strip on the card, and then in
20 seconds they will tell the Senator from Oregon whether his credit
card is good or not. Let us assume the Senator from Oregon has a credit
card that is good. But immediately they will tell everyone, is this a
good credit card or is it not? Twenty seconds.
They can keep track of 200 million credit cards--more than 200
million credit cards--that way, and access in 20 seconds the credit
status of someone going to buy a shirt. The question is this: Why do we
not have access, for the several millions of people who have committed
violent crimes in this country, to every criminal record that exists in
America for judges when they sentence, for law enforcement officials
when they pick someone up on the streets, to determine, after a crime,
is this a suspect? Is this someone who has committed three other
violent crimes?
The fact is, we have a system now in which about 80 percent of the
available criminal records are not available in the one criminal
justice record system we have. I know the FBI and others will say,
``Gee, this is a wonderful system. It works well.'' The fact is, a
whole lot of States do not participate in it or do not participate
fully in it, and the system does not have a lot of the criminal records
we need.
To start addressing the crime issues, one of the first things we need
to do is make sure we have a computer record of all convicted felons in
this country, know who they are, what they have done and where they
have done it, so that everyone--judges, law enforcement people and
others--will have access to it instantly, in a complete manner.
The other thing I say to the Senator from Oregon on other issues, the
central issues for most families is, are we going to have a decent job?
Will our kids have opportunities to get a decent job after they have
had an opportunity to go to a good school? Schools and jobs and your
kids--that is what this is all about.
One of the things I would like to pass on the floor of the Senate is
shutting down this insidious provision that says, ``Move your jobs and
your plants overseas. We will give you a tax break.'' I tried last year
to do that. They turned it down. I was promised they would hold
hearings. They have not, but we will do it again this year. If you
cannot take the first baby step of shutting down the tax incentive that
says ``ship your jobs overseas and the American taxpayer will reward
you to the extent of $2.2 billion''--$2.2 billion--``reward those who
ship their jobs overseas,'' if we cannot shut that down, then, thinking
has stopped in the U.S. Congress, in my judgment.
Finally, I do not want to hold the Senator from Oregon up, but one of
the things I think is interesting, which this Congress ought to deal
with, is not just the trade deficit--which I will talk about next week
with some of my colleagues; I will introduce a piece of legislation on
the trade deficit--but the trade deficit, merchandise trade deficit
enjoyed in this country is higher than the fiscal policy, different by
a substantial margin, and there is not a whisper of attention to it.
But you can only repay the trade deficit with a lower standard of
living in our country.
It is a threat to this country, and we must deal with it, not by
shutting our borders, but by dealing with those countries with whom we
have large trade deficits, dealing with those circumstances where it is
resulting in a substantial export of American jobs. We have a $170
billion merchandise trade deficit, and this country has to

[[Page S7812]]

begin to confront the question of why do we have that and what do we do
about it.
I wanted to mention one additional item today on the floor of the
Senate. There was a story in the Washington Post this week that says,
``Federal Reserve policymakers are watching wages for clues to whether
they need to raise interest rates again.'' Now, the point of this is
that Federal Reserve policymakers are watching wages. What is the
message there? The message is that we better not see an increase in
wages, we better not see something that is good for American families,
or we will clamp down. That is the message.
Now, what does this mean? It is because the financial markets took it
on the chin last week. They said, ``A key factor was the report from
the Labor Department that average hourly earnings jumped .8 of a
percent last month, the largest increase since 1982.''

What John Berry, the reporter, does not say, and they never say, is
that the increase in wages last month, which was a large jump, only
takes wages back to where they were last December. You do not get a
report in the Washington Post by Mr. Berry, month after month, that
talks about how far wages have come down, and if you take a look at the
drop of American wages month after month after month in real purchasing
power, you do not see many stories or much in the headlines about that.
But have a spike up in wages in 1 month, only to take us back to where
it was in December of last year, and all of a sudden the market and all
those who write about the market have an apoplectic seizure.
Every time you get a bit of good news for the family that maybe wages
are stabilizing or going to start to come up just a little bit, what
happens? Wall Street does a somersault. Wall Street looks for a window
to jump out of. The unemployment rate drops to its lowest level in 6
years, a July 6 headline, ``Stocks, Bonds, Plunge on Jobs Report.''
Unemployment goes down, more people are working, it means the economy
is better, and Wall Street says, ``Oh, my God, look what is happening
to America. Woe are us. What on Earth is going to happen to our
country? More people are working, and they are getting higher wages.
America must be going to hell in a handbasket. What on Earth is going
to happen to our economy next?''
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. WYDEN. This issue is really an interesting issue. I say, it seems
to me, in today's economy we can have more noninflationary economic
growth than you could in the past. You look at technology, for example,
and technology is driving so much of today's economy. I think the
Senator is making a very important point with respect to the role of
growth and the Fed and the issues that, frankly, are not getting the
kind of attention they ought to receive.
My sense has been the Government does not even really measure today's
modern economy in an accurate kind of way. I served on the Joint
Economic Committee for a period of time, and I was concerned that the
Bureau of Labor Statistics was not in a position to have the resources,
it was not in a position to have the tools to really measure the modern
economy.
This whole idea about the relationship of inflation and growth, I
think, really needs a fresh look. My sense is that because of
technology, we can have a higher degree of noninflationary economic
growth than we could in the past. I look forward to working with the
Senator on these issues.
I also say, once again, we are talking about something that is not a
partisan kind of issue. Everybody in this body wants to make sure that
we grow the economy, that we incent the private sector in a way to have
good-paying jobs, and we do not want to fan the fires of inflation.
These are not partisan kinds of issues. The Senator, talking about
wages and the Fed, he did not mention Democrats, he did not mention
Republicans. We are talking about kinds of approaches this body ought
to be looking at in terms of the modern economy.
When I talk about noninflationary economic growth, I submit that what
is driving it is the technological revolution, which, again, is not the
special prerogative of Democrats or Republicans.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. DORGAN. I agree. There are two things that drive it. One is the
technological revolution and the second is the global economy. Two or 3
billion new workers in the world are now eligible and able to compete
in an open market, especially with the lower skilled American workers,
the bottom two-thirds of the American work force, and those 2 or 3
billion people living elsewhere can make 10 cents an hour, 20 cents an
hour, or 60 cents an hour. In many cases, what you have is 12-year-olds
making 12 cents an hour, working 12 hours a day, competing against
American workers, which drives down American wages. When American wages
start to firm up a little bit, we simply climb back out of the hole to
where we were last December, the stock market has a heart attack.
Let me go through a couple other headlines: ``Job and Wage Data Put
Pressure on Fed,'' July 8; ``Unemployment Rate Hits 6-Year Level While
Pay Posts Big Monthly Gains.'' Again, it just crawled back up to where
it was the previous December. If you read this all in the Wall Street
Journal, it would give you great cause for alarm if you are on Wall
Street and have another agenda. So what happens is the stock market and
the bond market has a seizure.
July 8, ``Jobs Data Sparks 115-Point Plunge.'' You would think maybe
the jobs data was that it showed America was in deep trouble, deep
unemployment, headed toward a massive recession. That is not what the
jobs data was. The jobs data showed that fewer people were unemployed,
more people were employed and the economy was getting better. What
happens? A deep plunge in the stock market. News that even unemployment
is at a 6-year low is not good news for Wall Street. NBC nightly news
lead: ``The Economy Is Too Good for Markets.''

The data in February and March. ``Employment revealed increases in
jobs prompting steep sell-offs on Wall Street.''
``Economy Surge Hailed by President, but Markets Fall.''
``Wall Street plummeted Friday''--this is March--``and major sell-off
triggered by what seemed to be splendid economic news, a drop in
unemployment, and the biggest jobs gain in more than a decade.''
February. ``When Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan hinted
in testimony that the economy could grow at a 2.5 percent rate this
year, the market gulped. The ensuing speculation sent the Dow Jones
down 45 points.''
Just to show that it is not all irrational, some of it is politics,
this says, ``Gingrich blames White House for stock market plunge.'' But
that is an aberration.
``U.S. Stocks Make Steep One-Day Drop.'' This is October of last
year, on good economic news. But it is not all clearly irrational on
that side. You get good economic news, and Wall Street looks for a
window to jump out of. It happens the other way as well. ``Last year,
bonds rose after the Labor Department said Friday morning that
unemployment claims had risen by 5,000 last week.'' So you had some bad
economic news, and Wall Street goes, ``Thank God, we got some bad
economic news. That is good news for us on Wall Street.''
What kind of twisted logic is this? Felix Rohatyn wrote a piece that
I will send to my colleagues, in which he said that many corporate
leaders agree and believe that it is a false choice in this country
now. Wall Street and the Fed, especially, have led us to believe that
it is a false choice that we must choose between economic growth and
inflation--a fundamentally false choice. But those who believe we must
choose between either growing as a country or inflation are the ones
who are causing us to drop anchor at the first hint of wind that gets
in the sales of this economy. The first time the economy starts moving
a bit, it is time to drop anchor.
What does all that mean? It means that the ups and downs--this casino
in which there is daily betting with trillions of dollars, where people
make money going up and make money going down, and people buy what they
will never get from people who never had it, and they make money on
both sides of the transaction--is all at the expense of working
families, who sit around eating supper asking themselves: Well,

[[Page S7813]]

what is our life like? What about us? What is the situation in my job?
Am I being paid more or less? Am I making progress or falling behind?
Is my wage up, or is it deteriorating? Is my job more or less secure?
What about my child, who is ready to go to college? Is the economy
expanding sufficiently so that that child is going to have an
opportunity to get some interviews and maybe have a choice of a job or
two?
That is the central question. Those who believe they should scare
this country into accepting a rate of economic growth of 2 or 2.5
percent, and decide that the standard practice in this country is to
revel in bad economic news and despair in good economic news, have done
a real disservice to the potential of this country's economy. Felix
Rohatyn is fundamentally right. It is a false choice for us now in the
global economy when wages have been going down, not up, to say that we
must choose between economic growth or more inflation.
I do not want more inflation. I do not think it serves this country's
interest. Inflation has been coming down for 5 years in a row. If you
believe Alan Greenspan, that the consumer price index overstates
inflation by a percent and a half, we have almost no inflation in
America today. Yet, we have all these micromanagers who see themselves
in the hold or the engine room of a ship of state, operating the
controls to try to slow the ship down. My Uncle Joe could slow the ship
down. If that is the job description of the Fed for serving on Wall
Street, my Uncle Joe can do that job. I want this country to have an
economy that expands and produces more jobs and better wages.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WYDEN. I share the Senator's interest in this Rohatyn analysis.
What is interesting is that there really is a link between the growth
issue and those concerns of working families that the Senator from
North Dakota is right to zero in on.
There was a study a couple of weeks ago, a Census Bureau study, that
showed that the gap between those at the very top and those at the
bottom is widening again and, well, it confirms what a lot of us
suspected. But there was also another study that did not get the
attention, frankly, it should have, which said that the education gap
is widening between folks at the top and folks at the bottom.
So there really is a link, a kind of interdependence between the
issues that the Senator is talking about. We ought to be looking at a
noninflationary economic growth rate that I think is increased beyond
where we are today. I think we can get it if Democrats and Republicans
in this body come together and pass the kind of policies that will
complement that.
For example, if you want to attack that education gap, which was the
study I mentioned last week, which complemented what the Census
Department said, education is really the key. A lot of us here have
said that what we ought to do, on a bipartisan basis, is say that when
working families are making payments for college or vocational
education, let us make that tax deductible. Let us let them write that
off, so that we have a tax cut geared directly toward working families
trying to deal with that wage crunch that the Senator from North Dakota
is talking about. It gives us an opportunity to have the kind of growth
that Felix Rohatyn and others are talking about.
I think the Senator is very much on target in bringing these issues
up. There certainly is not anything partisan about these kinds of
questions. I hope that as we go into the last few weeks of the session,
this is the kind of approach we should take. I thank the Senator for
letting me work with him on this morning's discussion.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, Senator
Wyden, for coming this morning, as well as Senator Conrad and Senator
Ford. Again, what he said last is, I think, most important. The Senate
will work its will on issues. But we cannot have a circumstance where
we are told we have made the decision in some room someplace, and we
are bringing it to the floor, and we are cutting off your right to
debate it and accept it, or else. That is not the way the Senate can
work.
Most of us are anxious to work with the majority to get things done.
I say that, despite the anxiety of the end of the week on the
legislation that was pending, this was actually a pretty productive
week in the Senate. We passed some very substantial pieces of
legislation dealing with the minimum wage, with small business
regulatory issues, and tax issues that will be very helpful to small
business. The Defense authorization bill was passed on final passage.
This was actually a productive week. I hope future weeks will be as
productive. Our intention is to work, in a serious and conscientious
way, with the majority. But we will not be rolled over by people who
insist on doing things that prevent us from being part of the debate.
That is a message that they need to understand, and I hope they will
understand.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Alaska, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________