Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 149 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 149 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13365-S13377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENATE AGENDA

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to the Chair. I
yield now to the minority leader, with the agreement that I will have
the floor when he completes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the assistant
Democratic leader, for his willingness to allow me the opportunity to
talk a little bit more about why we are here.
We are stalled for one reason: The majority leader has again, for the
seventh time now, filled the tree, precluding 45 Democrats from
offering amendments. That is why we are here. And on two other
occasions this year, the majority leader preemptively filed cloture on
measures immediately after calling them up--and then proceeded to other
business in order to prevent amendments or debate. So nine times so far
this year, the majority leader has said, well, we are going to decide
which amendments are offered, we are going to decide which amendments
are passed, we are going to decide what kind of role you as Senators
ought to have, and we will tell you that you are not going to be able
to offer amendments. We are going to decide, in other words, whether to
gag you and to lock you out of the legislative process to which you
were elected as a representative of the people.
It began on March 8, 1999, on the so-called Education Flexibility
Act. The bill was offered, the majority leader was recognized, and the
tree was filled, locking out every single Democrat from their right to
offer amendments to the Education Flexibility Act.
He chose to do it again on April 22 on the Social Security lockbox.
He said: We are going to have an up-or-down vote, and it is going to be
our lockbox or none at all. We said: What about Medicare? What about
locking up the Medicare trust fund? They said: No, you can't offer that
amendment; we are going to fill the tree and preclude you from offering
amendments on the Social Security lockbox. And, again, the issue was
shelved.
On April 27, 1999, the Y2K Act, an extremely complex and very
difficult issue, the majority leader came to the floor and filled the
tree, precluded Democratic amendments, and said it is take it or leave
it.
April 30, again he apparently tries to make the point that Social
Security lockbox is important to Republicans--as long as Democrats
don't have the opportunity to offer an amendment. Again, we said: We
would like to offer an amendment on Medicare. Again, our Republican
colleagues said: It is our bill or no bill. At that point, it went from
becoming the Republican lockbox to, as our colleague from Maryland,
Senator Mikulski, said this morning, the Republican ``squawk box.''
On June 15, 1999, the ``squawk box'' was debated again. Again, the
majority leader offered the bill, filled the tree, precluded Democratic
amendments, and the lockbox was shelved.
On July 16, Republicans used the ``squawk box'' approach again,
claiming to be interested in getting the bill passed, precluding
Democratic amendments on Medicare.
On June 16, in a similar situation, they did it again. They called up
a House bill, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act, filed
cloture, and went off the bill to other business. And then, on
September 21, the most recent effort by the majority leader and the
majority to lock out Democratic amendments, they brought up the
bankruptcy reform bill, filed cloture, and moved on to another bill,
precluding Democratic amendments.
I only recite the litany of occasions when the majority leader filled
the tree in order to make clear how objectionable this coercive tactic
really is. For those who are not familiar with parliamentary jargon,
``filling the tree'' is a procedure that the leader can use to offer
multiple amendments and thereby fill all of the available amendment
slots that a bill has under the Senate rules, precluding any Senator
from offering an amendment. That is what filling the tree is all about.
Together with the practice of preemptively filing cloture, which has
the same effect, it has been done now on nine separate occasions. The
sad thing about it being done on this bill is that it plays right into
the hands of the opponents of the legislation.

The opponents are very grateful to Senator Lott and the majority for
filling the tree because it certainly makes

[[Page S13366]]

it easy. It turns the issue away from whether or not one supports CBI
to whether or not one supports a Senator's right to be a full
participant in this Senate Chamber on this or any other bill. It ceases
to become substantive and becomes a matter of individual Senator's
rights.
Well, because I want this bill passed so badly and because I know it
is one of the highest priorities for the administration, because I
think this legislation has languished too long, because I think there
is a real chance we can get this legislation passed and signed into
law, going into conference with our House colleagues, I made an offer
yesterday that was unprecedented since I have been leader. I said to
the majority leader that if he would agree to allow us to offer on
other legislation some of the amendments contemplated on this
legislation, I would be prepared to work with him to table amendments
on this bill. That is remarkable. It wasn't without a great deal of
concern for protecting Senators' rights that I offered this latest
proposal.
I draw a distinction between protecting a Senator's right to offer an
amendment and supporting whatever amendment a Senator chooses to offer.
I might not support an amendment on this particular bill, as important
as some of these issues might be, but I will fight to protect every
Senator's right to offer it. But there is a very important caveat here,
and I think it needs to be emphasized. I insisted that we must have the
opportunity to at least offer these amendments on another bill.
We have to have an opportunity, for example, to offer minimum wage on
the bankruptcy bill when it comes up. The majority leader again said
no. The problem, as we have said on so many occasions, is that there
are those on the majority side who want this Senate to be a second
House of Representatives. They want this body to act and to proceed as
if it were the House of Representatives. That is the problem.
The amazing irony is that our Republican colleagues never dreamed of
asking for this kind of procedural constraint, this kind of enslaved
approach to legislation, when they were in the minority. They had no
trouble offering extraneous amendments that were not necessarily
relevant to a particular bill when they were in the minority. Of course
not. The amazing thing is Democrats did not insist on a procedural
constraint of the magnitude our Republican colleagues are now
demanding.
Why? Because we had the confidence when a bill came to the floor that
we would have a good debate, we would take all comers, we would table
amendments that we didn't support, and we would offer second-degree
amendments that we thought would be approved. We used all of the tools
available to us. And this Senate acted like a Senate.
This Senate isn't acting like a Senate today. This is a sham. This is
a terrible excuse for this body. This should not happen. We should not
have to come pleading for the right to do what we were elected to do.
And it happens over and over--almost once a month this year.
I am telling you, we are losing some of the institutional tradition
here. We are seeing the erosion of an extraordinarily important body
and the rights incorporated within that body. Who today could, without
smiling, argue that this is the most deliberative body? Who could say
with a straight face, yes, this is still the world's most deliberative
body? I daresay no one could say that. There is nothing deliberative
about the Senate today. They want to make this a legislative assembly
line. You take something up, you vote it up or down, and you move it
along.
I am surprised we don't have a conveyor belt somewhere on the lower
part of the floor where we just kind of say yes and no, yes and no, as
bills on the conveyor belt come through--no debate, no deliberation;
let's move them out.
This isn't what our Founding Fathers expected of us. They expected
more. They put the rights in the hands of Senators to say: No, let's
slow down on the legislation; or, I want to be able to offer an
amendment. And I don't care whether it is a farm bill to a peace
treaty. We want to have the opportunity to deliberate in the most
deliberative body. Rubber stamping doesn't work around here. We have
only had a handful of amendable vehicles--just a handful.
The response from the majority leader to my offer suggests that there
may never be another amendable vehicle in this session of Congress--
with no amendments on this bill, no amendments on any other bill. That
is what the Republicans want. The results of doing business this way is
remarkable.
We talk about a legislative landfill. I am telling you, I have never
seen a legislative landfill of the magnitude we have today. We keep
throwing bills into the legislative landfill, and that landfill keeps
getting larger.
This has been the biggest legislative graveyard I have seen since
coming to Congress. Republicans get elected to prove government doesn't
work, and they prove it every day. When they are in control, they prove
that government doesn't work because they don't want it to work. They
don't want minimum wage. They don't want a Patients' Bill of Rights.
They don't want good gun legislation. They don't want a Medicare
prescription drug bill. They don't want legislation that moves this
country forward. They don't want it. They don't want to admit it. They
ought to admit it.

We are not going to be a part of this. We are going to stick up for
our rights. We are going to amend legislation when it comes to the
floor. We are going to go back into that legislative landfill and one
by one we are going to recycle, because I am telling you that is what
this Senate and this country needs. We are going to recycle the
Patients' Bill of Rights until it is done right. We are going to
recycle minimum wage. We are going to recycle the gun legislation. We
are going to recycle farm legislation. We are going to recycle every
single bill the Republicans insist on burying, and we are going to keep
coming back because that is what we were elected to do. That is what we
are going to do. That is what we believe in doing.
I have to say I am disappointed. I am about as patient a person as I
think I can be, but I lose my patience, and I get angry and frustrated
at the level of duplicity and the extraordinary encumbrances that the
majority demands of this body each and every day we legislate. This is
wrong.
I am not proud to be in the Senate when I can't legislate as a
Senator. I am not proud when we tear away the pillars of the Senate
institution. I am not proud when I can't go to the public and say, yes,
I am one of the 100 Members of the greatest deliberative body in the
world. I am not proud about that. For however long I am here, I would
like to be proud of the fact that, as a Senator, I lived up to the
traditions and the practices and the extraordinary honor that comes
with being a Senator. But that isn't happening today.
I left the House of Representatives 12 years ago for a good reason. I
thought I could do more here. I thought I could play a bigger role
here. I thought the Senate was where a Senator could really legislate.
It was true in 1987. It was true in 1992. It was true all the way up
until recently when slowly but most assuredly date by date, bill by
bill, in filling the tree and using other devices, this majority leader
said no. No. We are going to be a House of Representatives. Forget
regular order. Regular order says you can offer amendments. We are not
going to have regular order in the Senate. We are going to have narrow
order, or no order at all, as the case may be.
What order is there when Senators can't offer amendments and we are
stymied for 2 days? Do you realize how many bills we could have
finished, or how many amendments we could have finished in just the
last couple of days? We probably could go to final passage with the
number of Senators who support this legislation by the end of the week.
But here we are stymied once again.
We haven't passed the Social Security lockbox. That is part of the
legislative landfill because we have filled the tree.
We haven't been able to pass anything where the majority leader has
filled the tree until he has torn the tree down. That is the case here
as well.
We will never let this legislation pass if we can't offer an
amendment, not because we don't support it--I strongly support it--but
because I also even

[[Page S13367]]

more strongly support the right of every single Senator to be partners
in the legislative process.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my leader for his comments and his spirit because
it is the spirit we need in this country, which is the can-do spirit.
We can take care of the people's business, even if it is difficult for
my friend. I know it is because I know the kind of goodness he has in
his heart. This isn't his favorite moment to come down to the floor and
have to express his feelings of dismay and his anger, frankly. My
friend listed bills that are in the landfill, the graveyard. I want to
ask the Senator about three other issues that I think are in danger of
joining in that Republican graveyard: The 100,000 teachers, the 100,000
police, and decent, qualified judges who have been waiting for years to
get a vote.

I wonder if my leader would comment on those three areas, as well.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California puts her finger right on the
issues I omitted, and rightfully so. One year ago, we all had a
bipartisan agreement and celebrated the fact we were going to reduce
class size. How ironic it is now, after all the celebration, that in
just 12 months Republicans have had a change of heart. Now, apparently,
class size is no longer an issue. Now, apparently, it is OK to have
kids in classrooms with 35, 40, 50 children. It doesn't matter. The
Senator is right about that.
The Senator is also right about judges. I don't know how anyone can
look Judge Paez in the eye and say he got a fair deal. I don't know how
Members tell anybody who has had to wait for more than 3 years that
this system is fair. I don't know how Members tell the Hispanic
community we are being equally as fair with them as we are with all
non-Hispanic judges when that simply is not true. If one is in a
minority, that person has a bigger contest in getting confirmed. That
is a fact. I won't deal with all the perceptions that creates, but it
is wrong. Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African
American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate
floor.
What are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? What is wrong with
a vote? There is something wrong in our system when somebody has the
right to tell somebody who is willing to commit him or herself to
public service that we are going to make that person wait 3\1/2\ years
just to get a vote. We are not going to tell them what is wrong. We are
not going to say if there is something wrong in their background. We
are not going to debate whether they have qualifications or not. We are
going to make them wait, and hopefully they will go away. Hopefully,
they will go away.
What does that say? What does that say about the intentions of people
on the other side? Go away. Don't make any noise.
That is wrong. That is worse than a legislative landfill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. I commend the Senator for his very eloquent and accurate
assessment of what has happened to this institution. I have been here
for some period of time, and I say this is absolutely a unique set of
circumstances. The leader has, I think, accurately described the
current system.
I think it is important, as our friend from California pointed out,
what it means in terms of people's lives. We can talk about the tree
and blocking amendments, but let's take one bill, the Patients' Bill of
Rights.
This chart lists in white all the provisions that were in the Senate
bill, which our Democratic leader managed so well, and which was
submitted in the Senate. All of these provisions represent the best
judgment of a bipartisan commission set up by the President. They
unanimously made these recommendations. They had to be unanimous in
order to make the recommendations. They didn't make the recommendation
to put them in law, but they said: This is what is necessary to protect
the people. Or by the insurance commissioners, that are neither
Democrat or Republican organizations; or, in other instances, in
Medicare.
This side of the chart represents what happened in the House of
Representatives with a bipartisan group of House Members, 68
Republicans and the Democrats. These full dots indicate the House of
Representatives has effectively agreed with the legislation advanced by
the minority leader.
I ask, since this was a bipartisan program and the leader had the
overwhelming support of the Democrats, whether the Senator would not
welcome the opportunity this afternoon to go ahead and pass what was
passed in the House of Representatives so we would not have the kind of
circumstance we have every single day we are delayed: 35,000 Americans
delayed or denied specialty care; 31,000 forced to change doctors;
18,000 forced to change medicine indications; 59,000 Americans with
added pain and suffering; 41,000 with a worsening condition; and 11,000
with permanent disability.
That happens every single day.
As I gather from what the leader has said, the kind of legislative
trapeze that has been set up by the majority leader denies this
minority the opportunity to take action that can make a difference in
the lives of the families of America. I think it is worthwhile, as we
talk and listen carefully to the Senator's concerns, to know the result
of the inaction. Real families are being hurt in America. They don't
have to be hurt. Republicans and Democrats alike got together to
provide some protection, but this leadership in this body is denying
the American people the ability to receive the kind of protections they
should.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. He
gave a perfect illustration of how they are being hurt on health care.
I think he is also right that it is important to try to put this in
terms the American people understand. This has to do with more than
just procedure. We are talking procedure, and sometimes I may get too
engrossed in my own procedural frustration to try to ensure that we
talk about this in ways the American people fully understand.
If anyone out there today has been ripped off by an insurance company
or has been denied care by a hospital or doctor because they are being
told by the insurance company they cannot do it, those people are
affected by what is happening this afternoon on the floor, one of the
thousands of people who have been adversely affected by our inability
to have a good debate. Anyone out there who has a child in a classroom
with 35 or 40 kids is affected by what is going on right now.
If anyone out there has been affected by some crime in the
neighborhood because we haven't fully funded the COPS Program, then, by
golly, those Americans are affected dramatically by what has happened
right now. If anyone is out there working at lousy minimum wage and
can't make ends meet, they are affected by what is happening right now
because the other side doesn't want a minimum wage increase--not this
year, not ever. If they did, they would have supported it a long time
ago. If anyone out there wonders why this is all going on, turn the
pages of the calendar back 2 weeks and find out it was their side that
defeated campaign finance reform and we are affected by what is
happening right now. Don't let anybody out there, I don't care what
issue, think this is not relevant.

The assistant Democratic leader probably made the best illustration.
I think our people are in greater danger today than they have ever been
before to the exposure of greater nuclear proliferation because of what
the Senate did 3 weeks ago. You are affected by it. You are affected by
it.
This is more than procedure. This is what is going on here and how
affected we are by it. This has everything to do with why we got
elected in the first place, because we wanted to come down and fight
for these issues. It is more than whether we can offer an amendment, it
is whether we pass the amendment. It is whether we do something good
for this country, for whatever limited time we are here. That is what
this is about.
We came to fight. We came to fight for the things in which we
believe: A better minimum wage, more teachers, a good health care
system, an end to nuclear proliferation, a safer neighborhood, a better
minimum wage--things

[[Page S13368]]

about which people today can only dream. That is what we came to fight
for. There are opportunities for debates about things; there ought to
be.
We have to decide what kind of body this is going to be. Those who
wish for the rules of the House ought to go to the House. To understand
the 200-year tradition of the Senate, pull open this drawer. I see some
wonderful names, names in some cases that have been there for
generations. These people, the people in my drawer, fought for the same
things I am fighting for right now. These people fought for health
care, these people fought for better working conditions for families,
these people fought for a safer neighborhood, these people fought for
the arms control agreements of their day. They fought. They were not
handcuffed. They were not gagged. They were not confined to a
legislative straitjacket. They fought valiantly, and today we sing
their praises as the legislative leaders and giants of old.
We want to fight. We want to be part of this process. We want to be
able to pass this institution onto the next generation of Senators and
say: Welcome to the greatest deliberative body in the world.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I want to make sure those who are following this debate
understand what we are talking about. When we use terms such as ``fill
the tree,'' which we are talking about, we are basically talking about
a gag rule here which says Members of the Senate can't offer
amendments.
Some critics say: We know what you mean; the old Senate filibuster.
You want to go on forever offering amendment after amendment after
amendment so you can never get anything done around here.
Can the leader on the Democratic side tell us, have we offered to the
Republican side to limit the debate on the amendments, to limit the
number of amendments, to require they be published in the Record so we
know the parameters of the debate and so we know it will come to an end
at a certain time, we know there will be an up-or-down vote? Has that
been part of the bargaining?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois has raised an important
question. On the issue of bankruptcy, the answer is absolutely yes.
My initial position on bankruptcy was, we ought to have the
opportunity to offer amendments, relevant or nonrelevant. We ought to
use regular order--I should say that. We ought to use the regular order
of the Senate in taking up a bill. That is what my suggestion was.
The majority leader said: No, we cannot do that.
So I said: What about offering at least five amendments that may not
be directly related to bankruptcy but are important to Democrats?
He said: No, we can't do that.
I said: What about offering three amendments that are important to
Democrats that may not be directly related to bankruptcy, requiring
that all Senators file all relevant amendments prior to a certain time?
I am told now the majority leader cannot do that.
So, inch by inch, step by step, the majority wants to rob you and rob
every single Member on this side of the aisle of your right to be a
full partner in the Senate.
We all want to be able to move legislation. I will agree with some,
disagree with others. Ultimately, if the Senator from Illinois is right
and we are able to close the gap on bankruptcy with some good
amendments, I will be supportive of that legislation. I expect to be.
But I also expect you will have a right to offer an amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator agree with our former friend, late
departed Mike Synar, Congressman from Oklahoma, who is quoted as
saying: If you don't want to fight fires, don't become a fireman, and
if you don't want to come to Congress and vote on tough amendments,
don't run for the House or Senate.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois recalls and I recall our
wonderful colleague very well. No one was sharper, more energetic,
brighter, better liked in our caucus in the House than Mike Synar. He
said that and a lot of other truthful things. He was right.
It makes me wonder what people are afraid of. What in the world are
Senators afraid of, bringing up and debating an amendment? We used to
do that all the time. I can recall so many occasions when we had to
come down to the floor and table an amendment that might have had
immediate popularity but was not good for the country. We did that. We
tabled amendments. We second-degreed them.
Again, I am getting into ``beltway speak'' here, but the bottom line
is, we respected Senators' rights to fight for the things they cared
about, to fight for the things for which the people sent them to fight.
The Senator from Illinois has done that on an array of issues. Every
Senator on this floor has come with a certain agenda and a belief they
could make a difference. But how do you make a difference if you do not
have a voice? How do you make a difference when you do not have an
opportunity to legislate? How do you make a difference when you are
really shoved back into the mentality and the constraints of the House
of Representatives when you are a Senator? That is not what the people
of our States and this country sent us to do.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished leader yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the stand the distinguished leader takes
is one of a fundamental nature. It is one of principle and not
politics, and I am in the best position to comment upon it, for the
simple reason, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota favors the
Finance Committee bill. He would favor throttling me and getting rid of
me and having a quick vote. But he understands, better than any, there
is more to the Senate than a gymnasium for political gymnastics
whereby, on parliamentary positions, you can just cut everybody off.
I cannot see Senator Mansfield for a second going along with this
nonsense. I could not see for a second Senator Dirksen even suggesting
it. There has always been an unwritten rule of comity and understanding
and friendship and the strength of feeling. Sometimes, when Senators
have that feeling, it is respected by the other 99 Senators.
Here, the Senator from South Dakota, our minority leader, has been
very eloquent on the position taken as a matter of principle. His
politics are otherwise. He could go along with Senator Lott and say:
The dickens with it, fill up the tree, tomorrow we'll vote, we'll have
cloture, and this bill will be over with, and everything else of that
kind.

But the opposite is the case. He has taken a stand for the Senate
majority and minority. It is a Senate stand. I commend him for taking
it.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
I know the assistant Democratic leader has been very patient, waiting
to speak. For that reason, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Before the leader leaves, on behalf of the Democrats in the
Senate and the people of the United States of America, we congratulate
and applaud his statement. The Senate stands for what our Constitution
was set up to do. We are not the House of Representatives. We are not
elected every 2 years. We are to be a deliberative body, and the leader
spoke so well in that regard. I, as I said for all Democrats and for
the country, respect and appreciate his position.
I would like to ask a question of my friend from North Dakota. I say
to my friend from North Dakota, does he remember--I see at least five
Senators, here coincidentally on the floor, all of whom agreed to
oppose the rush by the Republicans to have a constitutional amendment
to balance the budget. We opposed that, the five of us on the floor
today: The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer; the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy; the Senator from South Carolina, Mr.
Hollings; this Senator; and the leader walking out to his office.
Do you recall we all opposed the constitutional amendment to balance
the budget that was presented by the Republican majority? Do you recall
our opposing that?

[[Page S13369]]

Mr. DORGAN. In response to the Senator from Nevada, when we had the
debate in the Senate on the constitutional amendment to balance the
budget, one of the questions we raised was about writing into the
Constitution of the United States a practice of using Social Security
trust funds for the purpose of balancing the budget; in other words,
taking trust funds that were designated for Social Security, which came
from the taxpayers' paychecks and put into a trust fund, and using them
as other revenue, just as if it was any other dollar of tax revenue. We
raised the question: Do you think it is appropriate to weld into the
U.S. Constitution a practice as dishonest as that? These are trust
funds, after all.
Mr. REID. What was their answer to that question?
Mr. DORGAN. Their answer was: We insist on doing it this way; we
demand we change the U.S. Constitution by requiring that Social
Security trust funds be counted as any other form of revenue for the
purposes of computing our budget balance. We demand it, they said.
One of the meetings was in this Cloakroom, another back there,
another on the floor. We said: But that is not an honest way of
budgeting. If you did that in private business--if you have a company
and you want to show how much profit you made last year, and in showing
how much profit, you want to bring your employees' pension moneys into
the bottom line and say that is the profit, if you do that, you are
going to get 10 years of hard time in some prison.
We said: It is not appropriate to use Social Security trust funds and
certainly not appropriate to lock it into the Constitution.
They said: We have to use them; it is the only way we can balance the
budget. They said, back in the Cloakroom, to Senator Conrad and myself:
We will make a deal with you. We want to write into the Constitution
that we can use the Social Security trust funds to balance the budget,
just as other revenues, just take them out of the trust funds and use
them as other revenues, and we will stop doing it in the year 2012.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator remember that was put in writing by one of
the Republican Senators?
Mr. DORGAN. The year 2012 was not put in writing. We said that
doesn't make any sense.
They have two stages of denial. First, we are not using Social
Security, they said. Second, if we are, we will stop by 2012.
Then they said: If you don't buy 2012, we will actually put in this
constitutional amendment that we will stop using the Social Security
trust funds in 2008. And that is what they put in writing. I still have
that deep in the bowels of my desk somewhere with their handwriting: We
propose we stop using Social Security trust funds by 2008, but we
insist on the right to do it until then. In fact, we want to put it in
the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator recall that the Senators on the floor
offered our own constitutional amendment to balance the budget that
said we want to balance the budget the hard way, the honest way, and we
do not want to use Social Security surpluses? We offered that amendment
and the Republicans, all but two of them, voted against it; is that
right?
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct on that. We offered that
amendment, in fact, on a couple of different occasions. They wanted
nothing to do with it.
The reason this is an important issue, if I can respond to the
Senator from Nevada, is because we have the majority party running
television ads across the country at the moment.
Mr. REID. I wanted to give a lead in to my friend from North Dakota.
North Dakota is a State sparsely populated, somewhat similar to Nevada.
The State of North Dakota has a single congressional district; is that
right?
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Republicans have been running ads, I have been told, in
that congressional district, which is that whole State, saying
Democrats are bad because we are using Social Security surpluses to
balance the budget. Are they running ads like that? And if they are,
will the Senator from North Dakota comment on what is going on?
Mr. DORGAN. In our State and others, the majority party is running
ads, and the ads are fundamentally dishonest. In political dialog, you
have a right to say what you want to say even if it is fundamentally
untrue. The ads in North Dakota by the Republican Party are saying the
Democrats are stealing, taking Social Security trust funds, they are
spending trust funds. In fact, just the opposite is the case. It is the
majority party that is taking the trust funds. They demanded they be
taken back in the debate on the constitutional amendment. In fact, they
demanded the opportunities to take them and put it in the Constitution.
They are doing it and denying they are doing it and charging others.
It is akin to the big bully on the schoolyard playground who blames
somebody else: No, ma, those aren't my cigarettes; I was holding them
for two other guys who were fighting. It is that approach.
Let me read a letter to the Senator from Nevada from the head of the
Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. REID. Dated today?
Mr. DORGAN. Dated today.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator explain for those within the sound of his
voice what ``CBO'' is?
Mr. DORGAN. The Congressional Budget Office is an office that has
historically been a nonpartisan office. It is supposed to be the
scorekeeper. This would be the referee keeping score on numbers and
budgets. What happened previously--this is very interesting--is the
majority party wrote to the Congressional Budget Office, and they
said--
Mr. REID. The Republicans wrote; is that right?
Mr. DORGAN. That is right. They said they wanted to have certain
directed scoring adjustments. Let me give an example of what is a
directed scoring adjustment. They were writing to the Congressional
Budget Office to get comfort for what they were doing. Directed scoring
adjustment is, if I went to an accountant and said: All right, I want
you to certify for me what my checkbook balance is, but I direct you
not to count the last 10 checks I have written in determining the
balance. That is a directed adjustment.
Or I say: I want you to tell me whether there are any hills on the
Earth, and for that purpose, will you assume that the Earth is flat.
That is a directed assumption.
The Republicans used these directed assumptions and said to CBO:
Using these directed assumptions, tell us, are we in good shape?
CBO: Yes, using those assumptions, you are in fine shape. Not using
Social Security money, you are in good shape.
This is what Mr. Crippin, the head of CBO, says in response to
Congressman Spratt who wrote to him:

As you requested, these estimates reflect the Congressional
Budget Office's assumptions and methodology and exclude these
directed scoring adjustments.

That is the little funny money put in--
Mr. REID. The last 10 checks; they can count everything.
Mr. DORGAN. Right. This is an honest look. There are no games here;
they haven't jimmied up the estimates on the baseline based on a
request by anybody. Here is the honest look, and what they say is:
Having done your 13 appropriations bills, Republicans in Congress, you
have now spent $17 billion of the Social Security trust funds this
year, and you will require a nearly 6-percent, across-the-board
reduction in all spending--all spending--veterans' health care, senior
citizens, the WIC Program for infants and low-income women, the Head
Start Program--you will require a nearly 6-percent, across-the-board
cut in all spending in order to avoid your continued use or misspending
of the Social Security surplus.

This is today's letter. I want to make this point: Those who are
spending the money to put the dishonest ads on television this
afternoon in my State ought to be ashamed of themselves. They ought to
be ashamed. They know it is dishonest. This proves it is dishonest. But
money in today's politics is speech. If money is speech, there are a
lot of speechless people in this country, and that is regrettable. But
the folks with the money can put a television ad on and say down is up,
black is white, grass is purple--whatever they want to say, and they
can, as they have done, ask somebody with directed scoring adjustments,
tell me my bank balance if you don't count the last 10

[[Page S13370]]

checks; or tell me the Earth is flat if I insist the Earth is flat in
the assumption.
They create a dishonest brand of politics in this country. Shame on
those who do it.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from North Dakota, what you are saying
is the majority party, the Republicans who run this place--they have
the majority, they are passing these appropriations bills--and the CBO
has said they have already used--they, the majority party who gets
bills passed here--they have used Social Security surplus moneys this
year and they are running ads in the State of North Dakota and around
the country saying Democrats are using Social Security money? The
Senator has been very discreet in his description. To me, where I come
from, that is a falsehood; that is a lie; that is dishonest. Am I
misinterpreting what you have said?
Mr. DORGAN. No; the Senator has stated it exactly as I said. Let me
mention one additional point that relates to something about which the
Democratic leader spoke.
One could say: Well, if you know this to be true--we know it to be
true by the Congressional Budget Office today--why don't you do
something about it? Why don't you bring an amendment to the floor of
the Senate?
The point is, we can't bring an amendment to the floor of the Senate.
The Senate is tied up, deliberately. We have what is called a
legislative tree that has been created that would prevent those on our
side from offering amendments.
If I might just take one additional minute. I grew up in a town of
300 people. We had an elderly widow in my town, kind of a disagreeable
elderly widow. She had a huge crab apple tree in her front yard. And
she was disagreeable enough to demand, although she had so many crab
apples--she could have fed the whole town; they dropped on the ground--
she demanded that children never pick her crab apples. So, of course,
we had to wait until after dark to pick her crab apples. But she was
only disagreeable with those she did not want to pick crab apples. Her
friends, she would usher them in, and they would pick her crab apples.
I was thinking about the majority leader today and the tree. It is
kind of like that disagreeable elderly woman in my hometown. He says: I
want to create a tree here and decide--standing right over there on the
floor--who can come in and pick the fruit from this tree. By the way,
that doesn't include anybody from the Democratic side of the aisle--
nobody. No one on that side of the aisle is going to pick any of my
fruit.
Why? It is partisan. Everybody says: Well, this is all partisan with
you. It is not partisan with us. It is partisan with those who want to
run the Senate in a manner that says our friends are going to have full
opportunity to bring their ideas to the floor of the Senate--and, after
all, that is the only currency in this kind of institution: An idea, a
good idea. The majority leader will say: The way I want to run the
Senate is my friends have an opportunity to bring their ideas to the
floor of the Senate; and we are going to have votes; but you in the
minority will not, and may not, have that opportunity.
That is why we cannot allow that to continue. It is unforgivable to
allow that to continue.
Mr. REID. I direct a question to my friend from California.
You have heard the dialog, the discussion, the colloquy between the
Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada. I would like the
Senator to comment on something that was killed here a couple weeks
ago, and that is campaign finance reform. Why is it needed? I would
like the Senator to comment on that. Especially in light of all these
false ads that have been running all over this country, why do we need
campaign finance reform in our country, which the Republicans have
killed?
Mrs. BOXER. I think one of the reasons people are disillusioned today
and do not participate in the greatest democracy in the world is that
they believe their voice does not count. They believe money talks. And
listening to the debate we had on this floor, with the Senator from
Kentucky on their side of the aisle leading that fight, I am sure they
have concluded they are right. The Senator equates money with speech.
It was, to me, one of the saddest debates I have ever heard around
here.
People do not vote, they do not participate, because they believe
they do not count. Ordinary people, average people, they can't make the
$1,000 contribution, or the $5,000, or the $10,000, or the $20,000
contribution, or, frankly, the $100,000 and $200,000 contributions of
soft money that come into play here.
I think it was a very sad situation when the Republicans, defying a
majority of this Senate--and we had a majority vote for campaign
finance reform--took that piece of legislation and threw it into the
graveyard, along with all the other things our Democratic leader and
our assistant Democratic leader have talked about--all the important
things: The HMO reforms, the teachers, the policemen, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, and a number of other issues that they have thrown
into that graveyard, the last one being campaign finance reform.

Mr. REID. We have been so impeded in progress around here.
Does the Senator also recognize we have done nothing with important
environmental issues facing this country?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I have been waiting 3 days to see us get into a
debate on the things that matter to people--things such as the minimum
wage and environmental protection.
Mr. REID. The minority leader has mentioned, and the Senator from
California has just mentioned, minimum wage. Does the Senator from
California understand that over 60 percent of the people who draw
minimum wage are women, and of those 60 percent, for 40 percent of them
that is the only money they get for their families? So, in short, would
the Senator agree that the people who need minimum wage are not
teenagers at McDonald's flipping hamburgers?
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. My friend is right. We held a number of press
conferences before the last increase of the minimum wage--which now
seems like history, it was so long ago--where we brought that point out
that 60 percent of the people on minimum wage are adult women who are
supporting their families. They work very hard. If they work full time
at a minimum wage job, I say to my friend, they are way below the
poverty line. They are earning about $11,000 a year. For a family of
three or four, they can barely make it. They can't feed their kids, pay
their rent, or buy many clothes at all.
So the bottom line is, my friend is right. When we talk about minimum
wage, we should get behind what that means. What that means is, if we
do not raise it, people in this country will be hungry, children in
this country will be hungry. We already have many children living in
poverty. That is the largest group of our citizenry living in poverty.
I want to ask my friend to comment on something here, if he would do
me that favor. I am so proud of his leadership and that of Senator
Daschle today in framing the issues.
When I heard the Senator from North Dakota go back and forth with my
friend from Nevada on the Social Security issue, I was very glad they
raised this issue on the floor. Because of the fact that we have a
social safety net for seniors in this country, we have seen that the
people in poverty no longer are the senior citizens. We should all be
proud of that. But I want to read just a few lines from an editorial
that ran in the San Diego Union Tribune. It was written by a man named
Lionel Van Deerlin who, for many years, was in Congress.
Mr. REID. From California.
Mrs. BOXER. Correct, from the San Diego area. He is now a senior
citizen himself and quite sharp, as you can tell from this.
I am going to read probably just 2 minutes' worth of his words, and I
would love my friend to comment. It is called ``Trusting the GOP to
`save' Social Security.''

For anyone who just fell off the turnip truck, Republicans
in Congress have a new rallying cry--``We won't let them raid
Social Security!''. . . .
[Tom] DeLay [who is the Republican whip in the House] asks
us to believe that the Social Security trust fund is under
assault by Democrats, and we must trust his party [the
Republican Party] to protect it.
I'd sooner entrust a lettuce leaf to a rabbit. Credibility
surely matters. In probing the violence at Grandmother's
house in the woods, whom do we believe, Little Red Riding
Hood or the wolf?

[[Page S13371]]

Here is one of those demonstrable facts of history:

And he goes on:

Had it been left to the Republicans in Congress, we'd never
have had Social Security in the first place. Nor Medicare.

He says:

GOP House and Senate members invariably lined up
in opposition to these social programs.

Mr. REID. Would the Senator pause from finishing her statement?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. REID. I carry with me in my wallet, because I think it is hard
for people to comprehend this is true--here it is. Just to show Lionel
Van Deerlin is not too old to remember what really happened, I have
here what I carry in my wallet: GOP leaders on Medicare and Social
Security.
Let me read to the Senator what some of the leaders have to say.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, with whom we both served when we
were in the House, said:

Medicare has no place in a free world. Social Security is a
rotten trick. I think we're going to have to bite the bullet
on Social Security and phase it out over time.

I could read a statement from former leader Bob Dole, from House
Speaker Gingrich.
The point is, Lionel Van Deerlin is right on target because
Republicans did not vote for Social Security to begin with. And they
still hate it.
Mrs. BOXER. I am glad you carry that around because if you were to
listen to these ads on TV, you would think the Republicans thought of
the idea of Social Security and Medicare, when, in fact, they fought it
every inch of the way.
Just a few years ago, in 1994, Dick Armey, in addition said if he
were here, he wouldn't have voted for Social Security.
So this is what Lionel Van Deerlin writes.

GOP House and Senate members invariably lined up in
opposition to these social programs.
As Casey Stengel would advise, you could look it up.

He writes further on:

Yet when President Roosevelt's original Social Security
bill neared passage the following year, every Republican
present voted to ``recommit'' the measure. To send it back to
committee, that is, to kill it.

He goes on:

Today's GOP generation offers little more to warm one's
hands on. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a one-time
economics professor, has openly urged the phasing out of
Social Security. And no less a prophet than ex-Speaker Newt
Gingrich tipped his hand upon taking the gavel in 1995.
``Let it wither on the vine,'' was his chilling suggestion
for dealing with a system vital to the support of nearly 45
million Americans.

He continues:

I offer the foregoing compendium from public records, not
to belittle or embarrass decent, often likable leaders of
past and present. They did not climb the ladder with
subnormal IQs, nor by ignoring ordinary folk in their
respective states and districts . . . no matter how earnestly
Armey, DeLay, [and the Republicans] ask us to trust them in
regard to Social Security, I offer this advice:
Don't.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the editorial from which I just quoted.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 27, 1999]

Trusting the GOP To `Save' Social Security

(By Lionel Van Deerlin)

For anyone who just fell off the turnip truck, Republicans
in Congress have a new rallying cry--``We won't let them raid
Social Security!''
Those of us past 65 are expected to feel relieved. Final
budget negotiations are under way between Congress and the
White House. Listen to those Sunday talk shows and you'd
believe a profligate president is poised to riddle the
retirement system that has served America since before thoese
guys were born.
A bone of contention concerns the willingness of either
side to rely on a portion of the Social Security trust fund
in balancing the Treasury's books. Though this has happened
often in the past, it's a crutch that should not seem
necessary in light of record surpluses.
But resolving the question hardly seems worth another
government shutdown. Nor, I'd add, letting one side escape
nearly seven decades of some pretty telling history.
My understanding of actuarial tables and most financial
matters is no sharper than average. I sometimes lose my way
in a maze of bookkeeping totals. But the years have not
impaired my memory. And when someone like Republican Whip Tom
DeLay, the ex-termite mogul from Texas, impersonates Horatio
at the Bridge. I cringe in wonderment.
DeLay asks us to believe the Social Security trust fund is
under assault by Democrats, and we must trust his party to
protect it.
I'd sooner entrust a lettuce leaf to a rabbit. Credibility
surely matters. In probing the violence at Grandmother's
house in the woods, whom do we believe, Little Red Riding
Hood or the wolf?
Here is one of those demonstrable facts of history: Had it
been left to the Republicans in Congress, we'd never have had
Social Security in the first place. Nor Medicare. GOP House
and Senate members invariably lined up in opposition to these
social programs.
As Casey Stengel would advise, you could look it up.
Midterm elections in the Depression year 1934 had reduced
GOP ranks in the House to fewer than 90 members. Yet when
President Roosevelt's original Social Security bill neared
passage the following year, every Republican present voted
to ``recommit'' the measure. To send it back to committee,
that is, to kill it.
It was much the same with Medicare nearly 30 years later.
In July, 1962, only five Republican senators supported
President Kennedy's plea for this historic expansion of
Social Security--which then failed on a 52-48 vote. The
eventual enactment of Medicare had to wait three years more.
Almost always, top GOP leaders were slow to embrace or to
improve the sort of social insurance system long in place
among other industrial nations. Sen. Barry Goldwater, the
GOP's 1964 presidential candidate, may have doomed his
chances in the New Hampshire primary by saying:
``I would like to suggest that Social Security should be
made voluntary--that if a person can provide better for
himself, let him do it.''
And Ronald Reagan? The conservative magazine Human Events
in November, 1966, quotes the future president saying
``Social Security ought to be voluntary . . . so those who
can make better provision for themselves are allowed to do
so.''
Ten years later Reagan was telling The New York Times:
``Don't exchange freedom for the soup kitchen of compulsory
insurance.''
The soup kitchen? It goes without saying that noting in the
law prevents any recipient from making better provision for
him or herself, as most do. But without the total involvement
of all wage earners, Social Security would quickly slip into
a massive welfare system for the improvident and unlucky. And
higher taxes for the rest.
Today's GOP generation offers little more to warm one's
hands on. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a one-time
economics professor, has openly urged phasing out Social
Security. And no less a prophet than ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich
tipped his hand upon taking the gavel in 1995.
``Let it wither on the vine,'' was his chilling suggestion
for dealing with a system vital to the support of nearly 45
million Americans.
I offer the foregoing compendium from public records not to
belittle nor to embarrass decent, often likable leaders of
past and present. They did not climb the ladder with
subnormal IQs, nor by ignoring ordinary folk in their
respective states and districts.
Dr. Kevorkian, too, seems an intelligent and genial fellow.
It's never unreasonable to seek a second opinion.
Meanwhile, no matter how earnestly Armey, Delay, et al. ask
us to trust them in regard to Social Security, I offer this
advice:
Don't.

Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from California, we came to the House
together in 1982. I had never seen you before until the day we had our
orientation. We have served together in the House of Representatives
and the Senate. You and I have been involved in some very tough
campaigns over the years. I have always been so proud of the Senator
from California, because it doesn't matter if you are speaking to the
League of Women Voters or to a high school class, whoever you are
speaking to, you say the same thing in response to the same question.
You have had tough, hard campaigns, but you have never deviated from
what you believe in. It has caused you some heartache and heartburn
because they have been tough decisions. That is why I am so upset and
feel so oppressed, put upon, and don't know what to do about these ads
running all over the country.
You can have tough campaigns. A person can run against Barbara Boxer.
A person can speak out against Barbara Boxer on an issue because they
disagree with how you feel on that issue. That is what government is
all about. That is what governing is all about. But not to come up
with, we love Social Security and the Democrats are trying to destroy
it. That, I am sorry to say, is not fair. It is not right. It is
dishonest. It is wrong. This is what a totalitarian government is all
about. If you tell a lie long enough, people might believe it.

[[Page S13372]]

I hope the American people will not believe the lie being perpetrated
around this country by the Republicans saying Democrats are trying to
destroy Social Security. We founded Social Security. Just as
Congressman Van Deerlin said, we did it on the votes of Democrats. We
have saved Social Security. We are the ones who stopped it from being
placed in the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, where
they would raid the funds more. What is happening around the country is
distasteful. It is wrong. It is dishonest. It is repugnant. Somebody
should speak out against it. That is why you are here today.
Mrs. BOXER. I am so proud of the Senator's leadership today on this
issue and so many others. I think these ads are going to backlash. In
the end, the truth will come out. The American people are fair people.
The American people are going to judge us, and they are going to judge
us harshly on what we say and what we do. But they want the truth.
I do believe that with this kind of writing by Congressman Van
Deerlin, who left the Congress a long time ago but still carries a
tremendous amount of respect, his being, in his own conscience, unable
to let this go and writing such strong words with a sense of humor--and
editorials are popping up all over the country--I think the Republican
Party is going to find a backlash across this Nation. I believe in my
heart people will understand what they are doing.
It is fair to attack a candidate, a Senator, a Presidential
candidate, a President on an issue. It is fair to do that. It is not
fair to make up a story, make up a scenario because you have taken a
poll and you know you are on the wrong side.
As I said today, the Republicans say they created a lockbox for
Social Security. They forgot to tell us, they have the key. They
already opened up that lockbox to give $18 billion to the programs they
want. It is similar to the crab apple analogy before. They are taking
out those apples, $18 billion, and then they hold the key.
The bottom line is, to say we are not protecting Social Security
doesn't pass the smell test or the laugh test or the test of time or
the test of history.
I am, again, proud of my friend for taking the floor.
Mr. REID. In closing our dialog, I have confidence in the sense the
Senator has, that this will all come out. I hope the Senator is right.
My concern is--based upon what Senator Daschle a few minutes ago, when
he said they have put in the landfill, the graveyard, campaign finance
reform--money can sure confuse a lot of things. When they are spending
millions and millions of dollars on these false and misleading ads, I
hope we can right the ship. We need to speak out. I again tell the
Senator from California how much respect I have for her for standing
up, always, for what she thinks is right.

Mrs. BOXER. We will fight for the truth.
Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I wonder if the Senator from Nevada shares my same
frustration that the Republicans are distorting the record of Social
Security and their efforts to protect it. Like you, I lived through the
days of the Republican revolution back in 1995, when they literally
were talking about dismantling the Social Security system. Their
current track seems to be entirely bogus. But at the same time they are
distorting Social Security, they are also turning their backs on the
need in our country for some important legislation.
Many of them have been mentioned, but there is one, I think, that
warrants particular emphasis. That is hate crimes legislation. After
the tragic death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, of James Byrd in Texas,
the tragedy at Columbine, and arsons at synagogues in Sacramento, it is
high time we took a very simple step to provide the full ambit of our
civil rights protection for those crimes that are hate oriented, that
have been based upon gender or disability or sexual orientation. Yet
that, too, is in, as our leader said, the landfill of legislation that
has become this Congress to date.
I wonder if the Senator shares my frustration about that?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island has mentioned
three of the most dramatic and most publicized incidents, but they are
happening every day in America, tragic events where someone is being
hurt, maimed, killed, because they are a Jew, because their skin is a
different color--it may be black; it may be brown. The fact is,
somebody may have a different lifestyle with which someone doesn't
agree. People every day are being hurt in America.
There may be people who disagree with what we want to do with this
hate crimes legislation. But in the light of the Senate, couldn't we
have a debate on it? I know the Senator from Rhode Island would agree
on a very short time limit. I think we could do all we have to do in 2
or 3 hours, debate this issue and have an up-or-down vote on it.
Doesn't the Senator think the American people deserve a debate and a
vote on this issue?
Mr. REED. I do, indeed, agree with the Senator. What also strikes me
as particularly ironic is, when one of these incidents occurs, across
the spectrum of political thought, across the spectrum of this body,
there is unanimous condemnation. There is a lot of moralizing, a lot of
talk about isn't this horrible. Yet we have it within our power, as the
Senator suggests, to bring this legislation to the floor, to have a
debate, to constructively engage, to compromise, not on principles but
on details, so we can fulfill our legislative responsibilities.
Yet what frustrates me, and I believe also the Senator from Nevada,
is the fact that none of this is taking place, that all of this is
being shoved off to the sideline so that we are not able to do our
jobs. And while we are being frustrated, I should say that, as the
Senator pointed out so accurately, these hate crimes go on day in and
day out. Some are very publicized, some are not getting attention. It
is frustrating and it is wrong. All we are asking for a very simple
remedy. Let's make the protections of the hate crimes bill within the
ambit of our civil rights laws. Let us be able to give our enforcement
authorities the power to deal with crimes that are based upon
disability, gender, or sexual orientation. If we do that, then I think
we will advance the cause of justice in this society.
(Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are talking statistics and we are talking
about names of people whom we don't know, such as Matthew Byrd, the
young man in Wyoming. But the fact is, every day in America, someone's
husband, son, daughter, or wife is being hurt--a real person--and we in
the Senate and this Congress have the power to make their lives a
little better, to make sure that an example is set when somebody
commits a despicable act, and that it will become a crime that should
be--in the greatest country in the world, you should not be able to
oppress people because of race, color, creed, religion, or their
lifestyle. Does the Senator agree?
Mr. REED. Absolutely. One thing that resonates throughout this entire
dialog this afternoon is the fact that our inaction costs individual
Americans; it costs them better health care, it costs them better
education, it costs them the right to have a Federal judiciary that is
fully staffed by competent and committed judges, and it costs many
literally their lives because our indifference to hate crimes can do
nothing to stop them. In fact, one could suggest they create an
environment that does not discourage them and therefore might encourage
them. But, in any case, our inaction means that Americans are bearing
the costs, and these costs can be avoided simply by bringing to the
floor legislation and by moving with respect to this legislation in a
prompt and purposeful way. I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am about to yield the floor because I know
the Senator from South Carolina has had time to have a breather and the
Senator is now rejuvenated and ready to go on for a while longer.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I think now is the time that a record should be made
that this isn't a question of consuming time in the sense the majority
leader wants to move in an expeditious fashion to the legislation. He
doesn't want to hear it, and he doesn't want anybody else to discuss
these items. Let's look at the facts.

[[Page S13373]]

This bill was called on Friday and we had a motion to proceed since
everybody was leaving town. I wanted to discuss it and wanted to have
someone to talk to. I objected to the motion to proceed. I guess it was
a week ago Thursday night when they discussed and voted on other
matters on Friday. It was set again for Monday's discussion, but then
we lost our wonderful colleague, Senator Chafee. In respect to him, we
didn't debate anything. Instead we all expressed our sympathy and deep
sense of individual loss of such a wonderful colleague, who was so
considerate and so moderate in the sense of listening to both sides,
and willing to discuss issues. On Tuesday, we made opening statements
again--Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth and myself. I had to leave,
but it was thoroughly discussed all day Tuesday. On Wednesday, I was
prepared, having returned early in the morning. I had to testify before
a council meeting back in my own hometown on Tuesday evening. But I was
back here early.
Mr. REID. That was because your house burned down.
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right. What happens is, on Wednesday
morning, we didn't have the side agreements about NAFTA. We were being
told this was good because of NAFTA and that NAFTA worked--at least
NAFTA had side agreements on environment, labor, reciprocity, and
otherwise. Even though I was gone, my staff worked on the legislation.

When I took the floor on Wednesday morning, I was not recognized to
have the floor. I said I just wanted to discuss these amendments but
the Senate was conducting a quorum call. The leadership waited for an
hour and a half for the leader to come and did not allow any
discussion. I had gotten up twice and they would not even give me
consent to talk about the amendments, which is really what I had to
mind.
Then the leader comes in and he so-called filled up the tree, but
really he put it on the fast track. Namely, I could not, or you could
not, or anybody on this side of the aisle could not offer an amendment.
Now, on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Illinois can get
his amendment in at the committee hearing. He can get his amendment in
when the leader puts down the managers' amendment. He can get that
taken care of there. Or you can do as Senator Ashcroft of Missouri did.
He got the leader to call down the last amendment, come to the floor
and put up his agricultural amendment and, in the same breath, say the
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is irrelevant. That is how
gauche, arrogant, and unsenatorial this thing is. I never heard of such
a thing. They just lock you out and say, as has been pointed out, we
filled up the tree, and only Members on that side of the aisle can
enjoy the fruits of the tree.
Here we are. So don't have the majority leader come back and have the
audacity to say these are important matters; you all want to
filibuster. He is the one. I told him, up or down, I would take five
minutes to a side on amendments and we will have a roll call. He
doesn't want to have this subject up.
We ought to have Members on that side have at least the courage to
get up and say, wait a minute, these are important subjects. I would
think somebody on the other side of the aisle would like to talk about
the minimum wage. They say 83 percent of the people of America favor
it. We know what the situation is. Yet they won't even broach the
subject. They don't want the subject to come up. All we are hearing
when the leader comes is this is a tough job and these are the things
we have to do, and I would be glad to take two or three amendments. I
said, wait a minute. I would be glad to offer two amendments right now,
with five minutes to a side, and have a vote, or have 20 minutes to a
half hour of discussion and then vote, and we will be through with it.
Instead of doing that, it is a closeout of discussing important
subjects for the American people. From Friday of last week until
tonight, Thursday night, the majority was absolutely opposed to you
getting the floor whatsoever to discuss it. All of these subjects--
Social Security, education measures, the Patients' Bill of Rights,
health matters--the majority said was irrevelant. We are going to try
and complete our spending bills and try our dead level best to do it
without using Social Security. This comes at the very same time that
even their own Congressional Budget Office says Congress has already
spent $18 billion of Social Security monies.
Mr. REID. Let me say this to the Senator from South Carolina before I
give up the floor. We have talked today about a couple of very
important items, separate and apart from this underlying legislation,
to show what we have been unable to accomplish because they have put
stuff in the graveyard, the dump yard. The Senator from South Carolina
has spoken out more vividly and clearly than anybody else in this body
about the need for campaign finance reform, and I have supported the
Senator from South Carolina with the constitutional amendment. That is
the only way I think we can solve the problem once and for all. Does
the Senator agree?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir. I have tried my best. I would like to bring
it up. I am a realist. Let's bring up Shays-Meehan, which passed by a
strong bipartisan vote over on the House side. You would think it could
be voted upon, but it has not even been further discussed. We could
have 30 seconds to a side and vote. They won't let you vote.
Mr. REID. I also say to my friend, we have had a lot of talk today
about Social Security. I want the Record to be spread with the fact
that the Senator from South Carolina has been one of the leaders who
has been there every step of the way on making sure that we do not use
Social Security surpluses to balance the budget.
The Senator from South Carolina and I attended meetings at the
Sheraton Hotel when there were just a few of us. The Senator will
remember that we were fighting this onslaught to have a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. The Senator recalls the grief and the
editorials written about us because we said it is wrong to use Social
Security surpluses.
Does the Senator remember that?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I remember it very vividly. The truth is that I finally
said: Let's cut out the charade. Let's go to Social Security itself.
So, I asked the Administrator of Social Security: You folks write the
bill so that rather than using Social Security monies for IOUs and the
debt, we put it up in a lockbox. I want to make sure it is a truly,
honest-to-goodness lockbox.
So he wrote the measure, and I introduced it back in January. It went
to the Budget Committee, on which I serve. I asked for a hearing but
couldn't get one. They do not want to hear about a true lockbox.
Mr. REID. The Senator from South Carolina could be the ranking
member, and in the majority he would be chairman of that committee.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. I was the chairman under President Carter.
Mr. REID. It is not as if the Senator from South Carolina is a junior
member of the Budget Committee. He is a senior member of the Democratic
Party, and he can't even have a hearing on the bill in the Budget
Committee.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I worked on the bill with Senator Muskie; we wrote the
law. I have been on the Budget Committee ever since it was created. I
think Senator Domenici and I are the only two Members who have been on
the committee since its inception.
Mr. REID. Finally, I say to my friend from South Carolina that the
debate here is not over. The Senator from South Carolina is not the
reason this bill isn't going forward. The reason this bill is not going
forward is that they will not allow the Senator from South Carolina to
offer an amendment. I don't know, but I assume the Senator might want
to offer an amendment on minimum wage, or he might want to offer the
Shays-Meehan bill. He would agree to 5 minutes to each side to speak on
each one of those. We have had 7 days. If we had those with 20 minutes
out of 6 days to speak, that isn't much time, is it?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Not at all. That is what we ought to emphasize. It
isn't a matter of time and holding the process up or any of those kind
of things. It is that these important subjects will not be touched upon
politically because all that is being done is geared toward the next
election, the polls, and everything else of that kind. The majority
doesn't want to make unpopular votes. So you are protected with this
arrogant kind

[[Page S13374]]

of thing of filling up the tree, instituting fast track, and blocking
amendments except those checked through the Majority Leader's office.
And I hope this is publicized. I hope they have a conscience and will
quit this nonsense so we can save time, discuss the subjects, vote up
or down, and move on like an orderly body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment or two
to respond to some of the charges that have been leveled on the floor.
After listening to the colloquy that has gone on for some time, the
only thing I think is accurate out of it is that I would agree that my
friend from South Carolina has fought for years to ban Congress from
plundering the Social Security trust fund. He has been a leader in that
fight. But the one thing I would point out is that the whole other side
of the aisle has been voting time and time again this year against
doing just that--locking up the Social Security trust fund so it can't
be spent on other programs.
Ever since the Social Security program was created, all the money
that has been poured into it that is over and above that necessary to
pay current Social Security benefits has been taken out and spent on
other programs. That is not right. I and my friend from South Carolina
agree with that.
I know Senator Hollings, as he has said before--if somebody in the
private sector were to reach into an employee's pension fund and take
that money out and spend it for some other purpose than the employee's
pension, they would go to jail under laws that we in Congress have
passed.
My understanding is as well that a few years back Congress made it
illegal for anybody in State or local governments to raid one of their
pension funds.
It is important that Congress move forward now to once and for all
ban the plundering of the Social Security trust fund so we are setting
aside money and are in a better financial position come the year 2015
to pay the Social Security benefits of the baby boomers as they retire.
I have to say that if, indeed, my friends on the other side of the
aisle are in favor of banning Congress and the Government in Washington
from spending Social Security trust funds on other programs, why has it
been that they have voted against cloture on our Social Security
lockbox proposal time and time again this year?
It is for that reason I disagree with my friend from California, who
said she thought the criticism was unfair in some of those television
ads she was talking about. I don't think it is unfair. How can you vote
against a Social Security lockbox but then say you really want to
protect Social Security? I think it is a very fair point that
Republicans have been making. It is a fair criticism of the other side
of the aisle.
Furthermore, I point out that the other side of the aisle has
proposed one new spending bill after the other, and we have no surplus
other than the Social Security trust fund. If we want to have more
money for spending, where are we going to get that money? The only
place to take it, unless you are proposing a tax increase, is to take
it out of the Social Security trust fund.
Isn't it intellectually dishonest to stand here and say we support
protecting Social Security but at the same time get up and propose a
whole bunch of new spending bills that there is absolutely no way to
pay for without either a tax increase or another raid on Social
Security? To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have to say I
think the criticism has been fair.
The Senator from South Carolina has said, as my friends from
California and Nevada have said, that Republicans have put some of your
proposals in what you call the ``legislative graveyard.'' But don't
forget those times this summer and before this summer when, time and
time again, my Democratic friends put the Social Security lockbox
program in the graveyard, from which it still has not emerged. It has
only been with repeated pressure that this side of the aisle, on the
administration and on the appropriators, has largely been able to set
aside the money that is in surplus in Social Security so it will not be
spent on other programs.
I am hopeful that someday I can work with Senator Hollings to get the
strongest possible protection for those Social Security trust funds.
Right now, when we are talking about a lockbox, we are really just
talking about using that money to pay down the Government debt--the
debt that is now in the hands of people who own Government bonds. We
are really still not at the point where we can talk about creating a
real trust fund that has real money in it that is available to pay
benefits. I think someday we need to make that trust fund a real trust
fund.

But the problem with that is, in order to cross that line, we have to
have the great national debate as to where we are going to invest that
money because if we are going to make the Social Security trust fund a
real fund--I favor doing that--we are going to have to cross a
threshold on this issue of what we want that real money to be invested
in.
Until we have had that debate and reached consensus on that issue, it
is appropriate that we take that $3.5 trillion in debt we now owe to
people who own Government bonds in this country and all around the
world and use the Social Security excess to pay down that debt. That is
absolutely the best use of the money. It is far superior to taking it
and frittering it away on other programs and leaving our external debt
at such high levels.
I, again, compliment my friend from South Carolina. He has been the
one person I have found in this Senate who agrees with me on this issue
that it is wrong for Washington to be telling the American people we
have a budget surplus when, in fact, the national debt is still going
up. It will go up almost $100 billion.
The biggest adjustment I have had coming to Washington, as a first-
year freshman coming from a private sector background in banking, is
getting used to the Washington math. When I looked at the first budget
proposal that said we will have trillions of dollars' worth of
surpluses between now and 2015, and I looked at the back of the budget
and it had a schedule of the national debt which is going up every
year, I asked, how can the national debt be rising if we are running
surpluses? Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. That is an
accounting trick. If anybody in the private sector used that kind of
accounting, they would be in jail. They would have ankle bracelets on.
That is a disgrace. It is misleading.
I thought the President's address, when he told the country we were
going to pay off the national debt by 2015, was very reckless. It was
reckless of him to so mislead people. He was talking about one of only
two components of our national debt. There are two components of the
national debt: debt we owe to people who own government bonds and debt
we owe to pension and trust funds, such as the Social Security trust
fund and the Federal employees pension fund.
We have a President who has a well-deserved reputation for choosing
his words carefully. I looked at his statement and couldn't find
anything he said that was inaccurate. He said we were going to pay down
the debt owed to the public by 2015. What he did not tell the American
people, and what Congress has not told the American people, is that the
other portion of the national debt, that portion owed to government
pension and trust funds, is going to quadruple between now and 2015.

Senator Hollings has used the analogy of a family who has a Visa and
a MasterCard. In our own families, we would not go home and uncork the
champagne when paying down the Visa by putting more debt on the
MasterCard. Such dubious refinancing is no cause for celebration. Yet
all over Washington they are uncorking the champagne because they are
paying down one portion of the national debt; they are not telling
anybody the other portion is continuing to skyrocket.
I yield for a question.
Mr. REID. The Senator talked about the lockbox bill before the
Senate. Does the Senator agree it would be appropriate that the
Democrats, the minority, should be able to offer one amendment on your
lockbox proposal?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I have no problem with offering an amendment. I am
happy to vote on it.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois, I appreciate his candor.
I appreciate the Senator indicating he doesn't

[[Page S13375]]

think there is anything wrong with it. Either do we. That is what this
is about.
The majority, the Republicans, have a lockbox proposal; and we do,
too. What we think should happen is the Republicans offer their
proposal, we offer ours, we have a debate. That is what this body is
all about.
I have followed the short career in the Senate of the Senator from
Illinois. I have acknowledged and appreciated some tough votes the
Senator has cast against the majority in opposition to most of the
people on the Senator's side of the aisle. I think that is good.
The Social Security debate is one where we should be honest with one
another. There are ads running around America sponsored by the
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and the RNC, Republican
National Committee, that say with this Congress, this year, the
Democrats are spending Social Security money.
We have done our best to make the point that is simply not true, and
I believe there are people of good will, of which I think the Senator
from Illinois has the ability to be one of those, to speak out against
those ads. They add nothing to the political process. They only take
away from it.
That is the point we have been talking about today. The ads are
disingenuous. They are wrong.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I want to follow up on that. I said earlier I think
the ads are fair in light of the fact that Democrats have voted against
the lockbox several times this year.
Certainly the Senator would agree the Senator's party has run ads. I
was the recipient of $3 million worth of soft money ads that accused me
of wanting to do everything except take away Christmas from the people
in this country.
What has mainly come out in this colloquy on your side of the aisle
is that the Senator has stated a good case why it is better to be in
the majority than in the minority.
Mr. REID. My friend from Illinois learns quickly. The fact is, that
is not how this body has run in the past. For over 200 years, this body
has been able to survive in comity. We recognize the minority has
rights. There was a time not long ago when the Democrats had a veto-
proof majority in the body but the Republicans were not treated badly.
I say to my friend from Illinois, Democrats have voted against no
lockbox provision. We have voted to sustain our rights to be able to
offer an amendment to the Senator's lockbox proposal so there could be
a debate. If, in fact, the Senator thinks those ads are running because
we voted against lockbox, I respectfully submit the Senator needs to
study the issue more.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I say to my friend from Nevada, I wonder if there are
any Senate rules that have changed from the time the Democrats were in
the majority and now when the Republicans are in the majority that the
Senator could identify that he thinks have unfairly cut off the rights
of the minority. Have any rules changed?
Mr. REID. That is the whole point. The rules have not changed.
The fact is, however, the majority is not treating this body in the
senatorial tradition. The rules have held that we in the Senate have
the right to offer amendments. This body is being treated like a House
of Representatives where a bill comes upon the floor, there is a rule
offered, and that is it. The so-called tree is filled up, we can offer
no amendments, and we are locked out of offering amendments.
That is what the Senator from South Carolina has been saying. All we
want is to offer amendments. Shouldn't the Senate of the United States
be able to have a debate on minimum wage?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I think we have already, to some extent. We have had
one or two votes that I can recall earlier this year. But the question
is, How many times will Members keep bringing up the same issues?
Mr. REID. I have the greatest respect for my friend's intellect. We
have had just one vote this year on minimum wage. We didn't have one
last year. Or the year before.
We want to have a debate. We want to have an amendment offered where
we raise minimum wage. We have not had the opportunity to do that. If
the majority doesn't agree, fine. The Senator from South Carolina said
he would agree to a 10-minute time limit on minimum wage. I am not sure
I can agree to 10 minutes, but I certainly agree to 2 hours.
I say to my friend from Illinois, picking that one issue, doesn't the
Senator think it would be appropriate this body debate minimum wage?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Absolutely, and I am sure we will at some point. I do
know we had some votes, whether they were procedural or actually
substantive, on minimum wage because I talked to Senator Kennedy about
it. He was very pleased with my vote earlier this year on that. We have
had some votes that touched on that area.
I was not in the Senate before this year, so I can't comment on how
it was run when the other side was in the majority. My impressions from
speaking to some of my senior colleagues on this side of the aisle is
that they felt it was always very difficult for them to be in the
minority. I think they probably often felt the frustrations that the
Senator is feeling now.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the last several hours on the floor of
the Senate, we have discussed basically the business of the Senate over
the last year. A lot of us focused on Social Security. It is a curious
thing that this program, which once was so controversial, has now
become so universally lauded and acceptable that both political parties
are determined to be portrayed as the guardians of Social Security.
Coming from the Democratic side of the aisle, the party of Franklin
Roosevelt, I think our party has good claim to the authorship of the
original program of Social Security and the fact it has been sustained,
now, for some 62 years primarily because of Democratic support.
Having said that, though, I will concede over the years what started
off as Republican opposition to Social Security has mellowed to some
extent, and they now embrace it where once they called it socialism and
big government and the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt run amok. They
now have come to a different conclusion since millions of Americans and
their families rely on Social Security to live independent and decent
lives after their retirement. The debate now seems to focus on, what
are we going to do with the excess money collected--for instance, in
payroll taxes for Social Security? Should the Government be allowed to
borrow that money and the money then be used for some other purpose and
paid back to Social Security with interest? Or should the money be held
sacred and apart, untouchable? That seems to be where the debate is.
The television ads, which have been the source of a lot of debate on
the floor, relate to an effort by the Republican Party, soon to be
answered by the Democrats, to blame us for somehow spending the Social
Security trust fund.
It is an interesting claim to make for several reasons. First, we are
the minority party. We do not pass bills here; the Republicans pass the
spending bills. So to blame us for a spending bill which reaches into
the Social Security trust fund just defies arithmetic and common sense.
If there has been a bill passed, a spending bill, it has been initiated
by the Republican leadership. It has come forward and been sent to the
President primarily with Republican votes. For them to suggest one of
these bills went over the line and reached into the Social Security
trust fund and blame the Democrats for it is really a stretch.
But I will tell you what we can point to, and it is not in the area
of spending bills. It was a project by the Republican Party just a few
months ago initiating an idea of a massive tax cut. The party, the
Republican Party, which had bemoaned deficits for years, to the point
of calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, now,
when they heard of the possibility of a surplus at the Federal level,
answered by suggesting we should have a tax cut of some $792 billion
given primarily, if not exclusively, to the wealthiest people in
America. They thought this was going to be a big winner. It was an echo
of Senator Robert Dole's Presidential campaign where, when he could not
get traction against President Clinton, he came up with the Dole tax
cut.

[[Page S13376]]

It did not work for Senator Dole then. It certainly did not work for
the Republican Party a few months ago. They took this idea back to the
States, and people universally said: What are you talking about? Why
would you, after years and years of deficits, be giving a $792 billion
tax cut primarily to wealthy people? If you are going to do anything,
take the money and pay down our national debt which costs us $1 billion
a day in interest. If we have a surplus, make sure Social Security is
sound and solid for decades to come. Put the money into Medicare, make
certain it is there for generations to come, for our parents and
grandparents who will need it.

In fact, those who analyzed the Republican tax cut said,
incidentally, of the $792 billion, at least $83 billion of that has to
come out of the Social Security trust fund.
So the Republican Party that is pointing its finger at Democrats and
saying we are raiding the Social Security trust fund had a tax cut
package primarily for the wealthy which dipped its hand into the Social
Security trust fund for $83 billion. That is a fact.
Now let's take a look at the spending bills, the Republican spending
bills, keeping in mind the Republicans control both the House and
Senate and Appropriations Committees and have now broken from the
tradition of Congress which used to call for bipartisan meetings of the
Appropriations Committees. They are very partisan now. I am a member of
the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate, and I was in the
House. For years, we worked on a bipartisan basis in an effort to try
to pass bills. I am sad to say, now, many times we are not even called
for meetings. The Republicans author these bills and put them together,
bring them to the floor, and basically the Democrats are not part of
that process.
What do we make of the claim by the Republicans that the Democrats
are reaching into the Social Security trust fund? The most recent thing
we have to point to is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office.
This is one of the two offices we turn to for answers to questions such
as: If we initiate a certain program, how much will it cost us? How
much will this program cost us each month? Will it add to the deficit
or to the surplus? All of the basic questions that need to be answered
to be responsible in budgeting.
The Congressional Budget Office has today sent a letter--yesterday, I
believe--to Congressman John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House
Budget Committee. Congressman Spratt, a friend of mine and former
colleague, asked the Congressional Budget Office whether or not the
spending bills already passed by the Republicans and sent to the
President, reached into the Social Security trust fund. The
Congressional Budget Office, which enjoys a reputation primarily for
being nonpartisan, replied that the Republicans have already spent $17
billion of the Social Security trust fund.
They then asked the Congressional Budget Office, in the same letter,
What about the proposed 1-percent across-the-board reductions in
spending which the Republicans now propose as a way to solve all our
problems and go home? It was the conclusion of the Congressional Budget
Office that, if the Republicans really wanted to keep their hands off
Social Security and not reach in the trust fund, certainly 1 percent
across-the-board was not going to do it; they had to find some $17
billion to be made up that they have already reached into the trust
fund for. They said it would take another 4.8-percent cut across the
board for that to happen, meaning 5.8 percent would have to be cut from
all budgets of the Federal Government to avoid touching the Social
Security trust fund, just with appropriations bills already enacted by
the Republican majority in the House and the Senate--5.8 percent.
Then they went on to say--and this is important considering the
realities of politics in Washington--if you take off the table the
defense budget, saying our national security cannot stand the 5.8-
percent cut, military construction --part of the same argument, and
veterans programs, which both parties hold dear, everything else will
have to be cut 11.8 percent.

Here we are, deep into the next fiscal year. We do not have our
appropriations in order. In order to balance the books and not touch
Social Security, the Republicans would have to cut almost 12 percent
across the board in budgets for things such as education; Head Start;
Women, Infants and Children; Meals on Wheels--things on which senior
citizens rely.
What a curious state of affairs that only a few weeks ago Republicans
told us we were so awash in money, we could give out a $792 billion tax
cut to the wealthiest people in this country and now have come back to
tell us we are in such dire straits that they, frankly, have to be
cutting education by 10 or 11 percent in order to balance the books.
That, to me, shows the basic emptiness of this argument that has been
made against the Democrats and so many others.
The sad reality is that we come to the end of the session and find
ourselves bereft of accomplishment. Having been sent to Washington to
respond to the needs of America's families, we have dropped the ball. I
have said repeatedly, if you held a gun to the head of any Senator in
this body and said I am going to shoot you unless you tell me what you
have done to help average American families lead a better life and have
more opportunity, I would have to say: Fire away. I can't point to a
thing.
What did we do on minimum wage? Nothing, absolutely nothing; turning
our backs on the millions of people who go to work every day in this
country stuck at a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. The Republicans will
not even allow us to debate the issue. The greedy big-business
interests that will not give working families a decent living wage have
prevailed over those who get up and go to work every single morning--
primarily women, many minorities--working at minimum wage, showing they
believe in the work ethic, and hoping this body and the House of
Representatives will be sensitive to their need for more resources for
their families.
The Patients' Bill of Rights: How many times have I been across
Illinois and met families, sat down with them, and doctors, and nurses?
They have told me horror story after horror story of trying to provide
quality medical care for people in need only to be turned down by
insurance companies; Doctors on telephones debating with insurance
company clerks about surgeries and hospital admissions and different
medications that the doctor thinks are necessary, and losing the debate
every single time.
We want to stop these faceless bureaucrats in the insurance companies
making life-or-death decisions without any medical training. We want
families across this country to be able to sit down across the table
from a doctor when someone is seriously ill and be treated in an
honest, competent, professional way.
We lost that fight on the floor of the Senate. No, let me take that
back. We did not lose that fight; America's families lost that fight
here. Do you know to whom we lost it? Another special interest group.
The health insurance lobby prevailed big time in this bill, and
America's families lost big time, and that is another failure of this
year we have spent here on Capitol hill.
Campaign finance reform: This is truly a bipartisan issue. Senator
John McCain, a Republican candidate for President from the State of
Arizona, and Senator Russ Feingold, who sits behind me, a Democrat from
the State of Wisconsin, came forward with a bipartisan way to clean up
this mess of campaign financing that has everybody across America so
cynical about our process.
The President supports it. In fact, a majority of Senators support
it. Fifty-five voted in favor of it. That is not good enough for the
Senate; we need 60 votes. We could not dislodge some 45 Republicans who
are bound and determined to keep this miserable system in place. This
is another failure of this Congress.
Sensible gun control: How many times, walking into the Cloakroom
right behind the Senate floor, have I been startled to hear a news
flash on CNN that in another high school in America, there is more
violence, kids being shot, teachers being shot, the grief of parents,
and the visits by the President and the Vice President, news magazines
and shows on television just focusing for days and weeks on violence in
schools.
People across Illinois and across America say: Senator, what are you

[[Page S13377]]

doing to make this a safer place to live, to protect our kids?
We work up all kinds of speeches in this Chamber, but what do we do?
We have one bill, a sensible gun control bill, which says if you want
to buy a gun at a gun show, we have a right to ask whether or not you
have a criminal record or a history of violent mental illness. That
bill passed the Senate with the vote of Vice President Gore breaking a
tie. It went over to the House and disappeared. Sensible gun control.
Nothing is going to happen this year. The Republican majority in the
House and the Senate do not want to act on that issue.
I pray to God there is never another school tragedy in America, but
if there is, each of us will be held accountable as to whether we did
everything we could to keep guns out of the hands of kids and those who
would misuse them, criminals and those with serious background
problems.
This Senate passed a bill, barely; the House Republicans killed it.
The National Rifle Association, another special interest group, won and
America's families and schoolkids lost again.
100,000 teachers: This is a program the President has proposed for
one simple reason. He believes, and I agree with him as a parent who
has raised three kids, that if you can have fewer kids in a classroom,
you have a better chance of paying attention to their needs.
I went to Wheaton High School and met with a teacher who had 15 kids
in her class. She was part of the President's program. She said: Thank
you; I can help the kids who are falling behind and the gifted kids; it
really works better when I have a smaller class size.
What parent would not agree? I remember how tranquil life was with
one child in our house and how hectic it became when the second and
third arrived. Imagine a classroom of 20, 30 kids. The President said:
Reduce the size of that class and I bet you have more kids who can
read, learn basic math, and have a better chance for their education.
The Republicans want to kill it. They do not agree. Last year, they
voted for it; this year, they want to kill it. This is a partisan
battle. The losers are the families across America who expect us to do
something in Washington to make education better for our kids and give
them a chance.

Cops on the Beat Program: I see my friend, Senator Leahy, from the
Judiciary Committee. I am proud to serve with him. He was one of the
leaders on the President's program to send 100,000 police to local
communities and reduce crime.
Do my colleagues know what happened when we sent policemen out to the
cities of Chicago, and Cairo, IL, and across America? The crime rate
came down. The people who wanted to commit a crime looked around and
saw there were a few more cops and squad cars and decided not to do it.
Thank goodness. It meant fewer victims and less crime perpetrated on
the people in this country.
The Republicans fought us tooth and nail. They do not want to
continue this program despite its proven success. They have put
partisanship ahead of reality. The reality is we all want to be safe in
our neighborhoods. We want our kids safe in school. The President has a
program that works, and they want to kill it, stop the 100,000 COPS
Program. That is so shortsighted.
The Medicare prescription drug program: Here is one where seniors
across America tell us--Senator Dodd from Connecticut, Senator Leahy,
and others--that this is a very real concern, paying that bill every
single month for these prescription drugs that Medicare does not cover.
The President has a plan to move us forward. The Republicans say: Oh,
here comes a brand new program.
They have a self-financing mechanism, as they should, to make certain
we do not cause any more problems to the fiscal picture in the Medicare
program. The fact that we cannot move forward on this Presidential
suggestion of a Medicare prescription drug program is going to be a
serious problem for seniors across America.
So we come to the end of this session with an empty basket, with
nothing to show to families across America. Oh, we have drawn our
paychecks, we punched our time cards for our pensions, and we are
headed home looking forward to the holidays, and we have nothing to
show for it.
My basic question to the Republican leadership is, Why are you here?
Why do you want to be called leaders if you do not want to lead? Why do
you ask to serve in the Senate, which was formerly known as the
greatest deliberative body in the world, if you do not even want to
deliberate these questions? Why are you afraid to debate these
questions? If your position is so sound and solid, for goodness' sake,
stand up and defend it. Let me argue my best point of view, you do the
same, and let's have a rollcall vote up or down, yes or no. Let it be
printed in the Congressional Record to be seen by the United States and
the world.
That is why we are here. That is why we ran for these offices--not
for a title but to do something for America's families. We have not
done it this year. We have not done anything substantive to help these
families lead a better life.
We have lost opportunities, and I hope we do not continue to lose
opportunities. We have given in to special interests time and time
again. We have forgotten the interest of America's families.
I sincerely hope Senator Daschle, who took this floor earlier,
prevails; that he can convince Senator Lott, the Republican leader, to
finally let Senators roll up their sleeves and get down to work.
Goodness' sake, in the last 2 weeks, let's do something substantial.
Let's have courage to vote on the issues. To stop debate and put a gag
rule on Senators so we cannot offer amendments on all the issues I
mentioned, frankly, is a travesty. It is a travesty not only on those
who serve here, but on the history of this great institution of which I
am proud to be a part. I sincerely hope Senator Daschle can prevail,
and we can have the debate which the American families deserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________