[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4178-S4179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   BLOCKING CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to visit just a little bit, 
maybe express some frustration about what we are doing here on the 
floor and mostly what we are not doing here on the floor. It seems to 
me, we, of course, are here for a reason and that is to move bills 
forward. There is not going to be unanimous understanding or agreement 
on all these bills, but we have a system. We can have a reasonable 
debate and vote on them. But the idea that each time we bring up some 
issue that then we are going to bring back again, issues that are 
clearly raised for political purposes only and hold up the progress of 
this entire body, hour after hour and day after day, that begins to be 
a bit trite. It seems to me that is the direction we are taking. Our 
friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be perfecting this 
procedure, and we move forward at our own risk, knowing we are going to 
have a blocking activity going on.
  Republicans are trying to move forward with some issues for the 
American people that are very important: marriage penalty, tax relief, 
farm assistance, education, critical needs of the men and women in the 
armed services, and all of the 13 bills we have on appropriations that 
are before us. What we have had and what we are continuing to have is 
Senate Democrats trying to tie up the Senate by changing the subject, 
by attaching irrelevant amendments to every bill that comes to the 
Senate floor.
  It took five votes before Republicans could break the Democrat 
filibuster and pass the Ed-Flex bill in 1999. It took five votes in 
order to deal with an issue that said local school boards, local 
governments could have more flexibility in what they do with Federal 
money. Is that something to hold up? I don't think so.
  When Republicans offered the lockbox legislation in 1999 to protect 
the Social Security trust fund, Democrats opposed it six times. Senate 
Democrats even opposed a measure that passed the House last year by a 
vote of 416-12, when we were talking about taking Social Security money 
and insulating it from expenditures on non-Social Security matters. 
Tell me that is a reasonable thing to do.
  On April 13, Senate Democrats blocked a marriage penalty relief bill 
from continuing through the legislative process, a bill that is based 
largely on fairness. It is based on the notion that a man and woman, 
each working singly, earning a certain amount of money, when married 
earn the same amount of money and pay more taxes. This was a way to 
resolve that. However, Democrats were rejecting a discussion of the 
marriage penalty tax. In the House, the Democrats joined the 
Republicans 268-158 to pass relief. President Clinton pledged his 
support of the marriage tax penalty relief in his State of the Union. 
But still they block this because they want to bring up some amendments 
that are irrelevant to this issue, bring them up totally for political 
purposes. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position of being more 
interested in raising issues than seeking solutions. That is too bad. 
That is a shame. It is terribly frustrating, frankly.
  I just came from a meeting. We could not have a hearing this 
afternoon because our friends objected to having a hearing. We had 
people who came all the way from Alaska to testify. So I can tell you 
we went ahead and had a meeting and listened to what they had to say. I 
do not think that is the way we intended for this body to function. We 
disagree? Of course, we disagree. Different views? Of course, we have 
different views.
  On May 4, Rollcall recounted that one of our friends on the other 
side promised to work with his colleagues on an education bill if we 
could do it. Unfortunately, he decided to change in the middle of the 
stream and we did not go forward.
  Now we have 13 appropriations bills that must be passed. Really, our 
destination, our purpose, was to pass those before the August recess so 
we would have that out of the way and could deal with other things that 
are important. By the looks of it, we will not be able to move forward 
in that important area.
  It is very difficult. We just spent 2 days working on military 
construction. I do not think anybody would argue that we need to move 
forward on the military; we need to strengthen the military; we need to 
do something about strengthening the opportunity for people to belong 
to the military and at least not to be on food stamps. We could do 
that. But, no, we have to get off on something totally irrelevant, an 
issue--whether it is gun control or whatever--that we have already 
dealt with. It keeps coming up on every issue.
  I do not argue with the difference of view on it, but to use those 
things to keep us from moving forward and do the things we ought to be 
doing is disruptive and is not the intended purpose of what we do here.
  There are only 65 legislative days remaining for the Senate to finish 
its work. Yet we continue to find obstruction; we continue to find 
delay.

  Military construction finally got through. We spent all that time 
talking about something totally irrelevant to it. We had to get off on 
the thing. Yesterday we did nothing all afternoon, basically. We 
finally got it passed. I am pleased with that. I, frankly, voted 
against it. I voted against it because I did not agree with the 
process. I do not have any argument with what was in it.
  Education had to be pulled, the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, probably the broadest issue with which we will deal. It touches 
almost everyone. Almost everyone agrees we need

[[Page S4179]]

to do something with that. Could we finish it? No, we sure couldn't. 
Sure, there is a little different view. We wanted to let the local 
people have more flexibility. Our friends over there wanted the rules 
to come from here. OK, we have a difference. We have a difference in 
philosophy. I don't argue with that. We have an honest difference. 
Let's vote. But, no, that is not what happened. What we did was have 
introduced all kinds of irrelevant, nongermane amendments. I don't know 
how long we can do that.
  The marriage penalty--I have already mentioned it. That is something 
that certainly ought to be done. As far as I know, it is agreed to by 
nearly everyone, including the President. It is a fairness issue. We 
ought to be doing it.
  Agriculture, crop insurance, that is one of the things we need to 
strengthen, since we are moving away from the old farm program. 
Agriculture is out there; farmers are running some risks and crop 
insurance is part of it. We were not able to do that. Things that were 
not pertinent were there.
  The juvenile justice bill, we passed juvenile justice. It is still in 
the committee. We are trying to get some agreement. It is being held up 
by nongermane kinds of things.
  I respect fully the difference of view. I respect fully the 
differences in philosophy. That is why we are here. That is what 
elections are about. I understand that. But we simply have to find a 
way to put aside this business of stalling, just put aside this 
business of delay, put aside this business of constantly seeking to 
bring to the floor issues that are totally political and have nothing 
to do with the topic we are on and talk about them at the time to talk 
about them. But talk about them once. Don't talk about them every other 
day. That is what we do. That is wrong. We ought to change it.
  We have a chance to take a look at where we are and where we want to 
go. I have thought more recently, I don't know quite why, about the 
concept that each of us has goals for ourselves, whether they be 
personal goals, whether they be professional goals, whether they be 
spiritual goals, whether they be family goals, and seek to identify 
those and then decide what our goal is and what we have to do to reach 
it.

  Frankly, I wish it applied a little more to Government. As we enter 
into these, we ought to not only be looking at the daily issues with 
which we deal, but we should also be looking at, having set goals and 
identified where we want to be, whether what we are doing now is 
contributing to the attainment of those goals.
  It is my view we have not done enough of that. If we have a goal of 
accomplishment in the Senate, a goal of doing the things the people 
sent us here to do, and then find ourselves caught up in business which 
does not move toward the attainment of that goal, it is frustrating.
  I hope we can move forward. I believe we will. I appreciate the 
Presiding Officer's efforts. I look forward to next week to accomplish 
more than we did this week.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________