[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16322-16326]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16322]]

 TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2001--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will now turn to the subject that has 
been raised today and yesterday and last week and repeatedly in the 
last few weeks. That is the subject of why the Senate is not proceeding 
on the pace and with the vigor we all think it should. We have heard 
from the Senator from Rhode Island and others today about how the 
majority leader has somehow dictatorially brought everything to a 
terrible halt and wouldn't it be wonderful if we went back to the great 
spirit of cooperation and comity that allows us to get things done. I 
agree absolutely that it would be wonderful to return to the spirit of 
cooperation and comity that would allow things to be done, but I think 
it is pointing the finger in the wrong place to attack the majority 
leader.
  Let me share with you my experience this last week. Monday of this 
week was July 24, which in my home State is the biggest day of the 
year. July 24 happens to be the day that Brigham Young and the first 
group of Mormon pioneers entered Salt Lake Valley and put down roots 
that have now become not only Salt Lake Valley but the State of Utah. 
Every year we celebrate that historic event with a major parade. It is 
one of the requirements for a politician to be in that parade. Senator 
Hatch and I always confer about whether or not we will be able to make 
the parade because we don't want to miss votes. There have been times 
when we have had to miss the parade to be here to do our appropriate 
duty.
  On Friday of last week, I went to the staff of the leadership and 
said: What is going to happen on Monday? I was told: We will be on 
energy and water. There will be amendments and there will be votes.
  I then went to the subcommittee chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee and said to him--this being Senator Domenici--how important 
will the votes be and how many will there be?
  Senator Domenici said: Well, there will be several votes, but I think 
they will be relatively unimportant ones. They will not be close.
  I said: Well, Senator, I think under those circumstances, I will go 
to Utah and ride in the July 24 parade. If you can assure me that it 
will not create an undue hardship for you with respect to passing 
important amendments that my vote would not be absolutely essential, I 
think I will go to Utah.
  He told me: Senator, you can go to Utah. I will see to it that the 
amendments that we vote on on Monday will not be so close that your 
vote would have made that much of a difference.
  So I went to Utah. When I got back, I said to my staff: How many 
votes did I miss and how important were they? I found out I didn't miss 
any votes. The Senate didn't vote. Why? The Senate didn't take up the 
bill. Why? Because the minority objected to the motion to proceed, and 
the majority leader was required to file a cloture motion on the motion 
to proceed to consider the bill.
  I have made the statement in this Chamber before that based on my 
experience, I can remember a time when no one ever objected to a motion 
to proceed. A filibuster on the issue of the motion to proceed was 
something that was unheard of from either side. We have been told this 
afternoon ``couldn't we go back to the time when people got along with 
each other'' from the same side of the aisle that has said: We will 
filibuster the motion to proceed.
  So the majority leader had to file a cloture petition. He filed the 
cloture petition. We voted on it. When we voted on it, it was passed 
overwhelmingly, if not unanimously. That raises the question: Why did 
we go through this exercise? Why couldn't we have been on the bill at 
the time we were scheduled to be on the bill? Why are we in this 
situation now when we are under a cloture situation running off 30 
hours on the clock so we can then finally get around to voting on the 
bill, knowing that as soon as we get through with this one, there will 
be another one where there will be objection to the motion to proceed, 
the requirement that a cloture petition be filed, and the running off 
the clock again?
  There are various ways to defeat legislation. One of them is to delay 
it. I said once before, I worry this Chamber has started to move from 
being the world's greatest deliberative body to being the world's 
greatest campaign forum. I am distressed by reports in the popular 
press that say that the Vice President and his party intend to run 
against a do-nothing Congress. We are doing everything we can to make 
this a do-something Congress, but there are forces at work to try to 
create the prophecy of a do-nothing Congress into a self-fulfilling 
prophecy.
  It can be done in such a way that the public at large doesn't 
understand what is going on. The public at large doesn't know what 
cloture means. I go home to my constituents and I try to explain what 
is going on. They don't understand what the motion to proceed is. They 
don't understand the rules of the Senate. You talk to them about 
unanimous consent agreements that are not being agreed to, agreements 
that are made between the two leaders that then get set aside and 
cloture petitions, their eyes glaze over when you start talking like 
that. They come back to you--these are my constituents--and they say: 
Why aren't you getting your work done?
  When you have to make these kinds of explanations, the public gets 
impatient, which plays into the hands of those whose electoral strategy 
is run against a do-nothing Congress. I have started to use that 
language, as I explain to my constituents why we are not getting the 
people's work done. I say to them very deliberately--and it pains me 
because I do not want to cast clouds over this institution, but I 
believe I have to say it anyway--there are those who want to run 
against a do-nothing Congress who are determined to create a do-nothing 
Congress. And in the Senate, the rules are such that you can do that. 
The rules are such that even if you are in the minority, if you want to 
bring this place to its knees and bring it to a halt, you can do that.
  I have been in the minority. I have heard some of my fellow party 
members in the minority say: We have to bring this place to a halt; we 
have to shut it down. I am glad I didn't participate in the attempts on 
the part of the minority to shut this place down when George Mitchell 
was the majority leader; when George Mitchell did many of the things 
that Trent Lott is now being accused of doing; when George Mitchell 
said: We have to do the people's business, even if it means, as 
majority leader, I exercise something of an iron fist to make sure we 
do the people's business; I will do it and we will get the people's 
business done. Those on this side of the aisle who said in my hearing, 
``let's shut this place down,'' did not prevail.
  I did not participate with them, and I am proud of that fact, that we 
did not attempt to shut this place down. Were we frustrated? 
Absolutely. Were we upset? Absolutely. Did we engage in filibusters, 
yes, straight up. My assigned time was from 1 to 2 o'clock in the 
morning in a filibuster, when George Mitchell said: If the Republicans 
are going to filibuster us, let's go around the clock. I was very up 
front about it. I believed the bill that we were talking about was 
sufficiently bad that I was willing to take my turn from 1 to 2 o'clock 
in the morning to see to it that the bill didn't pass.
  That is part of the game around here. That is the way the rules are 
structured. I have no problem with that. But objecting to the rule to 
proceed, which is the kind of thing the public doesn't understand, but 
that all of us understand, is a stealth filibuster. It is an attempt to 
slip under the public awareness, shut this place down, and create a 
situation where you can then run against a do-nothing Congress.
  I remember the first person to run against a do-nothing Congress--
Harry Truman. I remember what Harry Truman did. It was very different 
from

[[Page 16323]]

what is being done here. Let's get a little history here.
  Harry Truman was President of the United States by virtue of Franklin 
Roosevelt's death. He had not run for President, he had not been 
elected, and he was not very popular in the country. The Republicans 
controlled both Houses of Congress as a result of Harry Truman's lack 
of popularity, and they were absolutely sure they were going to win the 
1948 election. So they were determined they were not going to pass any 
legislation that Harry Truman could veto. They were going to wait until 
Thomas Dewey became President of the United States, and then they were 
going to pass their legislation for a President who would sign it.
  They held the Republican National Convention, and in the convention 
they outlined all of the things they were going to do, once they were 
in power, in both the Congress and the executive branch. Well, Harry 
Truman called their bluff. Harry Truman said: If that's what the 
Republicans really will do when they are in charge, let them do it now. 
He called the Congress back into session after the Republican 
convention and said to them: Here is your opportunity. Here is your 
platform. Pass your platform.
  Well, Robert Taft, who was the dominant Republican--the man whose 
picture graces the outer lobby here as one of the five greatest 
Senators who ever lived--made what I think was a miscalculation. He 
thought Harry Truman was so unpopular in the country at large that the 
Congress could thumb its nose at the President of the United States, 
and he said: We are not going to do anything in this special session 
that the President has called us into. We are not going to play his 
game.
  So the Republican Congress adjourned after that special session 
without having done anything--deliberately, without having done 
anything. Harry Truman then went out and ran against the do-nothing 
80th Congress and got himself elected in his own right as President of 
the United States. It was one of the great political moves of this 
century.
  That is not what we are dealing with here. We are not dealing with a 
Republican Party that doesn't want to act. We are not dealing with a 
Republican Party that doesn't want to solve the people's problems. We 
are dealing with a Republican Party that is trying desperately to 
perform the one absolutely required constitutional function that the 
Congress has, which is to fund the Government. We are trying to pass 
appropriations bills to fund the Government, so that there will not be 
a Government shutdown, there will not be a continuing resolution, there 
will not be a crisis at the end of the fiscal year. When we try to move 
to the bills that will fund the Government, we run into procedural 
roadblocks on the part of those who are then talking about running 
against a do-nothing Congress. That is what is going on here.
  If we have to say it again and again and again, so that our 
constituents finally begin to understand it, I am willing to say it 
again and again and again. We have discovered that one of the 
strategies being played out in this great campaign forum is to take an 
amendment that is seen as a tough political vote, bring it up, see it 
defeated, and then the next week bring it up again, and then complain 
when the Republicans say we have already voted on that; we don't need 
to vote on it again. Oh, yes, you do, says the leadership on the other 
side; let's vote on it again.
  If we vote on it again and defeat it, thinking, OK, we have had a 
debate and we have taken our tough political votes and we have made it 
clear where we stand on this issue, let's move forward, no, we are told 
somehow when you want to move forward without bringing up this 
amendment again: You are thwarting the will of the Senate; you are 
turning the Senate into another version of the House of Representatives 
if you won't let us vote on this controversial amendment a third time.
  If it gets voted on a third time, then it comes up a fourth time. If 
it gets voted on a fourth time, it comes up a fifth time. Every time 
the majority leader says: We have done that, we have debated that, we 
have voted on that, he is told: No, if you take a position that 
prevents us from voting on it again, you are destroying the sanctity of 
this institution.
  Well, now we are being told we are interfering with the President's 
constitutional right to appoint judges. I find that very interesting 
because this Congress has confirmed more judges in an election year 
than previous Congresses. Quoting from my colleague, the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, and therefore in a position to have the 
statistics, there are fewer vacancies in the Federal judiciary now than 
when the Democrats controlled the Congress and the Republicans 
controlled the White House in an election year. If I may quote from 
Senator Hatch:

       Democrats contend that things were much better when they 
     controlled the Senate. Much better for them, perhaps. It was 
     certainly not better for many of the nominees of Presidents 
     Reagan and Bush. At the end of the Bush administration, for 
     example, the vacancy rate stood at nearly 12 percent. By 
     contrast, as the Clinton administration draws to a close, the 
     vacancy rate stands at just 7 percent.

  Well, turning it around, the vacancy rate we are facing now is 
roughly half that which a Democratic Senate gave to President Bush as 
he was facing reelection. Oh, but we are being told: No, there are 
judges who have languished for a long time; therefore, we should have a 
vote on the judges whose names have been before us the longest before 
we have a vote on the judges who may have been nominated more recently, 
and it is terrible to hold a judge or any nominee for a long period of 
time. We need to give him or her a vote. We need to bring the names to 
the floor of the Senate, and the minority leader should decide which 
name is brought to the floor of the Senate.
  I remember when I first came to this body, I was assigned to the 
Banking Committee. There was a nominee sent forward by President 
Clinton whom the chairman of the Banking Committee didn't like. The 
chairman of the Banking Committee at the time was, of course, a member 
of President Clinton's own party. But his objection, as I understood 
it--and I may be wrong--was that this particular nominee had too much 
Republican background on his resume, that this particular nominee had 
not been ideologically pure enough for the chairman of the Banking 
Committee.
  As I say, that is my memory, and I could be wrong. But that was the 
very strong position on the part of the chairman of the Banking 
Committee. That nominee didn't come up for a hearing before the Banking 
Committee for the entire 2 years that the Democrats controlled the 
Banking Committee and that man was the chairman. Any attempt on the 
part of anybody else to get that particular nomination moving was 
thwarted by the chairman.
  Now, what if the then-minority leader, Senator Dole, had come to the 
floor and said we will not allow anything to go forward until this 
nominee comes to the floor for a vote?
  How would people have reacted to that kind of action on the part of 
the minority leader if the entire minority had gathered around him, and 
said: We will stand with you, we will filibuster the motion to proceed, 
and we will do everything we can to bring the Senate to a complete halt 
until this nominee that has languished in the Banking Committee for 
almost 2 years is brought forward? I am pretty sure I know what George 
Mitchell would have told Bob Dole. I am pretty sure I know what the 
majority leader would have said under those circumstances. It probably 
would not be as mild as the comments Trent Lott is currently making 
about the present demands that are being made with respect to specific 
judges by name--not the agreement that the minority leader and the 
majority leader made where the majority leader said: All right, we will 
move forward on judges; we will bring a determined number of judges 
forward--but to say, no, we are now changing, and we are demanding a 
specific name be brought forward or we will shut the whole place down, 
and then come to the floor and say somehow the work of the people is 
not getting done.

[[Page 16324]]

  I am willing to take the tough votes that are being referred to on 
the floor. I have taken the votes on guns. I have taken the votes on 
abortion. I have taken the votes on minimum wage. I have taken the 
votes on Patients' Bill of Rights. I have taken the votes on 
prescription drugs for seniors. I have a record now that I will have to 
stand and defend before my constituents. Those votes have been taken 
because the minority has had the right to bring up every one of those 
issues and demand a rollcall vote.
  I don't apologize for the fact that I backed the majority leader in 
his position that we don't need to take those votes again. While we are 
in the process of trying to fund the Government and discharge our 
constitutional responsibility, we don't need to sidetrack that business 
to go over old ground. If there is an election that has come up so that 
there are new people here and the electoral balance has shifted, it 
obviously makes sense to take those votes against. But to have the same 
people in the same Chamber in the same Congress in the same session 
repeat the votes again and again and again doesn't make any sense when 
the process of debating each one of those votes again and again and 
again delays the whole legislative process to the point that we get to 
what I sadly have come to the conclusion is the goal here, which is to 
create a do-nothing Congress so that some people can run against a do-
nothing Congress.
  If it means the majority leader has to get as tough as George 
Mitchell, if it means the majority leader has to be as firm as his 
predecessors, who were Democrats who were firm in order to move the 
people's business, I support the majority leader. It does not disgrace 
this body. It does not take this body away from its traditions. It is 
in the tradition of the body to move legislation forward and get the 
people's business done.
  I applaud Senator Lott for his courage and his leadership in moving 
us in that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a leadership 
motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the Senator to make a request.


                      unanimous consent agreement

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour 
of 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to adopt the motion to proceed to the 
Treasury/Postal appropriations bill; that immediately after that the 
Senate vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the intelligence 
authorization bill; that immediately after that vote, regardless of the 
outcome, the Senate proceed to a period for morning business until the 
Senate completes its business today, and that the preceding all occur 
without any intervening action or debate.
  I announce that the cloture vote regarding the motion to proceed to 
the intelligence authorization bill which will occur at 5 p.m. this 
evening will be the last vote today. We would then go into a period for 
morning business and conclude the session for the day with the 
exception of any conference reports or wrap-up items that may be 
cleared for action.
  I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its 
business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. 
tomorrow; that the call of the calendar be waived and the morning hour 
be deemed to have expired; that there then be a period for eulogies for 
our former colleague Senator Coverdell as previously ordered; that 
following the swearing in of our new colleague, Zell Miller, at 11 a.m. 
and his eulogy of Senator Coverdell, the Senate adopt the motion to 
proceed to the intelligence authorization bill, if its pending, and 
then vote on the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the energy/
water appropriations bill, and that the preceding all occur without any 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to say 
to my friend from Utah, for whom I have the highest regard, he is a 
great Senator. I have personal feelings toward him that he understands. 
But I want to just say a couple of things before we settle this little 
bit here.
  I served under George Mitchell. Never did Senator Mitchell prevent 
the minority from offering amendments. That is our biggest complaint in 
this body--that the majority will not allow the minority to offer 
amendments. We believe the Senate should be treated as it has for over 
200 years. If that were the case, we wouldn't be in the situation we 
are in now.
  I also say to my friend that the percentage on the judges doesn't 
work because we are dealing with a larger number. Of course, if you 
have a larger number of judges, which has occurred since President 
Reagan was President, you could have a smaller percentage. That means a 
lot more judges. As we know, you can prove anything with numbers.
  I also say that one of the problems we have with judges is my friend 
from Michigan has one judge who has waited 1,300 days. That is much 
shorter than the 2 years my friend talked about in regards to the 
Banking Committee. In fact, I think the majority is protesting too 
much.
  I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, a rollcall 
vote will occur at 5 p.m. today on the motion to proceed to the 
intelligence authorization bill. Another rollcall vote will occur at 
approximately 11:30 a.m. on Thursday on the motion to proceed to the 
energy and water appropriations bill.
  I thank the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would be happy to yield for a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senator from Oregon finishes his remarks, the Senator from Iowa be 
recognized to make some remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I am 
here today at the request of my leader. I am here today to talk to the 
people of Oregon and to the American people.
  I am often asked in townhall meetings why it is that we don't seem to 
be getting much done. Every time people turn on C-SPAN they see 
Republicans and Democrats bickering. I have said to them: I know it is 
frustrating. I know you do not like it. I know it sometimes isn't 
pleasant. But, frankly, rather than criticize it, we ought to celebrate 
it because this is the way we go about the business of government of a 
free people--of exchanging ideas, and using words as our weapons and 
not actually bullets.
  This contest between Republicans and Democrats is not an unhealthy 
thing. But I must admit to the American people and to the people of 
Oregon that what I see happening on the Senate floor right now is 
nothing to be celebrated.
  I came to the Senate looking for solutions--not looking for a fight. 
I don't mind a good debate. I don't mind differences of opinion. I 
don't mind taking tough votes. Frankly, I have learned that the tough 
votes are sometimes the most memorable because they are difficult. They 
set you apart. They make you come to a choice. Like Senator Bennett 
said, I have taken all of these tough votes that my Democratic friends 
have wanted me to take, and they have taken some that we wanted them to 
take. However, I have to say that now is not a moment to be celebrated 
because of what I have been hearing since I came back from this last 
weekend.
  I have heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this 
session of Congress is essentially over, that right now politics is 
going to prevail over policy, and that there will be gridlock

[[Page 16325]]

until the election so that the greatest political advantage can be made 
out of the Congress.
  I am disappointed in that. I didn't come here for that. I didn't 
fight as hard as I did to win a seat in this body to just play that 
kind of a game.
  I find on the Democratic side people of honor and good will. I hope 
they find that in Republicans. Frankly, I think we are allowing the 
worst of our natures to take over right now. I am disappointed. I am 
very disappointed.
  I understand that the White House is now telling our leaders that 
unless we accede to every one of the President's demands, that we will 
be blamed for shutting the Government down because he won't sign any 
tax cut, he won't sign any appropriations bill. We are just going to be 
made the victims of this. I say to my friends in the White House, this 
is an overreach. This goes too far.
  The American people will judge this for what it is. I think we owe 
the American people something better than that. I think we owe them the 
truth. I think we owe them our best efforts. I think the politics 
shouldn't be so blatantly transparent that it brings shame upon the 
Senate.
  I am here with a heavy heart because I want to get something done. I 
have sat in the chair many times and begun to see this filibuster 
mentality build up among the minority that rails against these tax cuts 
that we have passed, to eliminate estate taxes, to eliminate the 
marriage penalty. They don't have to like it, they voted against it.
  I will say why I voted for them. There is an overarching reason why I 
vote for tax cuts. I believe in times of surplus and prosperity there 
is a point when we can say we are taking too much and we believe it can 
do more good in the general economy and we will put some back. Tax cuts 
go to taxpayers. When it comes to specific taxes, for example, the 
estate tax, I will state why I voted to change the nature of that tax, 
to eliminate the incidence of debt as the tax, and to shift it over to 
the sale of an asset as the incidence of taxation. I don't believe it 
is any of the Government's business how my heirs receive my estate. I 
think that is about freedom. I think that is about people saying: I am 
going to work hard and I will accumulate what I can, and I want to 
determine how my sons and my daughters receive my estate. Then if my 
heirs are unwise, the marketplace will redistribute that income because 
of poor choices.
  I don't think it is the Government's business to say we are going to 
determine how this money is redistributed. It is a difference of who 
you trust. Do you trust Government? Or do you trust freedom? Do you 
trust people? Or do you trust central planning? That is why I am on 
this side of the aisle-- not because I think there are bad people over 
there; I know otherwise. There are good people there. But we have a 
difference of belief in how the public is best served. I think they 
want more equality. I think we want more liberty. That is the context 
of the debate here.
  I want the American people to know I will defend my vote to my own 
grave to eliminate the estate tax. I believe the way we have shifted it 
to a capital gains as the incidence of taxation is far more consistent 
with notions of freedom than reaching into somebody's grave and saying 
we are going to distribute it a new way, a Government way. That is not 
the America that I believe in.
  When it comes to the marriage penalty tax cut, they are complaining 
again that too few people will benefit. You say it affects people 
disproportionately. But many married people will benefit. Again, it is 
hard to give tax cuts to those who don't pay taxes. I am not ashamed of 
voting to cut taxes for married people. Some people say that is unfair. 
However, I think we ought to incentivize marriage. It is a cornerstone 
of our society. Take religion out of it. Sociologists and psychologists 
will say for a child to have the best chance in life they need a mom, 
they need a dad. Those are the kinds of things we ought to be 
incentivizing--not penalizing.
  Without any embarrassment, I am proud to have voted to end the 
marriage tax penalty and the death tax penalty. These are bad tax 
policies. We have voted to end them. If they don't like the 
distribution of them, fine. But we have cast these votes. They voted 
one way; we voted another. We have taken their tough votes. As Senator 
Bennett said, we have taken the gun votes. We have taken the votes on 
abortion. We have taken a whole range of votes. We have taken a vote 
against their prescription drug plan.
  Let me go to prescription drugs for a minute. I am a member of the 
Budget Committee. I have sensed in the people of Oregon a real desire 
for a prescription drug benefit. I want to deliver for that. Because of 
that, I went into the Budget Committee when we created this template in 
the U.S. budget, determined to stand with my colleague, Ron Wyden, to 
accede the President's request for a prescription drug benefit. The 
President requested $39 billion. Ron, Olympia Snowe, and I decided 
together we have a majority if the Democrats will vote with us. We felt 
strongly that we should deliver on this promise and this need.
  We got the Budget Committee to exceed the President's request of $39 
billion. We went to $40 billion. However, I was a little bit 
discouraged--even felt somewhat betrayed--when a few months later the 
President says, just kidding, we need $80 billion. Double? From where 
did the original $39 billion come? Why all of a sudden, $80 billion? 
Don't the American people want Congress to be responsible for this? I 
put everyone on notice, I am being told in the Budget Committee that 
$80 billion won't even begin to cover this. Now what we are looking at 
under the President's program, is a one size fits all plan. A 
Government bureaucrat will be in your medicine cabinet and making 
choices for your health. A plan, by the way, that doesn't even take 
effect when we pass it--3 years hence. How is that keeping faith with 
the American people? They cannot even begin to tell you what it costs.
  This is not the way we should make these fundamental decisions about 
the health of the American people and the health of our Government's 
budgets. I hope everybody understands that. I am being told that come 
October 6, when we are supposed to sine die, if we haven't passed the 
President's version we are going to be put in a position that we are 
made to look as if we are shutting the Government down.
  People of America, you do not want Congress making these fundamental 
irreversible decisions on such a basis. These are important issues. We 
should not be giving in to this kind of political pressure for 
expediency, for an election. We should do it carefully. We should do it 
right. When it comes to prescription drugs, I will spend what I have to 
make sure you have a choice, that it is voluntary, and that it is 
affordable.
  Under the President's plan, I bet there is better than half of the 
American people who would be eligible for it, who would not pay less 
for prescription drugs, yet would be forced to pay more. Is that what 
we want? That is not voluntary. That is about Government central 
planning. That is about a bureaucrat in your medicine cabinet. That is 
a plan for which I will not vote.
  I believe in the marketplace. I believe in freedom. I believe 
Government has a role. I believe we ought to have a safety net. But I 
don't believe we ought to be going to a system that says the Government 
knows best and a bureaucrat can tell you what pill you need to take.
  I have talked about taxes. I have talked about the budget. I have 
talked about prescription drugs.
  Let me end by talking a little bit about this other great frustration 
I hear from the people of Oregon and that is the cost of gas, the cost 
of energy.
  There is plenty of blame to go around, I am sure. I am not defending 
big oil. I am not defending the Government, either. But what I am 
telling you is our country has an enormous trade deficit because we are 
spending over $100 billion per year on foreign oil. When President 
Carter was the President, we had gas lines and we had shortages. I 
remember waiting over an hour every time I went to get gasoline.

[[Page 16326]]

When that occurred, our country was 36-percent dependent on foreign 
oil. We are 56-percent dependent now. Do you know why? Because in the 
life of this administration we have had over 30 oil refineries close; 
we have had leases canceled; we have had no development; and we have 
had an increasing dependence--not less--on foreign oil. I tell the 
American people, that is why you are paying too much. That is why you 
are paying more than you need to, because we are being held hostage to 
a cartel of foreign nations--many that wish us ill, many that would 
like to put us over an oil barrel and push us over.
  I am saying I don't like drilling for oil. Every one of us drives a 
car and for a lot of us, the oil that drives that car is refined in 
Texas. Everyone of us likes the freedom of an automobile. Frankly, I 
would rather say to the American people: Let your sons and daughters 
drill for oil so they do not have to die for oil. We are setting them 
up to die for oil if we do not figure out some better balance between 
production and conservation.
  Conservation is important. I vote for conservation initiatives. But 
it is not the whole answer. You have to produce something. A third of 
our trade deficit is due to foreign oil. If you want an independent 
country, if you want an independent foreign policy, you cannot be 
totally dependent, as we are becoming, on foreign oil. But there you 
have it. That has been the policy of this administration.
  Finally, our Vice President said he wants to outlaw or get rid of the 
internal combustion engine. In my neck of the woods, we have the 
incredible benefit of hydroelectric power. We have low energy rates 
because of hydroelectric power. But, guess what, they are talking about 
tearing them down. They want to tear out the most clean, most 
renewable, most affordable energy supply that we have. Guess what 
happens when you do that. You lose--the recreation is gone, but, more 
importantly, you lose the irrigation for farmers, you lose the 
transportation of goods from the interior all the way from Montana, 
Idaho, Washington, Oregon to the Port of Portland and around the 
Pacific rim. You lose the ability to use this system of locks to move 
vast quantities of agricultural and other commodities.
  I don't think we want to do that. I think it is very unwise. If you 
want to get rid of the internal combustion engine --let's examine this 
briefly. Right now, to move about a half a million bushels of grain, 
you need four barges that move through these locks. Four barges use 
very little energy. It just floats and makes its way to the Port of 
Portland. Get rid of the locks or dams, guess what, you have to truck 
them or rail them. How many railcars does it take to replace the four 
barges? It takes 140 jumbo railcars to move the same volume.
  The tracks, the infrastructure is not there to do all the railing. So 
then you go to trucks, internal combustion engines. Guess how many 
trucks it takes: Four barges versus 539 large ``semi'' trucks. Guess 
what creates pollution. Guess what creates damage to your roads. That 
will do it.
  I want to be fair about this. When we are becoming so dependent on 
foreign oil, so dependent upon foreign energy, so dependent as a 
superpower on others, I think it is very imprudent to begin tearing out 
our energy infrastructure.
  So I will close, and I say again with a heavy heart, I think right 
now politics is prevailing over good policy. I think that is too bad. 
But let me tell you, the real losers will be the American people if the 
Republican majority caves in to the kind of tactics that say if you 
don't take everything we want we are going to make you look like you 
shut the Government down.
  There are a lot of us who are earnestly striving to do our duty, as 
is incumbent upon the majority, to move the business of the people 
while at the same time being fair to the minority. But how many times 
do we have to cast the same votes? Please, help us here. I plead with 
the President. Let's get something done. Let's deal in good faith. We 
don't have to let politics prevail. Because if we do, the legacy of 
this President and this Congress will be the words ``it might have 
been.''
  It ought to be better than that. But I, for one, believe in our 
Republic. I believe in our separation of powers. I will be very 
disappointed in my leaders if we cave in to a King. We cannot do that. 
We are not going to cave in to a King. We need to stand up for our 
institution. Moreover, we need to pay attention to the details of our 
policy. Because if we work it out with civility, we will work it out 
right for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________