[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9209-9210]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         LEGISLATIVE COMPROMISE

  Mr. REID. One of my favorite stories is a story about David Selznik, 
the great movie producer. He is the man who produced the movie ``Gone 
With The Wind.'' As he had made the movie, at that time they had in 
Hollywood something called the Hays Commission. It was in effect a 
committee of censorship. They looked at the movie and made a 
determination that he would have to strike from the movie the words, 
``Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.'' But Selznik thought that was 
an important part of his movie and he would not back down. So they were 
at loggerheads. Would the movie be able to go forward? Because without 
the Hays Commission stamp of approval, the movie could not go forward. 
So they made a compromise. They said: We will compromise this. You can 
go ahead, you can keep those words, ``Frankly, my dear, I don't give a 
damn,'' but if you keep that in the movie you are going to be assessed 
a fine of $15,000, and $15,000 was a lot of money then, even as it is 
now. But Selznik agreed to pay that. And that, of course, is one of the 
most memorable lines in the history of Hollywood.
  The reason I mention that is Selznik and the Hays Commission realized 
that in life there is a time to fight and a time to compromise. The 
compromise worked out well in this instance.
  Compromise, in our business, being legislators, should not be a dirty 
word. Legislation is the art of compromise, the art of building 
consensus.
  Gerald Ford, whom I met when I was a young Lieutenant Governor and he 
was Vice President of the United States, was such a nice man. When I 
did meet him, the first big shot I met, shaking his hand, he sent me an 
autographed picture. My two little children at the time, when the 
picture came in, drew all over this picture as if it were a coloring 
book. But we got the colors off of it as much as we could. It was 
always smudged. I still have that picture.
  Anyway, that is off the subject. But Gerald Ford was so nice--what a 
nice man. The reason I mention Gerald Ford today is because he said 
something I believe so strongly. He said, ``Compromise is the oil that 
makes governments go.'' I believe that. I see the Presiding Officer 
here--she, on a number of occasions, has been the key person in 
allowing us to get things done because she has been willing to 
compromise, in effect, break from the pack and say this is what I need 
to do.
  None of us should compromise our principles, but we should be willing 
to work together, to seek solutions we can live with for the good of 
the country. I have been in Congress now more than two decades and I 
have learned the way you get legislation done in this Congress and in 
the Senate specifically is when people work together and are willing to 
compromise.
  I have had the good fortune in the years I have been a legislator to 
have, on the State level and on the Federal level, legislation I have 
produced that is now law. But there is not a single piece of 
legislation I have ever written that is as I wrote it. It has all been 
changed. That is what you have to do to get things done. If people 
are--and I use this term, not in the true sense of the word--so 
principled they are not willing to get anything changed, they are not 
going to get anything done very often.
  I know that to be a legislator you have to be willing to compromise. 
There are some who say this is not right. Some say you have a majority, 
you should always be able to get your way. Our Founding Fathers didn't 
believe that. The majority, you see, doesn't need a Constitution to 
protect them. The majority can get what they want wherever they are. 
The Constitution of the United States was written to protect 
minorities. Our Founding Fathers created a government of checks and 
balances. They wanted the majority to have power, but not all of it.

[[Page 9210]]

  That is why, for example, we have an electoral college system. The 
electoral college system creates some unfairness in the minds of 
people. The result of the last Presidential election is the person who 
got fewer votes is now President of the United States. But that is our 
system and the system is so embedded in our minds and our consciences 
that following that very bitter election, where there was a dispute in 
Florida that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court--following that 
election, which was decided by the Supreme Court, there wasn't any 
civil unrest. There were no riots, no tires burned, no windows broken 
in buildings. It was decided by virtue of the fact that we have a 
Constitution.
  In the electoral college system, the person who gets the most votes 
doesn't always win. Why? Because we have to take care of small States, 
States such as Maine and Nevada.
  The Senate was also designed to protect the rights of the minority. I 
was talking to my friend Senator Enzi, the Senator from the State of 
Wyoming. I said: Mike, how is Wyoming doing populationwise? Is it 
growing? He said: No, we still can't break 500,000.
  But, you see, Mike Enzi, from a State that has fewer than 500,000 
people, has the same power as a Senator from the State of Nevada which 
has 2.3 or 2.4 million people. Mike Enzi has the same power as someone 
from the State of California which I think has 34 million people, or 
some large number such as that. Mike Enzi has the same power as Dianne 
Feinstein and Barbara Boxer by virtue of the fact that we have a 
constitutional system that gives a Senator that power.
  One Senator has tremendous power. We have heard of the famous holds. 
You can have something come to the Senate and a Senator can 
individually call and say, you know, I am not going to let this move. 
You are not going to get unanimous consent on this. I stop it.
  That is why it takes 60 votes, not 51, not 50, not 59--60 votes to 
cut off debate, a so-called filibuster.
  I realize the party I represent has 49 Senators in the Senate. The 
majority has 51. There was a time, just a short time ago, when it was 
50-50, and had it not been for the untimely death of Paul Wellstone it 
would be 50-50 now.
  So we have a Senate that is so closely divided now, by the smallest 
of margins, but we all represent this country. Democrats, 49 of us, 51 
Republicans, we all represent approaching 300 million people in 
addition to what we are obligated to do to represent our individual 
States.
  While we recognize the right of the majority to set the agenda, we on 
the minority side also believe the rights of the minority shouldn't be 
trampled. That means not excluding us from conference committees.
  David Broder, a long-time syndicated columnist who is nonpartisan and 
fair, recently wrote about the exclusion of Democrats from conference 
committees in Congress this year. He wrote:

       These conferences are no longer the representative bodies 
     they once were. Under the current Republican control of the 
     House and Senate, Democrats are routinely excluded from the 
     discussions after the ceremonial opening day. The real 
     negotiations involve only top Republicans in Congress and 
     representatives of the White House.

  These conference committees have not only disregarded the views of 
Democratic Senators, but they have disregarded the views of the Senate 
itself.
  On a number of issues, conferees appointed by the Senate leadership 
have gone against the will of this body.
  Am I making things up? No. Let us talk about a few of them.
  Media ownership: What is this all about? The decision was made in 
legislative session that you couldn't have more than a certain 
percentage of ownership of a media market by votes on both sides--House 
and Senate. In fact, when it went to the full committee when we were 
included in these meetings at that time, the full conference voted to 
maintain the position we had in the Senate. The conference committee 
was ended, and sure enough we get on the Senate floor and they have 
taken that out because the White House told them to. That has never 
been done before.
  Another example, overtime pay. This was an issue where the 
administration wanted to change the way overtime is paid in this 
country. It affects 8 million people. On this side, we said it 
shouldn't be done. We voted accordingly and were joined by friends on 
the other side of the aisle. The House voted by a large majority to 
have their conferees do what the Senate did on this vote. On the floor, 
it was stripped from the conference.
  Pensions: Senator Daschle agreed to allow the conference to go 
forward. Of course, that didn't turn out as well as it was represented 
it would. That doesn't mean that everything should have gone exactly 
the way it came out of here. Of course not. But that is an example of 
what is happening in conferences.
  Another example is an amendment we agreed to that said when you are 
buying meat you should know from where it comes. People are entitled to 
know that. Where is the beef that you are eating coming from? Both 
bodies said, yes, that is a great idea. In conference, it was taken 
from the bill.
  The Senate voted for these things and the conferees disregarded the 
votes of the Senate--not individual Senators, they disregarded the 
voice of the American people. That is whom we represent.
  We have to be able to work together for the good of the American 
people. That is what the people want us to do.
  We have done very well this week. We were able to pass the FSC bill. 
It was a struggle. We got votes on overtime, on unemployment 
compensation, and we passed this most important bill. Tomorrow, we are 
going to pass the IDEA legislation which is very important. I hope 
tomorrow we can also get to the mental health parity legislation. It is 
my understanding that Senator Domenici has given his legislation to the 
chairman of the HELP Committee. Senator Gregg has that now, and 
hopefully we are in a position to have an agreement to work on this 
legislation in the near future.
  We have to work together for the good of the people. I understand 
that being in the majority confers power, but with that power comes the 
responsibility to make sure the views of Senators are respected and the 
rights of the minority are not trampled.
  We all have a responsibility to work together. But I believe those 
who control the agenda have the greatest duty to seek compromise and 
consensus. That is part of leadership. You have to know when to reach 
out and meet people at least halfway.
  I think what we have heard around here far too often is 
obstructionism. I hope no one is deliberately trying to obstruct the 
business of our country. I don't think that is the case, but without 
compromise the Senate simply doesn't function.
  President Gerald Ford--this nice man--was right. Compromise is the 
oil that keeps government running. But I believe that today our 
government needs an oil change and maybe even a lube job. We have to 
look under the hood and make the proper adjustments to get the engine 
running smoothly again in the Senate.

                          ____________________