[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7647-7649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    DANGEROUS POLITICAL INTERSECTION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, everyone in this country knows what a 
dangerous intersection is. We all drive and understand the consequences 
of a dangerous intersection. We are coming to a dangerous intersection 
in American politics, especially in the Congress: first, by actions 
that are, on their face, wrong and are harmful to our country; and 
second, by inaction on matters that cry out for attention--but, again, 
get none in this Congress and by this administration.
  We face a different kind of politics than most have experienced 
before when we see prominent members of the Congress participate in 
exercises with outside groups who suggest those who are not with them 
on the issues are people who lack faith, are people who are not people 
of faith. Those are dangerous grounds to tread on politically. Yet they 
do it and do it willingly.
  As I was listening to my colleague, I remembered going to a puppet 
show my daughter participated in during grade school some years ago. Of 
course, in a puppet show you see only the puppet; you do not see who is 
behind the black cloth. There are puppet shows going on here in the 
Congress, of course, and in the administration. Perhaps today's USA 
Today tells us a little bit about who is behind the screen. The chief 
political adviser to the White House, Mr. Karl Rove, says there will be 
no compromise on this issue of judges. It seems to me, a White House 
that has said it is not involved in this issue is clearly neck deep in 
this issue, and perhaps is the one behind the screen in this case. 
Whether it is on this so-called nuclear option with respect to the vote 
on the judges in the Senate or the Social Security debate going on 
regarding whether we should privatize Social Security as recommended by 
the White House, Mr. Rove has played a very prominent role.
  To take Social Security for a moment, the memorandum leaked in 
January from the White House by the chief strategist on this issue, who 
works for Mr. Rove, said that, for the first time in six decades, we 
have a chance to win on Social Security.

[[Page 7648]]

  What does that mean? It means they have never liked Social Security. 
They want to take Social Security apart. That memorandum also said we 
have to claim there is a crisis and convince people there is a crisis 
in Social Security. Of course, it is not working because there is not a 
crisis in Social Security which has been and is an enormously important 
program, lifting tens of millions of senior citizens out of poverty in 
this country. The fact is that Social Security will be fully solvent 
until President George W. Bush is 106 years old. That is hardly a 
crisis.
  People are living longer, and we may need to make adjustments in 
Social Security as we move along, but it does not require major 
surgery. And, the President's proposal to borrow $5 trillion and then 
stick it in the stock market and cut Social Security benefits and sit 
back and hope, is not much of a plan.
  It is interesting to me that the American people, in poll after poll 
after poll, are rejecting this. I was at a Social Security forum over 
the weekend. We did them in several States. A fellow came up to us at 
the forum and said, I am 88 years old. I am blind, and Social Security 
is all I have. I think people are very concerned about this notion of 
sticking this money in private accounts and just hoping, after you have 
borrowed trillions, hoping somehow things will be better.
  Whether it is Social Security and private accounts and the attempt to 
take the Social Security system apart or this issue of the nuclear 
option because the majority party and the President have gotten only 95 
percent of the Federal judges they want, these intersections are 
dangerous.
  Let me describe the danger of the intersection with respect to the 
so-called nuclear option. The Constitution of the United States is 
clear about judges. In fact, originally when they put this Constitution 
together, they felt perhaps they would have the Senate or the Congress 
appoint judges. Instead, there is a two-step process. The President 
decides who shall be nominated to the Senate for a lifetime appointment 
on the Federal bench to the Federal courts and then the Senate decides 
whether they will support that nomination. It is called advice and 
consent. This President, President Bush, has sent the Senate 215 
nominees to serve for a lifetime on the Federal court. We have 
supported 205 of them. That is 95 percent. But that is not enough. The 
President and the majority party say we want it all.
  I remember people like that on the playground when I was in school. 
They want it all. If they do not get it all, they are going to take 
their bat and ball and go home. In this case, if they do not get it 
all, they will violate the Senate rules in order to change the Senate 
rules. How will they violate the rules? They will overturn precedent in 
the Senate in terms of how the rules are changed. It takes 67 votes to 
change the rules of the Senate. The so-called nuclear option devised by 
the majority party is a strategy by which they will overturn the ruling 
of the Parliamentarian that the rules are being violated, and by a 
majority vote, overturn the rule and effectively change the rules of 
the Senate by violating the rules of the Senate. Some people do not 
care about that. That is fine. If you care a lot about the future of 
this country, if you care a lot about democracy, if you care about 
making a democratic government work by compromise, you ought to care a 
lot about this.
  It is arrogant. It reflects the feeling of a party that controls the 
White House, the House, and the Senate, that they must get their way on 
everything.
  The reason a 60-vote requirement--that is, a filibuster--is useful to 
the workings of democracy is because it requires compromise. It 
requires Members to reach a threshold of 60 votes in the Senate, which 
requires you to reach across the aisle and talk to people of the other 
party. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. Compromise is a good 
thing. Bipartisanship is a good thing, not a bad thing. We have people 
now who look at it as something that is awful. We want to take a 
partisan group that has 51 votes and is muscle-bound--it is politics on 
steroids--and ram it through the Congress and violate the rules in 
order to change the rules. It is not what this country should expect 
from the Congress.
  Here is today's paper: ``Filibuster Rule Change Opposed.'' It is 
interesting that there is a broad center of common sense. There always 
has been. Over two centuries, this country's political system moves one 
direction and then the other direction. But there is a strong magnetic 
pull back to the center. That magnetic pull comes from a reservoir of 
common sense all across this country of people who basically know what 
is the right thing. They know from their school days, from their civic 
organizations, they know from their everyday lives you do not violate 
the rules to change rules. We have certain rules. You do not violate 
rules to change rules. People know that inherently, and they also know 
the consequences of one-party rule that says it is our way and that is 
the only way and we refuse to compromise on anything.
  For that reason, it is quite clear that two-thirds of the American 
people have that reservoir of common sense and are expressing it. I 
hope the majority party will listen. I especially hope Mr. Rove and the 
White House, who says there will be no compromise, will understand that 
compromise is what makes this Senate work.
  In the McCullough book about John Adams, as I told my colleagues 
previously, he would write to Abigail--because John Adams was in 
Europe, representing our country in England and France as they tried to 
put this new country together--he would write to his wife, Abigail, and 
ask the question, plaintively: Who will be the leaders? Who will emerge 
as the leaders to help form this new country of ours? From where will 
the leadership come? And then in the next letter to Abigail, he would 
ask the question in different ways again: Who will be the leaders? Then 
he would say: It appears there is only us. There is me, there is George 
Washington, there is Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Mason, Madison.
  In the rearview mirror of history, the only ``us'' is some of the 
greatest human talent that has ever been assembled that created quite a 
remarkable country. For 2 centuries, Americans have asked the same 
question: From where will the leadership come? How will the leadership 
emerge to steer this country and provide direction for this great 
democracy of ours? In almost every case, the American people have been 
surprised by those who step forward.
  We have been enormously blessed by wonderful leaders--Republicans, 
Democrats, conservatives, liberals--leaders who step forward at the 
right time, at the right moment, to say: Here is where America needs to 
move. Here is how we need to improve and strengthen this great 
democracy of ours.
  I ask again, and I think America asks again, with the backdrop of 
these questions, violating the Senate rules to change Senate rules, 
taking apart the most successful program we have had in this country's 
history, the Social Security Program, the American people are asking, 
as they answer these polls: Where is the leadership? Where will the 
leadership come from to put this country on track?
  We do have crisis. It is not Social Security. We have a bona fide 
crisis in health care. Prescription drug costs, health care costs are 
going straight up, and no one is doing anything about it. We have a 
crisis in jobs. We have the biggest trade deficit in human history, and 
we are choking on it. We have massive numbers of American jobs moving 
every single day overseas. It is an epidemic because American workers 
are being told by their multinational employers: You either compete 
with 30-cent labor from China or we are sorry, it is over for you. That 
job goes to China for 30 cents an hour, working 7 days a week, 12 to 14 
hours a day, often kids. We have an epidemic in jobs and trade. We have 
a serious problem with the largest budget deficits in the history of 
this country. Yes, that is a crisis.
  Last week, we passed an $80 billion emergency supplemental bill to 
pay for the costs in Iraq and Afghanistan and

[[Page 7649]]

not one penny was paid for. The administration that requested it did 
not suggest it be paid for. Congress did not suggest it be paid for. 
Just add it to the debt. Send the soldiers to Iraq and bring them back 
later and have them pay for the debt.
  So, yes, we have some crises. Health care, jobs, trade deficit, 
fiscal policy, energy. Drive to the gas pumps and ask yourself whether 
there is a problem there. And then we have the Crown Prince of Saudi 
Arabia going to Texas yesterday to explain how much additional oil they 
will pump in order to help us with our energy problem. Sixty percent of 
our oil comes from off our shores, much of it from troubled parts of 
the world--Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, Kuwait.
  If, God forbid, tomorrow the pipeline for sending oil to this country 
from those troubled parts of the world were ruptured, this country's 
economy would be flat on its back. We are held hostage by oil from off 
our shores to the extent we have to have the Saudis come to Texas, to 
the ranch, to explain to us how they are going to help us solve our 
problems.
  The fact is, we do have crises. The operative question is, Where is 
the leadership? Where is the leadership? Where will it come from to 
deal with these issues? No, I am not talking about the nuclear option. 
That is a specious approach, one that will injure this Senate and 
injure this country. I am not talking about taking Social Security 
apart--exactly the wrong thing. I am talking about the leadership for 
things that really matter to American families.
  When people are in their homes, sitting at their tables, having 
supper, they talk about issues such as: Do I have a good job? Does it 
pay well? Do I have job security? Do grandpa and grandma have access to 
good health care? How about the kids, do they have access to doctors 
when they need it? Are our kids going to a school we are proud of? Do 
we live in safe neighborhoods? Those are things that are operative in 
the midst of families' interests about this country and where they 
live.
  I hope very much the majority party will understand what the American 
people are telling them: Lay off the nuclear option. Accept that 95-
percent support for judges nominated by this President, which is a 
pretty good record. Ninety-five percent, that is a good record. Accept 
and understand there is an opposition party. They, too, have rights. 
And accept and understand that compromise is not a bad word. Compromise 
recognizes that this democracy works when you have bipartisanship, when 
you reach across the aisle. That is what the 60-vote margin requires us 
to do, in my judgment. And answer the question, Where is the 
leadership? Just answer that question, Where is the leadership on 
issues that matter to American families? My hope is, in the coming days 
we will see some of that leadership both here in the Congress and also 
from this administration.
  Last, and most importantly, let's not ever hear again that those with 
whom you disagree are not people of faith. What a shameless thing to be 
doing, to suggest that your political opponents are people who are not 
people of faith. This country is better than that. Political debate and 
dialog can be better than that. And the American people expect and 
deserve better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.

                          ____________________