The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“GRIDLOCK IN THE SENATE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S7806-S7813 on July 12, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
GRIDLOCK IN THE SENATE
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that information. This morning, I listened with great interest to a menu of opinions that was offered on the floor of the Senate about why the Senate has not moved forward more expeditiously to address this issue or that issue, and why the Senate is not working as well as it really ought to work, who is at fault, what is wrong. The chorus was a well-rehearsed chorus. Obviously, a fair amount of time was spent on this tune, because everybody was singing almost in complete harmony on these issues.
Let me take the most obvious and the easiest one. The U.S. Senate passed, by a vote of 100 to 0, a bill dealing with health care. It was a piece of legislation that almost every American believes is long past due. It says the kind of commonsense things like this: You ought to be able to take your health care with you when you move from one job to another. Your health care plan ought to be portable. This legislation says to every American family that when you move from one job to another, you are not going to be threatened by losing your health care benefits for you or your children.
It says that we ought not have a circumstance where insurance companies insure people as long as they are well and then cancel coverage when they are sick. It says we will not allow insurance companies forever now to say, if you have a child with a heart defect, a child with a preexisting condition of some sort, or a member of a family with a preexisting condition, that you are not going to get insurance coverage because that preexisting condition means you are no longer insurable.
This piece of legislation addresses all of those issues and more. It is a piece of legislation that every American family will want. It is something that should be done. And it was passed 100 to 0 in the U.S. Senate.
When we debated that bill, however, the then majority leader insisted that something else be added to it--something that was extraneous, an issue that was outside of the purview of what was in the Kennedy-
Kassebaum or the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill called medical savings accounts. I must say, at least from my own standpoint, that I think it is useful to evaluate with a test program whether medical savings accounts are a good idea or bad idea, whether they work or do not work. That is fine with me. It is a new idea certainly. Let us figure out whether it works.
But to insist on a massive new approach--medical savings accounts, which many economists and other analysts say would undermine the whole circumstance of how we pay for health care costs in this country, I do not know whether they are right; I am just telling you there is a substantial amount of testimony about that--to suggest that must be added to this commonsense health care bill in order for it to move just is out of line. But the then majority leader insisted. He said this must be added to that bill.
So he brought it to the floor of the Senate, and we had what you call a democratic vote; two ways. A democratic vote means that we all have a chance to express our opinion; and, second, the then majority leader failed. Senator Dole failed. The Senate said no, we do not want to add medical savings accounts to the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. No, we do not want to do it. We did not weigh the votes. We counted the votes. When the votes are counted, those who have the most votes win. The votes that had the largest tally were votes that said let us not laden this bill with something else. Let us pass this commonsense health care bill by itself the way it is, the way the Senate has crafted it. That is the way it left the Senate.
What has happened since that time? The bill is held hostage. No; not by the Senator from Massachusetts, or not by a dozen unnamed villains. The bill is held hostage by those who insist that the only way this commonsense health care bill will get through this Republican Congress is if it has medical savings accounts attached to it. If they are not attached to it, they have no interest in passing this legislation.
That is what is holding this legislation hostage. We are told that this Senator, that Senator, or some other unnamed Senator holds this bill, or that bill in the palm--well, it is nonsense. This bill, the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, has not moved because of some people's insistence that the only way this will pass the Congress is if other things are included with it. If we are not able to put other freight on this train, then we are not going to let the train move. That is the attitude of some in this Chamber.
We heard a discourse yesterday about gridlock in the Senate. I think it is a curious thing to see in the U.S. Senate, which is a body where one would expect the issues of the day to be not just debated but debated fully, understood and thought out, reasoned, and compromised. I think it is unusual to see in the Senate a tactic in which the party that has the majority says the following: We are going to today, on Tuesday, or Wednesday, or whatever day it is, lay down a piece of legislation before the Senate. This will be the pending business of the U.S. Senate. This piece of legislation is what we will now begin working on today. Then on the same day--the same day--the majority party says, ``By the way, we have now decided today we will begin debate. We will also file cloture to shut off debate.'' The same day on which a bill is filed to begin debate, repeatedly cloture motions are filed to end debate.
Yesterday we heard from the majority leader that this has been done before. We are simply learning lessons from what happened in previous Congresses.
Well, we looked at the 103d Congress. On only one occasion did that happen, and then it happened because there was uniform agreement on the procedure by which it would occur. There was no disagreement about it. It was on product liability. There was agreement by which a procedure called for two cloture votes and then the bill being withdrawn. It was the only occasion on which the Democrats would have ever done that in this Chamber in the 103d Congress. It has been done repeatedly in the 104th Congress--not by consent of anyone, but in a way that is shoved down someone's throat, a demand that although we begin debating the bill today, we also insist on shutting off debate today.
That is no way to run the U.S. Senate. If someone wants cooperation in the Senate on issues, to debate the issues that are important to the people of this country and to others in the Senate, then they must allow debate on these matters--not concoct a strategy that says, ``By the way, we will offer our legislation as we have crafted it behind our closed doors without your involvement, and the day we offer it we will tell you, `No debate; no debate.' We are going to shut off your ability to amend. We are going to shut off your ability to debate, and that is the way we legislate.''
If you come into this Chamber with that attitude and then wonder why your vehicle does not develop any speed, I will tell you why it does not develop any speed. Because that is not the kind of a vehicle you can drive through a legislative process in something constituted like the United States is constituted.
There have to be some people who serve in the Congress who believe that we ought to be debating, amending, and improving legislation that deals with real issues people are concerned about. There are, to be sure, substantial disagreements in our philosophies about how to govern. I understand that.
I think it is really interesting, by the way, that we have a bill on the floor of the Senate now that calls for $11 billion more in spending than the Pentagon asked for pushed primarily by people who insist they want to cut Federal spending--a bill that said let us spend hundreds of millions more for national missile defense, or a star wars program which the Pentagon does not want to deploy; a bill that chooses priorities that say we can afford the extra $11 billion but we have decided we cannot afford enough money to fully fund a Head Start Program. So we are going to tell a bunch of little kids that we do not have any room for you anymore in the Head Start Program. We know that program works. Do you believe that program does not deal with American security? Do you believe that program does not strengthen this country? That is the difference we have in priorities, I guess, in how we spend our money and how much we spend.
But I just think it is ironic that those who talk so much about wanting to cut spending on one of the biggest bills before Congress demands and insists that they spend $11 billion more than the generals and the admirals in this country felt was necessary to defend our country.
I am hoping that we will move ahead and deal with a series of issues in this Congress. I do not want a do-nothing Congress. I want a do-
something Congress. I want to participate in a Congress that makes progress. I want to do something about the issue of jobs. I want to do something about shutting down the tax incentives that encourage runaway plants. I want to do something about health care. I want to pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill; invest in education to make sure that every little kid in this country has an opportunity to go to Head Start.
There is a litany of issues that we need to address, and address in a thoughtful and an appropriate way.
I want the majority leader to be a successful majority leader. I consider him a friend. I want the Senate to succeed--not as Republicans or Democrats. I want us to succeed as a Senate by addressing the issues which we think are appropriate and necessary to address at this point.
But it does no good, it seems to me, for the Senate to spend all of its time just standing around in a circle pointing fingers saying,
``Well, this person is at fault; that person is at fault.'' The fact is that you cannot be laying down bills in the U.S. Senate and demanding on the same day that you are going to shut off debate and then say,
``Well, boy, I am surprised that you object to that. I mean, it doesn't make any sense that you would object to a procedure by which we say we have concocted what we want in a locked room someplace outside your view. Now we bring it to you to show it to you and demand that you have no voice in determining how it is going to be shaped. Shame on you.''
Well, no, not shame on us. If those who would begin developing this process would understand the quick way, the best way to get the Senate to act on these issues is to involve everyone and to reach sensible compromises and then faithfully represent those compromises as we move ahead, we would pass far more legislation that is far more beneficial to the American people than this 104th Congress has done to date.
I have some other things to say, Mr. President, but I will hold them for a bit. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, is here, and Senator Wyden from Oregon is present.
Mr. President, I yield such time as may be consumed to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from North Dakota for this time.
Mr. President, I was in my office this morning listening to activity in the Chamber of the Senate, and I must say I was amazed to hear the charges leveled at the minority side by those in the majority. I was listening in my office, and I heard a litany of complaints against the minority for bringing gridlock to this Chamber.
Mr. President, it was as if the majority has forgotten that they were once in the minority and it is though they have forgotten that they are now in the majority and they are controlling the flow of business in this Chamber.
I especially found it fascinating that our friends across the aisle accuse us of stopping Government when it was their side who shut down the entire Government just a year ago--shut down the entire Government in order to try to dictate the results of the legislative process. It was their side that shut down the entire Government of the United States to try to dictate the results in this Chamber.
That is not the way this Chamber is supposed to function. It is not the way democracy is supposed to function. If we go back and try to recall what they were trying to do, I think we can understand why they had to try to be so heavy-handed. What was it they were trying to do a year ago? They were trying to cut Medicare $270 billion in order to provide a $245 billion tax cut that would have been directed mainly at the wealthiest among us.
That is what they were up to. And there was a reaction against that because it was too heavy-handed. The other side themselves described what they were trying to do as ``a revolution.'' That is what they were seeking to impose on the American people, a revolution, and they did not want anybody standing in their way. They wanted to trample minority rights. They wanted to proceed. They had the arrogance of power, and they abused their power. And as a result there was a strong reaction against them not only in this Chamber but in the country as well because the American people did not want a revolution. They wanted change; they wanted us to get our fiscal house in order; they wanted to reform the welfare system; they wanted this country to work better; they wanted more opportunity; but they did not want a revolution, and they did not want folks taking from those who are middle class to give to those who are the wealthiest among us. That was not what the American people wanted.
The other side has engaged in a whole series of tactics to try to choke off the rights of the minority. We use a lot of words around here that are foreign to most people--cloture, cloture motion. What do those things mean? For most people it is not in their vocabulary. Most people I talk to back home in North Dakota have no idea what cloture is. I am not sure my colleagues understand all of what cloture means.
Very simply, the tactic that has been engaged by the other side is to prevent the minority here from being able to offer amendments. Now, that is basic to the legislative process. The majority leader said yesterday, ``I just learned this tactic from your leader.'' No, they did not. Not once when we were in the majority did we lay down cloture motions on bills that could be amended unless there was an agreement by the two sides that were in dispute, and that only happened once. That only happened once, that a cloture motion was laid down which choked off amendments on the day the bill was introduced. And the only time we did was when there was agreement between the two sides in dispute. The other side has engaged in that practice repeatedly, laying down a cloture motion to choke off, to prevent the minority from offering amendments, to act as though the minority is not even here, to act as though the Democratic Party does not exist in the U.S. Senate, to act as though we have one-party rule.
Mr. President, we do not have one-party rule, and we are not going to have one-party rule in this country or in this Chamber, and the majority, I hope, will recognize that that kind of dictatorial stance has led us to the gridlock we have today. They want to know why there is gridlock? It is because they have tried to choke off legitimate minority rights. That is not democratic, that is not American, and it is not going to be accepted.
There is another way. There is another way. We see what works. We see, when we work together and we respect each other, that things can actually get done here. This week we got the minimum wage bill through this Chamber by an overwhelming vote. This week we got through this Chamber a significant package of tax cuts for small businesses and reforms in the pension system and a whole series of other measures to assist small business. How did it happen? It happened by working together, not by one side, in a heavyhanded, arrogant way, trying to dictate to the other side. That way creates gridlock. But, instead, if we work together, if we respect each other, things can actually get done here. It happened in the telecommunications bill this year--a major piece of legislation--when both sides were allowed to participate in the legislative process.
I hope the majority will remember, this is an institution with two sides. This is an institution that was formed by our forefathers so that minority rights would not be trampled. This is a body that was formed by our forefathers to prevent a monopoly of power. This is a body that was formed by our forefathers to prevent the arrogance of power from trampling the legitimate rights of the minority.
I heard other things said on the floor this morning that require a response. I heard the attack on the President for vetoing some of the bills that were passed by the Republican majority. You bet the President vetoed some of those bills. He should have vetoed them. They were opposed by a majority of the American people.
The American people did not want to have a $270 billion cut in Medicare in order to finance tax cuts that disproportionately went to the wealthiest in our country. That is not what the American people wanted. Of course the President vetoed that legislation. I applaud him for it. He did exactly the right thing, and the American people agreed with him.
I also heard on the floor of the Senate this morning that we defeated the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am very proud to have been one who rose in opposition to that phony balanced budget amendment. Boy, if there was ever a hoax tried to be perpetrated on the American people it was that so-called balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I tell you, as more people found out how they were proposing to balance the budget by looting every penny of Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 7 years and call that a balanced budget, the American people would be in overwhelming opposition to it. That is not any kind of honest balancing of the budget.
If a private company tried to take the retirement funds of their employees and throw those into the company's pot and call that a balanced budget, they would be in violation of Federal law. They would be headed to a Federal institution, and it would not be the Congress of the United States. They would be headed to a Federal prison, because that is a violation of Federal law. But that is exactly what our friends on the other side were proposing, that we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would have enshrined in the Constitution of the United States the definition of a balanced budget that included looting every penny of Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 7 years to call it a balanced budget. They were going to take $525 billion of Social Security surpluses, throw those into the pot, and call it a balanced budget. What a charade. What a hoax, to call that a balanced budget.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator recalls the discussions we had, actually inside the Cloakrooms, in which some members of the majority party were, in private, saying to us, ``We will stop using the Social Security funds in 2008,'' while others were out on the floor saying,
``We are not using Social Security funds to balance the budget.'' I said it was three stages of denial. Actually, there was a third person on the floor saying, ``There are no Social Security funds.''
So the three stages of denial that were orchestrated, all at the same time, in total harmony, and I might give them credit for that, are: First, there are no Social Security trust funds; or, second, there are Social Security trust funds, but we are not misusing them; and then, third, back in the Cloakroom here, in their own handwriting, which I still have, by the way, there are Social Security funds, we are misusing them, and we promise to stop by the year 2008.
Does the Senator recall that?
Mr. CONRAD. I recall it very well. The other side was negotiating with the Senator from North Dakota and myself. On the floor, they were saying, ``Oh, no, we have no intention of using Social Security surpluses. We have no intention of doing that.'' But right in that room, right in that Cloakroom, they were telling us, ``Well, yes, we are going to use them, but we will stop doing it in the year 2008.''
First they said, ``We will stop doing it in the year 2012,'' and we checked and we found out they were going to be using trillions of dollars of Social Security surpluses by that time. We said absolutely not.
They went back out and came back in and said, ``Well, we will stop using the Social Security surpluses in 2008.'' Again, they would have taken over $1 trillion of Social Security surpluses, spent every dime, every penny, and then said they would balance the budget. What a fraud that would be.
You know, as I was thinking about it, in considering my vote on that question, I thought if I was the only vote in this Chamber against that proposition, and if every one of my constituents was on the other side, I would vote no. Because I would never want it said of me that I had helped to put in the Constitution of the United States, the organic law of this country, the document that has made this the greatest country in human history, something that says you balance the budget when you have looted trust funds in order to call it balanced.
I just want to conclude by saying, there is gridlock here. There is gridlock. And there is gridlock because the majority has tried to stifle the rights of the minority. They have tried to dictate legislative results. That is not the American way. That is not democracy. That is not the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate.
The way to get things done here is to respect the legitimate rights of everyone, to respect everyone and to work together. When we do that, we get things done. We got the minimum wage passed that way. We got the telecommunications bill passed that way. We got a substantial package of tax relief for small business and reform of pension laws of this country that way. If anybody is serious about trying to get things done, the way to achieve results is to work together.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me say, as somebody who is new here, as a new Senator who campaigned for months on the idea that we have to come together, we have to find common ground, we have to get beyond some of the partisan labels, I want to come today and speak for a few moments about the importance of that approach and why I feel it is the only answer, and how I hope the Senate can get back on track and look at issues that way.
First, let me say, I have never considered myself particularly a partisan person. I come from a part of the world, the beautiful Northwest where we have a history of fresh and creative approaches to issues before the Government. Our citizens do not get up in the morning and say, ``Well, whose got the partisan answer? Is it a Democratic answer? Is it a Republican answer?''
They get up and talk about tackling major issues in a way that is fair and responsible and meets the needs of the public.
So I have tried to take that kind of philosophy, first as a Member of the House and now as a new Senator, in terms of attacking the need to address the concerns of the public.
As the Senator from North Dakota said very clearly, it is obvious that is how the Senate has made progress. Look at this minimum wage issue, for example. It seems to me when workers put out the maximum effort, they deserve a decent minimum wage. The Senate agreed and, fortunately, Senators of both parties came together, and passed an important small business package. My State is just chock-full of small businesses. We have only a handful of big businesses in the State of Oregon. You can almost count the big businesses on one hand, so we are a small business State, and those tax incentives that were passed with bipartisan support are going to make a real difference at home in Oregon and on Main Street in our country.
The same kind of bipartisan approach was used in the Kennedy-
Kassebaum bill. I think that the health insurance system in our country needs to work for more than the healthy and the wealthy, and yet, so often, when somebody gets sick, the whole system falls apart. For a lot of families, you can only get coverage when you really do not need it, which is when you are well.
So the Senate came together, a bipartisan bill was passed, and it is going to make a real difference, because, for the first time, when citizens are trying to get ahead, when they work hard and play by the rules, they will not be limited in terms of their job advancement because they cannot get health insurance as they try to climb up the ladder in the free enterprise system.
So there have been real successes since I have been here, when Democrats and Republicans worked together on issues like health and the minimum wage. I am very hopeful that over the next 7 or 8 weeks of the session--and I just remind again our colleagues and our friends that there are only a handful of weeks left in the session. To get real results on issues like welfare and crime and aviation reforms--many of us are concerned about the situation with aviation in this country and want to pass real changes to make sure that the Federal Aviation Administration's mandate is safety first; that there can be public disclosure of the safety records of airlines in our country. To get this kind of work done on crime and welfare and transportation, we are going to have to have a bipartisan kind of approach, once again, in the Senate.
I think it has been very unfortunate. I have seen it over the last couple of weeks and hope that it will not be the practice in the last few weeks in the session that as soon as a bill is essentially introduced--and my friends from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad, are very right to say, let's get away from some of these arcane, technical terms--``cloture'' and the like.
What the bottom line is all about is that for the last few weeks, as soon as a major bill has been introduced, there has been an effort to immediately cut off the debate. That bars the minority, especially, but certainly Members of the majority may have differing views on some of these issues, and debate, reasonable debate, is what the Senate is supposed to be all about.
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I both served in the House. One of the things that we thought was possible about service in the Senate was to have a bit more time, a reasonable amount of time, for all sides to have a fair airing of an issue. Sometimes that time is not available in the House, and sometimes the public's business suffers as a result of it. So I think this practice of, in effect, trying to shut off debate, almost as soon as it starts, is something that is especially unfortunate and is going to make it tougher to get the public's business done in the last few weeks of this session.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, let me reiterate my interest and desire in looking at these issues in a bipartisan way. I think, for example, there are a variety of procedural reforms that would be very helpful in terms of the work of the Senate.
We know, again, for the last few weeks of the session, one of the practices that is often abused is a Senator puts a hold on a bill and does it all in secret. I think the Senator's procedural rights ought to be protected, but I think there ought to be public disclosure. The hold is not the problem, but I think secrecy is. So what I have been trying to do is work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to try to make a change, to try to get public disclosure when there is a hold that will make the Senate more open, more accountable and more efficient and be in the interest of the public, so that the public's right to know is protected.
I am not trying to do that in a partisan kind of way. I am talking to Senators on both sides of the aisle, because I think that is the way we have to do the public's business.
(Mr. STEVENS assumed the chair.)
Mr. WYDEN. So, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I come to take the floor today to say that in these last 7 or 8 weeks of the session, when there is so much important work to be done, let us make sure that the procedural rights of the minority are protected, let us get away from this unfortunate practice we have seen in the last few weeks of literally cutting off the debate almost as soon as it starts, and let's take the kind of approach that folks in my home region, the Pacific Northwest, take, and that is a bipartisan one.
I believe that it is possible to get some important work done in these next 7 weeks, to get a welfare reform bill. We have done that in Oregon. Senator Hatfield, my senior colleague, has done yeoman work in terms of our jobs plus program. It has a tough work requirement, but we are also helping with child care and medical care. That kind of bipartisan approach can be an ideal model for helping the Senate to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to reform the welfare system in the last few weeks of this session.
But to reform welfare, to get a good crime bill, to have an important transportation bill--the Presiding Officer, Mr. Stevens, for so many years has done outstanding work on these aviation issues. He knows I am anxious to work with him in the days ahead--to really have progress in these last few weeks of the session, we are going to have to protect the rights of the minority; we are going to have to work in a bipartisan way. That is how we best address the public's needs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by the Senator from Oregon. We are delighted he is in the Senate. I expect he expected to come to the Senate from the House of Representatives where they have substantially different rules and be in a body where there is substantial debate. Probably a surprising discovery for him is a new trend here in the Senate of filing cloture motions on amendable issues in order to prevent amendments and shut off debate on the same day that a bill is filed in the Senate for debate.
I echo the sentiments of the Senator from Oregon [Senator Wyden]. We have heard a good many Members come to the floor earlier this morning describing all the ills of the Senate to be laid at the feet of the President or the Democrats in the Congress.
Frankly, it is not our interest, it is not my interest, I think it is not Senator Wyden's interest to impede the progress of the Senate in addressing the real issues that people want addressed. We are not going to roll over and play dead when we have people coming to the Senate saying to us, ``Here's our agenda. If you don't like it, tough luck. We're going to ram it down your throat and send it to the White House and demand the President sign it.''
There was a complaint this morning about President Clinton's veto of some bills. Well, let me say as well, I am glad he vetoed the piece of legislation that says, by the way, let us take $270 billion out of what is needed to fund Medicare, and let us use the funds we get by taking that out of what is needed for the Medicare Program and use it to give tax cuts, the majority of which will go to the wealthiest Americans. I am glad the President said, ``Not on my life you are going to do that.'' He vetoed that. He vetoed that. So a whole series of overreaching and ill-proposed issues that came to the floor of the Senate last year the President had to veto.
Now the question is, are we going to do this in a serious way? I noticed in the paper the other day, ``GOP To Press Missile Defense as Clinton Test.'' They are going to load the defense bill down with hundreds of millions of dollars extra for national missile defense, demanding that money be spent on the system the Pentagon says it does not want and the defense community says this country does not need, demanding it be done in order to confront the President with a defense issue so they can say the President is weak on defense. That is not from people who are serious about wanting to balance the budget. It is from people who want to use these issues as a political wedge.
My own interest is that we address the central questions facing American families. Are there good jobs available for them and for their children? Is there some security with those jobs? Do they pay well? What about the schools you send your kids to? Are they doing well? Do we have enough money for the Head Start Program, enough money for the WIC Program? Are we able to take care of the children in our country? What about welfare in this country? Are we going to get able-bodied people off welfare and to work?
I am proud to have helped construct something called the Work First Program. It does help enable people to go to work, but not injure the children. Do not say to a 10-year-old or 8-year-old, get off your behind and go to work. Two-thirds of those who are on welfare are under 16 years of age. I do not think anyone is suggesting we shove them out the door and say, ``Get a job.'' Let us take care of the children in this country, but let us insist able-bodied people go to work.
Let us reform the welfare system. There ought to be enough agreement on both sides of the aisle to do this in a way that is not politically gamed so they can construct it and have a veto at the White House, but in a way that really does reform the welfare system and in a thoughtful, sensible way.
Health care. I have said before, let us just pass the bill. Let us pass it through the House and the Senate that has already been passed. It passed the Senate 100 to 0 dealing with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill.
Portability, preexisting condition, so many things the American family needs. Pass it. Be done with it. Get the President to sign it. He will. We will significantly advance the health care that the families need in this country in the right way.
There are other things that I want to see done. I am sure the Senator from Oregon shares that.
Crime. I tell you, I very much want to see us do another initiative on crime in the right way. I want everyone on parole and probation in this country to be drug tested, period. End of story. Everyone on parole and probation in America ought to be drug tested while they are on parole and probation. If they fail their drug test, it ought to be revoked.
I also want to change the system so that in every circumstance in this country, if you are convicted of a violent crime, if you are a violent criminal and convicted of a violent crime, you spend all of your time in jail, you do not get good time off for good behavior. No good time off for people who commit violent crimes. If you go to jail, you stay in jail and do not get out until the end of your term. Very simple. If you commit a violent crime, you go to jail. There is no good time off for good behavior. I would very much like to see us do that.
I would like to see us advance the proposition of victims' rights. Frankly, there is now a law, which I authored, dealing with, at least in the Federal court system, if you are a victim in the Federal court system you have a right to be in court and testify at the sentencing investigation. The victim has the right to come and say, ``Here is what this crime meant to me.''
What happens? The criminal comes in, the person that has been convicted comes in. They get them a new blue suit and haircut and they bring the minister and the neighbors in and say what a quiet young boy this was, what a wonderful young person. And you have this story about what the criminal is about. I want the victim to say, ``Here is what this person did to me and my family,'' or the victim's family to say,
``Here is what this meant to me.''
I am pleased to tell you that is now in Federal law because I wrote that provision in the last crime bill. But as you know, the Federal system only deals with less than 10 percent of the criminal justice system. I would like to see that in every State and local jurisdiction, in criminal justice all across America--victims' rights.
The issue of jobs.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. This crime issue is so important. I share the Senator's view. I just add, this question of violent juvenile crime is especially important. Again, you see Senators of both parties who have done excellent work on this, Senators Hatch and Thompson--I have watched Senator Biden--all of whom have been very helpful to me and my staff in my early days as a Senator. I think they can help us put together a package dealing with violent juvenile crime.
In a lot of communities--the adult crime rate is still too high but has sort of leveled off--but the rate of violent juvenile crime has just gone through the stratosphere. In fact, the Justice Department had a study recently that showed, particularly between 3 and 7 o'clock, 3 in the afternoon and 7 in the evening, when you have these at-risk kids, that is when you really have a great portion of the violent crime in America.
There is nothing partisan about tackling violent juvenile crime. There are Senators of both political parties that have dealt with it and come up with innovative ideas. There are people like the criminologist, James Q. Wilson, who are advancing approaches that could be backed by both political parties to try to particularly make sure that these violent juvenile offenders are accountable.
But we are not going to get the important work done that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about without thoughtful debate that ensures that both sides have a reasonable opportunity. I hope the Senator from North Dakota takes the lead on this crime issue as a Member of leadership, and the kind of bipartisan approach the Senator is talking about will prevail, because issues like violent juvenile crime are issues that we can bring this body together on in a bipartisan way to deal with. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. DORGAN. The fastest growing area of crime in this country is juvenile crime, especially violent juvenile crime. I find it interesting that if you access the NCIC or the III, the Interstate Identification Index, to find out who is on there, who committed crimes in this country, what you find is some of the most violent crimes committed are not in those records because they are committed by a juvenile. You will not have access, as a judge or a police officer, by accessing the identification index.
One of the things we worked on for years is very simple, and we are not there yet. It requires a lot of attention by Congress. That is having a computer system, so that on a computer in this country we have the records of every convicted felon in America.
If the Senator from Oregon would go to a department store this afternoon to buy a shirt and use a credit card to buy a shirt, they will take that credit card and run it through a little machine that is an imager that determines the magnetic strip on the card, and then in 20 seconds they will tell the Senator from Oregon whether his credit card is good or not. Let us assume the Senator from Oregon has a credit card that is good. But immediately they will tell everyone, is this a good credit card or is it not? Twenty seconds.
They can keep track of 200 million credit cards--more than 200 million credit cards--that way, and access in 20 seconds the credit status of someone going to buy a shirt. The question is this: Why do we not have access, for the several millions of people who have committed violent crimes in this country, to every criminal record that exists in America for judges when they sentence, for law enforcement officials when they pick someone up on the streets, to determine, after a crime, is this a suspect? Is this someone who has committed three other violent crimes?
The fact is, we have a system now in which about 80 percent of the available criminal records are not available in the one criminal justice record system we have. I know the FBI and others will say,
``Gee, this is a wonderful system. It works well.'' The fact is, a whole lot of States do not participate in it or do not participate fully in it, and the system does not have a lot of the criminal records we need.
To start addressing the crime issues, one of the first things we need to do is make sure we have a computer record of all convicted felons in this country, know who they are, what they have done and where they have done it, so that everyone--judges, law enforcement people and others--will have access to it instantly, in a complete manner.
The other thing I say to the Senator from Oregon on other issues, the central issues for most families is, are we going to have a decent job? Will our kids have opportunities to get a decent job after they have had an opportunity to go to a good school? Schools and jobs and your kids--that is what this is all about.
One of the things I would like to pass on the floor of the Senate is shutting down this insidious provision that says, ``Move your jobs and your plants overseas. We will give you a tax break.'' I tried last year to do that. They turned it down. I was promised they would hold hearings. They have not, but we will do it again this year. If you cannot take the first baby step of shutting down the tax incentive that says ``ship your jobs overseas and the American taxpayer will reward you to the extent of $2.2 billion''--$2.2 billion--``reward those who ship their jobs overseas,'' if we cannot shut that down, then, thinking has stopped in the U.S. Congress, in my judgment.
Finally, I do not want to hold the Senator from Oregon up, but one of the things I think is interesting, which this Congress ought to deal with, is not just the trade deficit--which I will talk about next week with some of my colleagues; I will introduce a piece of legislation on the trade deficit--but the trade deficit, merchandise trade deficit enjoyed in this country is higher than the fiscal policy, different by a substantial margin, and there is not a whisper of attention to it. But you can only repay the trade deficit with a lower standard of living in our country.
It is a threat to this country, and we must deal with it, not by shutting our borders, but by dealing with those countries with whom we have large trade deficits, dealing with those circumstances where it is resulting in a substantial export of American jobs. We have a $170 billion merchandise trade deficit, and this country has to begin to confront the question of why do we have that and what do we do about it.
I wanted to mention one additional item today on the floor of the Senate. There was a story in the Washington Post this week that says,
``Federal Reserve policymakers are watching wages for clues to whether they need to raise interest rates again.'' Now, the point of this is that Federal Reserve policymakers are watching wages. What is the message there? The message is that we better not see an increase in wages, we better not see something that is good for American families, or we will clamp down. That is the message.
Now, what does this mean? It is because the financial markets took it on the chin last week. They said, ``A key factor was the report from the Labor Department that average hourly earnings jumped .8 of a percent last month, the largest increase since 1982.''
What John Berry, the reporter, does not say, and they never say, is that the increase in wages last month, which was a large jump, only takes wages back to where they were last December. You do not get a report in the Washington Post by Mr. Berry, month after month, that talks about how far wages have come down, and if you take a look at the drop of American wages month after month after month in real purchasing power, you do not see many stories or much in the headlines about that. But have a spike up in wages in 1 month, only to take us back to where it was in December of last year, and all of a sudden the market and all those who write about the market have an apoplectic seizure.
Every time you get a bit of good news for the family that maybe wages are stabilizing or going to start to come up just a little bit, what happens? Wall Street does a somersault. Wall Street looks for a window to jump out of. The unemployment rate drops to its lowest level in 6 years, a July 6 headline, ``Stocks, Bonds, Plunge on Jobs Report.'' Unemployment goes down, more people are working, it means the economy is better, and Wall Street says, ``Oh, my God, look what is happening to America. Woe are us. What on Earth is going to happen to our country? More people are working, and they are getting higher wages. America must be going to hell in a handbasket. What on Earth is going to happen to our economy next?''
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. WYDEN. This issue is really an interesting issue. I say, it seems to me, in today's economy we can have more noninflationary economic growth than you could in the past. You look at technology, for example, and technology is driving so much of today's economy. I think the Senator is making a very important point with respect to the role of growth and the Fed and the issues that, frankly, are not getting the kind of attention they ought to receive.
My sense has been the Government does not even really measure today's modern economy in an accurate kind of way. I served on the Joint Economic Committee for a period of time, and I was concerned that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was not in a position to have the resources, it was not in a position to have the tools to really measure the modern economy.
This whole idea about the relationship of inflation and growth, I think, really needs a fresh look. My sense is that because of technology, we can have a higher degree of noninflationary economic growth than we could in the past. I look forward to working with the Senator on these issues.
I also say, once again, we are talking about something that is not a partisan kind of issue. Everybody in this body wants to make sure that we grow the economy, that we incent the private sector in a way to have good-paying jobs, and we do not want to fan the fires of inflation.
These are not partisan kinds of issues. The Senator, talking about wages and the Fed, he did not mention Democrats, he did not mention Republicans. We are talking about kinds of approaches this body ought to be looking at in terms of the modern economy.
When I talk about noninflationary economic growth, I submit that what is driving it is the technological revolution, which, again, is not the special prerogative of Democrats or Republicans.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. DORGAN. I agree. There are two things that drive it. One is the technological revolution and the second is the global economy. Two or 3 billion new workers in the world are now eligible and able to compete in an open market, especially with the lower skilled American workers, the bottom two-thirds of the American work force, and those 2 or 3 billion people living elsewhere can make 10 cents an hour, 20 cents an hour, or 60 cents an hour. In many cases, what you have is 12-year-olds making 12 cents an hour, working 12 hours a day, competing against American workers, which drives down American wages. When American wages start to firm up a little bit, we simply climb back out of the hole to where we were last December, the stock market has a heart attack.
Let me go through a couple other headlines: ``Job and Wage Data Put Pressure on Fed,'' July 8; ``Unemployment Rate Hits 6-Year Level While Pay Posts Big Monthly Gains.'' Again, it just crawled back up to where it was the previous December. If you read this all in the Wall Street Journal, it would give you great cause for alarm if you are on Wall Street and have another agenda. So what happens is the stock market and the bond market has a seizure.
July 8, ``Jobs Data Sparks 115-Point Plunge.'' You would think maybe the jobs data was that it showed America was in deep trouble, deep unemployment, headed toward a massive recession. That is not what the jobs data was. The jobs data showed that fewer people were unemployed, more people were employed and the economy was getting better. What happens? A deep plunge in the stock market. News that even unemployment is at a 6-year low is not good news for Wall Street. NBC nightly news lead: ``The Economy Is Too Good for Markets.''
The data in February and March. ``Employment revealed increases in jobs prompting steep sell-offs on Wall Street.''
``Economy Surge Hailed by President, but Markets Fall.''
``Wall Street plummeted Friday''--this is March--``and major sell-off triggered by what seemed to be splendid economic news, a drop in unemployment, and the biggest jobs gain in more than a decade.''
February. ``When Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan hinted in testimony that the economy could grow at a 2.5 percent rate this year, the market gulped. The ensuing speculation sent the Dow Jones down 45 points.''
Just to show that it is not all irrational, some of it is politics, this says, ``Gingrich blames White House for stock market plunge.'' But that is an aberration.
``U.S. Stocks Make Steep One-Day Drop.'' This is October of last year, on good economic news. But it is not all clearly irrational on that side. You get good economic news, and Wall Street looks for a window to jump out of. It happens the other way as well. ``Last year, bonds rose after the Labor Department said Friday morning that unemployment claims had risen by 5,000 last week.'' So you had some bad economic news, and Wall Street goes, ``Thank God, we got some bad economic news. That is good news for us on Wall Street.''
What kind of twisted logic is this? Felix Rohatyn wrote a piece that I will send to my colleagues, in which he said that many corporate leaders agree and believe that it is a false choice in this country now. Wall Street and the Fed, especially, have led us to believe that it is a false choice that we must choose between economic growth and inflation--a fundamentally false choice. But those who believe we must choose between either growing as a country or inflation are the ones who are causing us to drop anchor at the first hint of wind that gets in the sales of this economy. The first time the economy starts moving a bit, it is time to drop anchor.
What does all that mean? It means that the ups and downs--this casino in which there is daily betting with trillions of dollars, where people make money going up and make money going down, and people buy what they will never get from people who never had it, and they make money on both sides of the transaction--is all at the expense of working families, who sit around eating supper asking themselves: Well, what is our life like? What about us? What is the situation in my job? Am I being paid more or less? Am I making progress or falling behind? Is my wage up, or is it deteriorating? Is my job more or less secure? What about my child, who is ready to go to college? Is the economy expanding sufficiently so that that child is going to have an opportunity to get some interviews and maybe have a choice of a job or two?
That is the central question. Those who believe they should scare this country into accepting a rate of economic growth of 2 or 2.5 percent, and decide that the standard practice in this country is to revel in bad economic news and despair in good economic news, have done a real disservice to the potential of this country's economy. Felix Rohatyn is fundamentally right. It is a false choice for us now in the global economy when wages have been going down, not up, to say that we must choose between economic growth or more inflation.
I do not want more inflation. I do not think it serves this country's interest. Inflation has been coming down for 5 years in a row. If you believe Alan Greenspan, that the consumer price index overstates inflation by a percent and a half, we have almost no inflation in America today. Yet, we have all these micromanagers who see themselves in the hold or the engine room of a ship of state, operating the controls to try to slow the ship down. My Uncle Joe could slow the ship down. If that is the job description of the Fed for serving on Wall Street, my Uncle Joe can do that job. I want this country to have an economy that expands and produces more jobs and better wages.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WYDEN. I share the Senator's interest in this Rohatyn analysis. What is interesting is that there really is a link between the growth issue and those concerns of working families that the Senator from North Dakota is right to zero in on.
There was a study a couple of weeks ago, a Census Bureau study, that showed that the gap between those at the very top and those at the bottom is widening again and, well, it confirms what a lot of us suspected. But there was also another study that did not get the attention, frankly, it should have, which said that the education gap is widening between folks at the top and folks at the bottom.
So there really is a link, a kind of interdependence between the issues that the Senator is talking about. We ought to be looking at a noninflationary economic growth rate that I think is increased beyond where we are today. I think we can get it if Democrats and Republicans in this body come together and pass the kind of policies that will complement that.
For example, if you want to attack that education gap, which was the study I mentioned last week, which complemented what the Census Department said, education is really the key. A lot of us here have said that what we ought to do, on a bipartisan basis, is say that when working families are making payments for college or vocational education, let us make that tax deductible. Let us let them write that off, so that we have a tax cut geared directly toward working families trying to deal with that wage crunch that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about. It gives us an opportunity to have the kind of growth that Felix Rohatyn and others are talking about.
I think the Senator is very much on target in bringing these issues up. There certainly is not anything partisan about these kinds of questions. I hope that as we go into the last few weeks of the session, this is the kind of approach we should take. I thank the Senator for letting me work with him on this morning's discussion.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for coming this morning, as well as Senator Conrad and Senator Ford. Again, what he said last is, I think, most important. The Senate will work its will on issues. But we cannot have a circumstance where we are told we have made the decision in some room someplace, and we are bringing it to the floor, and we are cutting off your right to debate it and accept it, or else. That is not the way the Senate can work.
Most of us are anxious to work with the majority to get things done. I say that, despite the anxiety of the end of the week on the legislation that was pending, this was actually a pretty productive week in the Senate. We passed some very substantial pieces of legislation dealing with the minimum wage, with small business regulatory issues, and tax issues that will be very helpful to small business. The Defense authorization bill was passed on final passage. This was actually a productive week. I hope future weeks will be as productive. Our intention is to work, in a serious and conscientious way, with the majority. But we will not be rolled over by people who insist on doing things that prevent us from being part of the debate. That is a message that they need to understand, and I hope they will understand.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Alaska, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
