Floor Statements

Mr. President, did my friend from Idaho suggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. President, I will talk for a minute about the National Labor Relations Board nominees.

The NLRB has helped to protect the rights and safety of workers for about 80 years. It is a vitally important watchdog for working Americans. It is also important for employers. It also protects employers. But unless we act before the Senate recess in August, the NLRB will lose its ability to operate. It will fail to have a quorum so it can't work or be effective. So the confirmation of full membership at the NLRB is a priority.

I understand Republican Senators were frustrated by President Obama's recess appointment of two members to the NLRB. I accept that. No one has raised any questions, however, about these two good people--Griffin and Block. They are fine public servants and the record should be spread with that fact. Republicans have insisted on the President's nominating new people, and he has done that. It is a right they have, and this is a compromise that was reached.

Republican Senators have also committed that the Senate will confirm these new nominees quickly, certainly before the end of this month--the month of July. To that end, I met earlier with Senators Harkin and Lamar Alexander, the chairman and ranking member of that big HELP Committee, and they have given me their word they are going to file a notice tonight that the committee will hold a hearing on these nominees on Tuesday, they will then have a markup on Wednesday, and we intend to turn to these nominees next Thursday.

I have talked with the people at the White House, and I am confident these nominees will be staunch advocates for the NLRB--for the rights and safety of workers, and for employers that are also protected with this legislation. So when the Senate confirms them, the NLRB will once again have a full team to protect the rights of workers--the workers in West Virginia, workers in Nevada, and all over the country--the same thing they have done for 80 years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions with respect to Calendar Nos. 100, 101, and 104 be withdrawn; that the vote on the confirmation of the Cordray nomination occur at 5 p.m. today; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Hochberg nomination occur at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, July 17.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``A Hearing on S. 980, The Embassy Security and Personnel Protection Act of 2013.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pooled Retirement Plans: Closing the Retirement Plan Coverage Gap for Small Businesses'' on July 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Implementation of Wartime Contracting Reforms.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 124.

Mr. President, following my remarks, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled. At 5:30 there will be a rollcall vote, with a live quorum requested. Senators should be advised that may not be the only vote today. We may have to have some more votes before we start our joint caucus, which is scheduled for 6 o'clock. I hope there will only be the need for one vote--we should know at 5:30 or thereabouts--but we could have several votes. I look forward to the joint caucus.

At this time I ask the Chair to announce the business of the day.

If there are quorum calls during this time, I ask unanimous consent that they be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 195.

Madam President, this resolution concerns testimony and representation in a professional license disciplinary proceeding pending before the Montana Board of Social Work Examiners and Professional Counselors. In this proceeding, the licensee, Laura Block Lower, is challenging a screening panel's findings that she was in violation of her professional obligations, which may have contributed to her then-former client's eventual suicide.

The licensee is seeking testimony from a staffer in Senator Tester's office about constituent casework that office provided to her former client in the weeks leading up to his suicide. Senator Tester has no objection to providing any relevant evidence from his staff in this proceeding. This resolution would accordingly authorize Senator Tester's employee to provide evidence in this proceeding, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 16.

At 10 a.m. Senator-elect Markey will be sworn in as a new Senator.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 124, S. 1238, Senator Reed's student loan bill.

Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the time until 12:30 today will be equally divided and controlled, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for caucus meetings.

Senate Rules

Last month, the Republican leader spent a great deal of time talking about the importance of keeping one's word.

I agree without any question that Senators and everyone else should keep their word. I also believe a deal is a deal, a contract is a contract, an arrangement is an arrangement, a bargain is a bargain. As long as each party to such agreement holds up his end of the bargain, Senators should stick to their word.

But agreement is a two-way street. If one party fails to uphold their end, the agreement, of course, is null and void. The Republican leader wants everyone to believe--he has made many statements on the floor to which I have not responded--that I have broken my word. He neglects to recall his own commitments and his own words. Remember, an agreement is a two-way street.

Let's take a closer look at what the Republican leader committed to do. Let's look at the agreement we entered into together on the floor of this body, the Senate.

In a colloquy at the beginning of this Congress, January 24 of this year, I committed not to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate except through regular order. During that colloquy, Senator McConnell also made a commitment. Senator McConnell committed to end the constant Republican obstruction and return the Senate to a time when nominations were processed more efficiently.

This is what he said:

On the subject of nominations, Senate Republicans will

continue to work with the majority to process nominations,

consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate.

I replied on the Senate floor:

The two leaders will continue to work together to schedule

votes on nominees in a timely manner by unanimous consent,

except in extraordinary circumstances.

Remember, an agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract, and a bargain is a bargain.

The Republican leader also pledged: This Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress. He promised ``to work with the majority to process nominations.'' He committed that ``the two leaders will continue to work together to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances.''

Those were his words. Those were his commitments. Those were his promises. By any objective standard, they have been broken.

Let's take a look at the record--part of the record at least. Exactly 3 weeks after Senator McConnell committed to process nominees consistent with norms and traditions of the Senate--I repeat, consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate--he led the Republicans on an unprecedented filibuster of the Secretary of Defense, a highly qualified nominee, someone with whom we served in this body.

Nothing can be a starker violation of the commitment to a return to the norms and traditions of the Senate than launching a filibuster of the Secretary of Defense, the first ever in the history of our Republic. What is more, Republicans obstructed the nominee because of completely unrelated issues and despite the fact that nominee Chuck Hagel was a war hero of the Vietnam conflict and a former Republican Senator from Nebraska. Republicans were busy catering to the tea party by trying to inflate the Benghazi nonscandal, which was completely unrelated to Secretary Hagel. He wasn't there.

Secretary Hagel's nomination was pending in the Senate for 34 days, a record for the Secretary of Defense. The average time is about 10 days.

Confirmation of Cabinet Secretaries used to be free from obstruction. Once in a while there would be something, but not very often. But under President Obama, Cabinet nominees have faced unprecedented obstruction and significant delays in assuming their positions.

Not a single Cabinet nominee was filibustered in President Carter's administration. Not a single Cabinet Secretary nominee was filibustered in President George H. W. Bush's administration. One Cabinet Secretary was filibustered in the Reagan administration, and only one Cabinet Secretary was filibustered in President George W. Bush's administration. But already, in the Obama administration, four Cabinet Secretaries have been filibustered and more filibusters are likely. Remember, he still has 3\1/2\ years to go in his term of office. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem; the status quo is fine.

Republicans were willing to risk national security for the sake of tea party politics when considering the Hagel nomination, and they were willing to risk it again when considering the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency. Now we have the Secretary of Defense, and we have the CIA Director. They filibustered the nomination of a man charged with leading one of the Nation's most vital national security agencies. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem; the status quo is fine.

In fact, Republican obstructionism has affected nearly every single one of President Obama's nominees. These obstructions continued at every level and through creative new methods.

Even before President Obama's nominations reached the Senate floor, Senate Republicans bogged them down with unreasonable demands, which are terribly time consuming. They are designed to be, if not unattainable, hard and difficult.

Tom Perez is a man who worked as a garbage man, who put himself through school. He hauled garbage. He is the President's nominee for Secretary of Labor. He received, after the public hearing, more than 200 questions for the record. These are not easy questions. They are not single-line questions.

Jack Lew, the President's nominee for Secretary of Treasury, was asked more than 700 questions before he was confirmed. Previously, Secretaries of the Treasury were just whipped through here with only a handful of questions. Now Jack Lew is being held up again for another position he wants with the International Monetary Fund. He is the Secretary of Treasury of our Nation.

Gina McCarthy--after a full hearing which took quite a while to get arranged because the chairman of the committee wanted to make sure the ranking member was satisfied with the time, witnesses, and all of that--was asked to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

I know quite a bit about that committee. I was chairman of that committee twice. Now this is a World Series deal. This holds the record. She had more than 1,100 questions. It used to be common for nominees to be asked a handful of questions in writing after the hearing took place.

My colleague in the minority wants to claim credit for letting some nominees proceed. The fact that he seeks credit for approving some nominees only highlights the extent of the problem. Confirming nominees should be the norm, not the exception.

Remember the agreement he and I talked about on the Senate floor. The President deserves to have his or her team in place. I don't really care who is elected, whether it is Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden. That person shouldn't have to go through what we have gone through in the last 4\1/2\ years. One look at the Senate's Executive Calendar shows that fundamentally nothing has changed since Senator McConnell and I entered into our supposed agreement.

There are currently 15 executive branch nominees ready to be confirmed by the Senate after long stalling in many different ways. They have been waiting more than 260 days. Add it up, and that is about 9 months per confirmation.

At this point in President Bush's second term, the Senate had confirmed three times as many executives as for President Obama. By the Fourth of July of President Clinton's second term, the Senate had confirmed 80 of his executive nominees. By the Fourth of July of President Bush's second term, the Senate had confirmed 118. By the Fourth of July of this year for President Obama, 34. Remember, he has 3\1/2\ years left.

Through June of this year I have been forced to file cloture on 25 Obama executive nominees--25. This is eating up so much time. By comparison, a cloture was rarely filed during the 8 years Bush was President.

These procedural blockades are as obvious as they are unprecedented. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem here; the status quo is fine.

This leads me to wonder what exactly does my friend--and he is my friend--Senator McConnell consider an extraordinary circumstance? Is it an extraordinary circumstance when Republicans merely dislike an otherwise qualified nominee? Is it an extraordinary circumstance when Republicans simply dislike the agency the nominee will lead, 1,100 questions? Is it an extraordinary circumstance when Republicans dislike the very laws a nominee will be bound to uphold?

It is a disturbing trend when Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even if they have no objection about the qualification of the nominee.

They don't like the law. They don't like the agency. Instead, they are blocking qualified nominees to circumvent the legislative process, forcing wholesale changes to laws or restructure of the entire executive branch departments. They are blocking qualified nominees because they refuse to accept the law of the land.

A perfect example is Richard Cordray, former attorney general of the State of Ohio, who has been asked by President Obama to lead the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. To give a little background, remember, this was part of the bill that was passed called Dodd-Frank. This consumer finance protection bill was the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, who is now a Senator representing Massachusetts.

The reason she is in the Senate is not by chance. Don't even put her there; the President for a long time wanted her to be there. No, he can't have her, so Cordray was a replacement. He was nominated in July of 2011. It is now July 2013.

There is no doubt about his ability to do the job. He has won high praise from both Democrats and Republicans. He

has a stellar track record. If Mr. Cordray received a fair up-or-down vote, he would be confirmed immediately. But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau continues to operate without a leader because Republicans want to roll back a law that protects consumers from the greed of the big Wall Street banks that caused us to have the meltdown we had in the first place. Republicans refuse to confirm Richard Cordray's nomination because they refuse to accept the law of the land. They do not dislike him, they dislike the law that was passed. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem here; the status quo is fine.

This same type of blatant obstruction was applied to the nomination of Gina McCarthy to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a woman who has wide-ranging support with Republicans. She served in State Republican administrations. She was nominated 130 days ago, or thereabouts, and although she has a proven track record of public service that will help her bring environmental and business groups together to tackle the serious environmental challenges facing our Nation, her nomination drags on. It just lingers. Why? Because Republicans fundamentally oppose the mission of the agency--the EPA-- she will lead to keep the air we breathe and the water we drink safe from dangerous pollution. Once again, they refuse to accept the law of the land. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem here; the status quo is just fine; nothing is wrong with the Senate and how it works.

Republicans also made clear from the start they would never confirm Donald Berwick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency tasked with implementing the landmark health care reform legislation. Talk about qualifications. This was a Harvard professor of medicine.

This health care law is already saving seniors money in checkups and prescriptions. Millions of seniors now have wellness checkups. Being a woman can no longer be considered a preexisting disability, as insurance companies did before. They can't do that now. Because of health care reform, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to sick children, such as those kids I had in my office yesterday, who had juvenile diabetes. Because of health care reform, there can be no more lifetime caps. A man who was a race car driver in Nevada got in an accident--not racing, an accident in a car--and was paralyzed. He got to the $100,000 limit and was all through; no more help from the insurance company. He went on welfare. Because of the health care reform law insurance companies can no longer discriminate against those, as I have indicated, with preexisting conditions.

Since President Obama signed that law, insurance companies can no longer put profits ahead of people. It used to be there was no limit to what they could spend on the executives of the company, but now they are limited to 20 percent. That is why millions of people this year have gotten refunds, because the insurance company was gouging them. Republicans oppose this health care law. In the House they have scheduled another vote next week--to vote for I think the 41st time--to repeal it. Because Republicans oppose the health care law, they have done everything in their power to derail the law's implementation, including denying the CMS a leader.

Despite Dr. Berwick's stellar credentials, Republicans defamed him and destroyed his chance at confirmation because they refused to accept the law of the land. They refused to confirm Berwick, so in 2010 President Obama was forced to recess-appoint him. Berwick's term ended a year and a half later because that was done under a recess appointment, and at the end of that Congress the appointment expired. He was never confirmed to lead the CMS, although his nomination was pending for 593 days--more than a year and a half. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem here; the status quo is just fine.

The same type of politically motivated obstruction has hobbled the National Labor Relations Board. This isn't some brand new law that Democrats came up with. This came into being during the Great Depression--not this one, but the one in the 1930s. That is when the National Labor Relations Board originated. From January 2008 to March 2010, the National Labor Relations Board has operated with just two members. Senate Republicans have refused to allow a vote on the President's nominees--refused.

In June 2010, the Supreme Court invalidated much of the NLRB's work during this period, finding three members were necessary. There was no quorum unless you had an extra one, and we didn't have one because they wouldn't let us do it. Then the President recess-appointed a bipartisan group of three members to the board so it would function. The appeals court ruled those appointments were also unconstitutional. The case will soon go to the Supreme Court about recess appointments.

As I mentioned, I had a meeting earlier with some of my Republican friends here this morning. We met in my office, and I reminded everybody when this issue came up in the past, we put people on that DC Circuit that we had to gag to vote for in an effort to avoid a problem here in the Senate, but we did. These are three we put on, the one who gave us this outrageous opinion that after 230 years as a country no longer could we have recess appointments. So it will go to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the term of one of the three remaining NLRB members expires next month. So at the end of August the NLRB will continue to be nonfunctioning. Republicans consider that a victory. I am not making this up. Listen: In 2011, the senior Senator from South Carolina--and I care a great deal about this man, Lindsey Graham. He would say he is my friend and I am saying he is my friend, but listen to what he said: ``The NLRB, as inoperable, could be considered progress.'' ``The NLRB, as inoperable, could be considered progress.''

Because Republicans refuse to accept the law of the land, they have denied the NLRB the ability to safeguard workers' rights and monitor unions. Workers have been illegally terminated. They have no way to appeal. The results of contested union elections? It doesn't matter; nobody is there to look it over. Labor abuse and unfair labor practices go unchallenged. Yet the Republican leader says there is no problem here; the status quo is just fine.

The Constitution gives the President, whomever that President might be, the right, the power to choose his team. It grants the Senate the right to advise and consent on those choices. But consistent and unprecedented obstruction by this Republican caucus has turned advise and consent into deny and obstruct. Republican obstruction has denied President Obama the ability to choose his team. Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, we should all be able to agree that Presidents deserve the team members they want, and their nominations should be subject to simple up-or-down votes.

No President can safeguard America's national economic security to the best of his or her ability without their chosen team in place. Let's see if we can come up with an example. Davey Johnson is the manager of the Washington Nationals--his team--we are so happy to have here in Washington. He is here as manager of that team to field a winning team. He was a starring second baseman for the Baltimore Orioles when they won four American League pennants, two World Series championships, and he has managed five different baseball teams. He has been a two-time manager of the year, he led the Mets to their 1986 World Series as a manager, and last year he gave the Nats franchise their first division title since 1981.

Major League Baseball season begins about April 1. Imagine the front office of Major League Baseball calling up Davey Johnson around the 1st of April and saying: Davey, I know that first baseman you signed a week or so ago, Adam LaRoche, is a good first baseman. He is swell--a Gold Glove winner, a classic power hitter--but I am sorry to tell you that you can't play him until maybe the middle of June. Then Davey Johnson is called again by the same man who says: That third baseman, Ryan Zimmerman, I know you like him, he is a man who has won the Silver Slugger Award, he has been a Gold Glove recipient, an All Star, but tell you what, you can play him as soon as the All Star break is over.

If that were to happen, what would happen to that team? They would go on and perform, just as President Obama has done, but they would not play to their ability. And that is ridiculous. Yet that is where we are. That is exactly what Republicans are saying to President Obama: You can't have your team until we tell you everything is fine, and it is going to take a long time for us to tell you that. The gridlock the Republicans have created is not only bad for President Obama and bad for the Senate, it is bad for this country. We can have people come and give all the statistics in the world, but is there anybody out there in America who thinks this body is functioning well?

Upon examination of this record I have outlined of obstruction--of delay and filibuster--it can hardly be said Senator McConnell has--to use his words--worked together to follow regular order and use his procedural options with discretion. It can hardly be said Senator McConnell has worked with the majority to move nominations. It can hardly be said Senator McConnell has worked with the majority to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner except in extraordinary circumstances. But it could be said Senator McConnell broke his word. That certainly could be said. The Republican leader has failed to live up to his commitments. He has failed to do what he said he would do-- move nominations by regular order except in extraordinary circumstances. I refuse to unilaterally surrender my right to respond to this breach of faith. If Senator McConnell wants to continue to defend the status quo of gridlock in Washington, he has that right. If Senator McConnell wants to continue to believe there is no problem in the Senate, that is his choice. But the American people are fed up with gridlock, they are fed up with obstruction, and they are fed up with politics as usual. They want Washington to work again for American families.

I try every day of my life to be on the side of the American people. I wait and I wait, but I am not going to wait another month, another few weeks, another year for Congress to take action on the things we have been doing for almost 240 years.

Mr. President, I assume the words ``I agree'' are words that mean something. We had a colloquy on the floor, and at that time he said he wouldn't do anything extraordinarily--he said that, and I said I agree.

I would like to talk about a few other things. Here is a direct quote Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said a few years ago: The Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate. The first Senate adopted its rules by a majority vote which specifically provided a means to end debate instantly by a simple majority vote.

This was the first Senate at the beginning of our country, and that was so we would have the ability to move the previous question and end debate. This is not the first time a minority of Senators has upset a Senate tradition or practice. The current Senate majority intends to do what the majority of the Senate has often done: Use its constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5 to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority vote. That is what Senator McConnell said.

The interesting thing here is my friend talks as if: Gee, this has never been done before. But the fact is it has been done many times. Since 1977, it

has been done 18 times--about twice every year. I think that is pretty interesting. It has happened 18 times just since 1977: December 12, 1979; November 9, 1979; March 5, 1980; June 11, 1980; June 10, 1980; another time in 1980; 1986, 1985, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2011. Those are the times the rules have been changed, overruling precedence--as my friend Senator McConnell said--with a majority vote.

It is also important to note that, without getting into a lot of legal jargon, the Constitution gives the nomination power to the President. The Constitution does not provide for a supermajority of the Senate to provide its advice and consent. The Drafters of the Constitution knew how to provide for supermajorities when they wanted to. The very same clause in the Constitution that gives the President the appointment power--the clause from which I just quoted--also provides for consortium of treaties, which is two-thirds. Same paragraph. Legislation and other things require a simple majority.

My friend the Republican leader has made my point. He talks about all the votes--97-0, 100-0, 98-0. That is the whole point. It takes months and months and sometimes years to get to where we can vote. They stall everything they can, and they have done that. That is the whole point. It was supposed to only be under extraordinary circumstances, and I went into some detail to explain that. Is this extraordinary circumstances? Of course not.

He talks about Richard Cordray and how they just want a little tweak in the law. Here is the tweak in the law they wanted: Dodd-Frank knew we would have trouble with the appropriations process because the Republicans don't let us do much appropriating at all. So in the wisdom of the people who drafted Dodd-Frank, they said: We are going to make sure the position that Cordray is talking about always has the resources to do what they want to do. So they did something unique and said the money will come from the Federal Reserve. The little tweak the Republicans want to do is to switch that and give it to the Appropriations Committees. They won't let us do appropriation bills. That is like giving us nothing.

My friend went into great detail about the NLRB. For the entire history of this country, the President has had the power to recess- appoint people. The Republicans have found a gimmick here that now they are saying--no one has raised any objection about the qualifications of the people the D.C. Circuit said shouldn't be sitting there. No one raised anything about their qualifications. If there were an effort to avoid what is going on around here, they should approve these people.

The other Alice-in-Wonderland statement made by my friend is: The majority leader can set votes whenever he wants. Oh, don't I wish. Stall and obstruct is what we have around here. It is very hard to schedule votes. As has been indicated by me a few minutes ago, we wait and we wait, and finally we get a vote after months and months--and I indicated sometimes years--and then it is a big and overwhelmingly positive vote. Yes, because there is nothing wrong with the person to begin with.

As I said early on: He makes my case. There isn't a single word that has been said here today about the qualifications of the three people who are seeking to go on the NLRB--or the two Republicans. He has not produced any facts to question their abilities. He just argues that the President's timing was not quite right.

I think everyone realizes that when you are trying to get somebody confirmed, such as Richard Cordray, and you are waiting 725 days, maybe that is a little too long.

Listen to this biggy here: The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics--that may sound like a big fancy word, but that is an extremely important position in the Secretary of Defense's office--has been waiting 300 days. The Governor for the International Monetary Fund, Jack Lew, our present Secretary of Treasury, has been waiting 169 days. It is now probably 172, I guess, since this could be old; the EPA, 128 days; Secretary of Labor, 114 days; NLRB, 573 days; the Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, 111 days; Associate Attorney General, 294 days; Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation--shouldn't we have something going there? Well, they don't believe in the program so we have been waiting now for 295 days to even have a vote on that.

Remember, he said I can schedule a vote whenever I want. I wish that were true.

Member of the Board of Directors for the Tennessee Valley Authority, 292 days; Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, 156 days. The average of those few people I mentioned comes to 260 days.

I presented my case. The case is: This is not working. For the Republicans to come here today and say: Well, that is fine, we will give you Cordray, all we want you to do is change things so the man never has any money to do his job doesn't sound like a very good deal to me. There has been no answer to these periods of times when we waited and waited, and finally we get somebody approved by an overwhelming margin. Why? Because all they are doing is stalling.

I used to do a little work in the courts and I would have a jury. I would appeal to the jury to make a decision. The jury I am appealing to right now is the American people. They know the Senate as it used to work. Our approval rating is in the swamps, and we need to do something to change that. Will this change everything? No. But remember: Since 1977, the rules of the Senate have been changed a couple of times a year in this body. My friend the Republican leader said previously that that is okay; that is what the majority could do.

My friend the Republican leader continues to ignore his words, that he would process nominations consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate. Please. That is just ignored by him? If anyone thinks since the first of this year that the norms and traditions of the Senate have been followed by the Republican leader, they are living in gaga land.

The Republican leader agreed that we should not have filibusters except in the case of an extraordinary circumstance. He agreed with that, but he ignores that.

I think it is also worth talking a little bit here about how the Republican leader complains that people just don't like Congress. Well, there is a reason for that, and the Republican caucus deserves most of the blame. The Gallup organization polled Americans last

month and asked for some of the reasons why people disapprove of Congress. The two top reasons outdistance all others. They don't like Congress because of gridlock and not getting anything done. Is that our fault? No.

Surveying the years that President Obama has been in office, one can see time after time when Democrats reached out to Republicans to get things done, and no one can see where they have done that. One can see that time after time the Republican leader has pressured his colleagues not to work with us.

There is no reason Congress should be held in such low regard. We should clear the calendar. They are not going to do that. They are going to continue this process over the next 3\1/2\ years, badgering, saying: We are really good. We got this nomination done, and we approved it 98 to 0--after waiting months.

It is the first time ever in the history of this country that the Secretary of Defense has been filibustered.

So I appeal to my friends on the other side of the aisle, remember the words I read from Senator McConnell where he said a simple majority has the right to do this. And we know that is true.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Mississippi. I am going to start the process today. I am going to file cloture on a bunch of nominations, and those votes will occur next week when we schedule them. I would be happy to see if there is a way I can meet with a few Senators. I have already done that with a few Republican Senators, and I am happy to see if there is a way of getting us together. We had a nice caucus together not long ago led by Senator McCain, which was really memorable, but I listened to a bunch of them.

I say to my friend, if you are so concerned--and I know you are-- about the process, I think you need to take a look at where you are.

About Cordray, I am so tired of hearing this tweaking: All we need is to tweak this a little bit and we will let you have it.

I repeat, I say to my friend, that the tweak is to take away his ability to exist. That is not a tweak; that is further obstruction and distraction from what a law we have is meant to do.

The NLRB, all the happy-talk I hear here--and I don't say that to disparage anyone--we will be happy to help you with that, but get rid of those two people.

No one questions their qualifications.

And I am happy to hear my friend here suddenly so enthused with that court decision. The court decision doesn't stop us from doing anything. The court decision is something that says that we can do whatever we want to do. We are a legislative branch of government. We don't have to follow what the Supreme Court does.

So without going into any more dialog, I appreciate what my friend says. I think what he needs to do with his caucus--we are going to have one today--is take a look at NLRB. There are five of them. We have no problem with the two Republicans. Let's get that done. Let's get Cordray done. Let's get the Secretary of Labor, who has waited such a long time, and we have the Secretary of the EPA.

I say to my friend, I don't know why his caucus has such heartburn over things dealing with labor. My friend said--I don't know exactly-- leftwing big labor bosses. We have the Secretary of Labor who is being held up. We have three NLRB people being held up. Let's try to work our way through that. I would be happy to listen to any way he thinks we can get through that. If we can't, Tuesday we know what is going to happen.

I am happy to consider that. I have talked to a number of Republican Senators. One of them called me at home last night. I was happy to take the call. He said: What happens if cloture is invoked on the people you put forward? Well, if that happens, I have no complaints. I would hope everyone would learn from this process.

I think we need to look at what I just said. All you need is six Republicans to agree to do something about NLRB, to do something about Cordray without taking away his abilities.

Are there any appropriators here on the floor? I have been away from the committee for a while. We are not doing much appropriating around here. I know Senator McConnell and I were on the committee together. I gave my spot up to Ben Nelson some time ago. I still have seniority protected there.

So I am happy for the Senator's suggestion. We will take a look at that. But it is a very simple problem here. We need to get the labor-- and they are not big bosses. But my culinary workers--70,000 of them in Las Vegas alone--who have problems with management, they want to be able to gripe to somebody.

Sure.

That is what he said.

I say to my friend, this is the first time we have dealt with this. As the Senator knows, Senator McConnell is one of those who led the charge a number of years ago. I read part of his statement.

It would seem to me that it would be appropriate for folks to understand what I just said. It doesn't take somebody who has been here as long as Senator Byrd was.

I would also say this. To say to me now: We are going to do McCarthy--well, she has only waited 150 days. We are going to do Perez; we will do him right now. But that is the problem, I say to my friend-- we shouldn't be waiting around here for months and months to get a vote on one of these nominees. That is the whole issue.

So I appreciate his consideration. I am going to go now to my office and meet a few people. I am happy to answer any questions while I am here on the floor.

Mr. President, to my friend from Tennessee, from the day he got here he has tried to follow on the mold set by Senator Alexander. They are both conciliators. They like to work things out. We haven't been able to work too many things out, but they try. No one tries harder than they do.

I just want to say this: We talk about extreme circumstances. That was the colloquy my friend and I had here on the floor. So to now say the NLRB is extreme circumstances is like somebody setting a house on fire and then complaining their house is gone. The extraordinary circumstances have been created by you guys.

So I say again to my friends here in the Senate that I would be happy to do a joint meeting with the two caucuses but not to come here and just throw numbers around. The point is that I want this resolved and I want it resolved one way or the other. I am through.

Just to remind everyone, for two Congresses--the last one and this one--I have gone against the wishes of the vast majority of my caucus not to have done something before. And we did a few things. Most of them were window dressing that hasn't accomplished much of anything on the rules that we changed.

So I am happy to have a group of Senators indicate to me how we are going to get these people I have on the calendar done. This is no threat. I just think that would be the appropriate thing to do. If we have something positive to report in a joint meeting without going back to the same stalling, obstruction--I don't need to go over this list of people again. Some have been waiting for years to get something done. I just am not going to continue doing that. We have to have something more than my friend coming to the floor and saying: I am not going to do anything unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I think that has been stomped into the ground. So there is name-calling we need to stop.

I am happy to go to my caucus today and make my case. I am very fortunate that I have a pretty good hand on the caucus, and we are going to go ahead and do what is good for the country. I hope that, as everyone knows, the vote will be scheduled anytime we want on Tuesday.

Any other questions?

Reservation of Leader Time

Madam President, I have the greatest respect for my friend from South Dakota. But, obviously, he missed the speeches this morning. We went through all this. I am not going to repeat what has gone on since the broken promise earlier this year.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.