Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 419, S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill. Mr. President, we are going to recess, as we normally do on Tuesdays, from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. We are…
Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 419, S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill.
Mr. President, we are going to recess, as we normally do on Tuesdays, from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.
We are going to begin consideration of the disabilities treaty this afternoon whether with a vote or with permission. It is a simple majority vote to move to this most important piece of legislation.
Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3637
Mr. President, I am told that S. 3637 is due for its second reading and is at the desk.
Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.
Mr. President, this is one of the must-do pieces of legislation we have to do before this calendar year ends.
Finding Common Ground
Mr. President, too often it is a challenge to find common ground here in Washington. But as we negotiate a path back from the fiscal cliff, we should also recognize when Democrats and Republicans agree. We agree taxes should not go up for anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Now, 97 percent of small businesses and 98 percent of middle-class families would benefit from that.
With common ground in sight, we should be able to act today to avert the fiscal cliff for millions of families and businesses. Even if we disagree on whether to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, we should agree to hold the middle class harmless and do it today, do it now. A single vote in the House of Representatives would get the job done now. Unfortunately, there is one obstacle standing between Congress and compromise: Grover Norquist. For years Norquist has bullied lawmakers willing to put their oath of office or their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to this antitax zealot. His brand of ideological extremism has been bad for Congress and even worse for the country. So I was pleased to see Republicans in Congress distance themselves from Norquist this week. I appreciate that very much. So do the American people. I am sure their constituents do. Several Republican lawmakers have said revenue should be on
the table during the fiscal cliff negotiations. How common sense is that? Absolutely. It is so clear to everyone except Grover Norquist. It is time now for the Republicans to turn this happy talk into action.
President Obama and Senate Democrats ran on a promise to end the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy. President Obama did not hide that in the last year of his campaign. Every place he went, that is what he talked about. Americans, when they voted, raised their voices and supported our pledge. Congress must act in accordance with the will of the American people.
An agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff must give economic certainty to middle-class families and must protect important tax deductions for families and businesses still struggling to recover from this great recession. It must take a balanced approach to reduce spending. But it must also ask the richest of the rich to pay a little bit extra to reduce the huge deficit we have.
Any balanced agreement will require difficult concessions from both sides--I said both sides. Clinging to the kind of ideological purity Grover Norquist peddles, saying he will never bend or compromise, is easy. Cooperating with those with whom you disagree is hard. Doing what is right for the country despite personal cost is hard. Legislating is hard. As we approach the fiscal cliff, Democrats are ready to make those tough choices. I hope my Republican friends, especially those who claim they put no pledge before their pledge to serve their constituents, can say the same.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
To paraphrase Shakespeare, which I don't do too often, I think the Republican leader protests far too much. Now he has gone back to quoting Senator Byrd.
The situation we had when the Republicans were trying to change the rules regarding judges was totally different than what has happened on the floor the last few years. You see, what Democrats were proposing to do, help repair the Senate, is pretty much what Senator McConnell said was necessary in 2005.
For example, Senator McConnell has said that the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate. Let me quote. In remarks on the
Senate floor in May of 2005, Senator McConnell said:
Despite the incredulous protestations of our Democratic
colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as
circumstances dictate. The first Senate adopted its rules by
majority vote, rules, I might add, which specifically
provided a means to end debate instantly by simple majority
vote. That was the first Senate way back at the beginning of
our country. That was Senate Rule 8, the ability to move the
previous question and end debate.
Let me repeat some of the things he said:
Despite the incredulous protestations of our Democratic
colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as
circumstances dictate.
The same day, Senator McConnell also reported that the Senate has ``often reformed Senate procedure by a simple majority vote.''
When Republicans were in the majority, Senator McConnell said this:
This is not the first time a minority of senators has upset
a Senate tradition or practice, and the current Senate
majority intends to do what the majority in the Senate has
often done--use its constitutional authority under article I,
section 5, to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority
vote.
On March 27, 2005, Senator McConnell told Fox News that the Senate can change the rules with 51 votes. McConnell said:
Well, obviously you would need 51 votes to do it. I'm
confident that we would have 51 votes if the majority leader
decides to do it. I believe it should be done if we cannot
get accommodations from the Democrats.
So what has changed in the last few years since those statements were made? Well, for one thing under Leader McConnell Republican Senators have mounted filibusters so much more on a regular basis.
We talked here yesterday about the motions to proceed. I had a meeting this morning with one Senator who has been in the Senate for 30 years. He said, Why are you only changing the rules this much?
Look how simple the rule changes are that we are making, motions to proceed. Let us talk about that. I have a piece of legislation on the floor, as we have on a number of occasions. That has to sit for a couple of days. Once that happens and they won't let us on the bill, they won't let us on anything, I have to file cloture. Let us say I may do that on a Wednesday after a bill lays there for a couple of days, so we can have a Friday cloture vote.
But, Mr. President, having been here not very long, you know that is not the end of it. We have got cloture when we really haven't because there is 30 hours of idle time to do zero, nothing. Then after the 30 hours, you are on the bill, and to get off the bill you have to go through the same process again.
I talked to three Republican Senators yesterday and they said, Explain that to me. I said, Well, for the approximately 9 or 10 days that we waste on getting on a bill, we could, if you guys let us on a bill, we could be offering amendments for 4 or 5 days instead of waiting for 30 hours to expire and all of that.
Also, we have this crazy idea that if you are going to have a filibuster, you have to stand and say something, not hide in your office someplace or go to a wedding that you are having in your State. Then we also are doing the incredulous thing of saying if we want to go to conference on a bill, rather than having three filibusters necessary to overcome with cloture, we would do it once.
Those are the simple changes we are making, and Senator McConnell was right when he said that despite the incredulous protestations of our Democratic colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictated. We are making simple changes. We are not changing the Constitution, we are not getting rid of the filibuster. We are making three simple rules changes. As my friend the Democratic Senator from New Mexico, who is retiring, my friend who has been here 30 years, said Why is that all you are doing?
Under Leader McConnell, Republicans have mounted filibusters on things that don't matter. The motion to proceed, he said, well, that allows us to get--I am paraphrasing--that allows us to get set and have an idea what will happen on the bill itself.
That is nonsense. It is only as the leader indicated at the beginning of this Congress, his No. 1 goal is to defeat President Obama. We have been able to get nothing done because of that. The American people are sick of it.
In the 109th Congress, from 2005 to 2006, when the Republicans were in the majority, there were very few filibusters. In the next Congress, when the roles were reversed, Republicans, they have done--I give this example, which is so understandable to everybody. Lyndon Johnson, majority leader for 6 years--I will have 6 years at the end of this year--had one cloture motion. Me? I think we are up to about 386 now. In this Congress we have had 110 filibusters and we have weeks to go. It is even in the New York Times. They say: Oh, he has filled the legislative tree. The New York Times reported I did that 19 times--out of 110 filibusters. Had they let us get on a bill, there wouldn't be any need to fill the tree. We could have spent that time having amendments.
Republicans have increased the number of filibusters so out of proportion to any changes that have been in the Senate it is hard to comprehend. The Senate is not working as it should. Everyone in America--and that is kind of an exaggeration, I acknowledge that--maybe not everyone, but as I travel around the country trying to help my candidates get elected and raise money, people say: What are you going to do to change the filibuster? This is awful. What is going on?
That is what they say. They expect Washington, the Senate, to work like ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' not idle time with quorum calls and waiting for 30 hours to expire on meaningless 30-hour postcloture time. We are not getting rid of that with regular filibusters, but we are getting rid of it on a motion to proceed.
The Senate isn't working. Apart from Senator McConnell and his troops, basically everybody in America agrees the Senate is not working.
In the Senate, as in any human institution, there will always be plenty of blame to go around, but let's call it like it is. Two long- time Senate watchers, Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein--one representing a progressive think tank, the other a conservative think tank--wrote this:
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for
more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this
dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both
parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we
have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the
problem lies with the Republican Party.
I didn't make that up. They wrote it; two of the foremost Congress watchers this country has ever had. That is what they wrote. Objective outside observers are calling it like it is. The current Republican minority is abusing the Senate rules. So, in response, to quote Senator McConnell:
The current Senate majority intends to do what the majority
in the Senate has often done--use its constitutional
authority under article I, Section 5, to reform Senate
procedure.
We plan to do so to help repair the Senate. I am sorry there are those who are criticizing me that we are not doing more, but we are doing this. We get rid of the motion to proceed and have people come and present their faces--as Senator Durbin said in a more explicit way, put their rear ends here in the Senate--rather than someplace outside Capitol Hill.
This is the right thing to do. We need to repair the Senate. It is not working, and at the start of the next Congress we intend to do our utmost to take some modest steps to make it work better.
Mr. President, the Republican leader is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts, and we seem to have a revision of facts that simply are not accurate. I served with Senator Metzenbaum. He understood the rules. We always worked through them. There was not a big deal with that. He slowed things down a little bit, but that is what Senators do.
Also, remember who said that a simple majority would do it? Mitch McConnell. I am not breaking the rules to change the rules. Here again is what Senator McConnell said:
The first Senate adopted its rules by majority vote, rules,
I might add, which specifically provided a means to end
debate instantly by simple majority vote. That was the first
Senate way back at the beginning of our country.
That is true. I would also say----
Sure.
I respond to my friend, the point is that rules have been changed by simple majority for a long time. That is what Senator McConnell said in 2005 and that is accurate.
I would also say this, and I say this as respectfully as I can about the deceased Senator Byrd. I think people will recall, those who served in the Senate when Senator Byrd was around, that I was referred to as his pet. OK. He took very good care of me. We had a relationship that was very unique. I cared a great deal about this man. But don't misquote him.
Leader Byrd made clear he was willing to force a majority vote if he needed to. Here is what Senator Robert Byrd said:
The time has come to changes the rules. I want to change
them in an orderly fashion. I want a time agreement. But
barring that, if I have to be forced into a corner to try for
a majority vote, I will do it because I am going to do my
duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose.
I can see that man with his white hair, standing straight and tall, saying that. That is a direct quote from Robert Byrd. I am in the same position he was. The Republicans have made the Senate dysfunctional, and I have asked my caucus to support me for some simple changes-- simple changes. I went over them. The vexatious motion to proceed that was never abused until this Congress by these Republicans we are going to change, and that is the way it should be.
Talk about all the time we are wasting not talking about the fiscal cliff is poppycock. The Republican leader is the one who is coming to the floor engaging in these conversations, not me. There are going to be no rules changes until the next Congress. This isn't taking away from the fiscal cliff arguments at all that either side might have.
I would also say this. Before coming here, I was a trial lawyer, and I am proud of the fact that I was. I tried lots of cases. I had many jury trials--over 100. But I also settled hundreds and hundreds of cases. One never felt comfortable going to trial because what we always wanted to do was to settle the case before that. Even in the cases we were forced to go to trial, with rare exception, the other side--either plaintiff or defendant, whichever side you weren't on--would come to say, why don't we try to work something out, and here is my idea.
But here we have a unique deal. I have a Republican leader saying why doesn't he negotiate with us. Our proposal is there, which is to simply change the motion to proceed, have a talking filibuster, and do something about the way we go to conference. If the Republican leader doesn't like that and has some other suggestion about how rules should be changed, I will be happy to talk to him. If he thinks things are hunky-dory right now, he is in a distinct minority, as are the Republicans in the Senate.
Mr. President, Senator Byrd served in the House of Representatives and the Senate for almost 60 years. He gave lots of speeches. I have quoted what he said. I will quote again part of what he said.
The Constitution in Article I, Section 5 says that, Each
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
Now we are at the beginning of the Congress. This Congress
is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.
So this debate is not going to be solved by the deceased. It is going to be solved by us. We are in the Senate today and the Senate has not been working. No matter how many times the Republican leader says he likes how things are today, it doesn't make it so that the majority of the Senate likes how it is today. The facts are the facts. We can't make them up. The Senate is not working, and we need to do something to fix it.
I close, then, as I began. I would be happy to work with Leader McConnell about rules changes. I have made clear what we seek. I await his suggestions. As I repeat again what I said earlier, a man who has served with distinction in the Senate, Jeff Bingaman--quite a legal scholar, having been attorney general before he came here--asked: Why are we asking for such modest changes? So if the Republican leader has some ideas as to what he thinks should be done, I will come to his office. We can do it privately or publicly. I am happy to work with him. As I indicated, that is how I used to do things when I tried cases. This is the same, just that we have a bigger jury.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.