Floor Statements

Madam President, this has become a familiar scene on Capitol Hill. As time ticks down to the wire, the House has sent the Senate yet another bill that will not pass. Meanwhile, American families stare down a $1,000 tax increase, and on January 1 they will be scrambling to afford the necessities because of Republican obstructionism that Americans don't understand.

It has become the Republican fallback play: Waste precious time catering to tea party extremists when they could be working with Democrats to compromise.

Republican leaders have already spent weeks drumming up tea party support for legislation they knew was dead on arrival in the Senate. Now it is time to get this vote over with so real negotiations can begin to prevent a tax increase on 160 million middle-class Americans.

This morning I will ask unanimous consent to vote on the House-passed bill. Democrats were ready to vote on this legislation last night, but I can't set a vote at this time under Senate procedures without Senator McConnell's approval. Even though we already knew the bill was dead, Senator McConnell wasn't ready to hold a vote on it last night.

That is an about-face from just a few hours before--even as recently as yesterday morning, Tuesday morning--and on Monday, for example, when Senator McConnell urged us to take up the House bill as soon as possible.

This is what he said:

My suggestion is that once this legislation comes over from

the House, we pass it without delay.

That is what I tried to do last night--not pass it but at least have a vote on it.

Senator McConnell repeated that call yesterday morning--Tuesday morning. Here is what he said yesterday morning:

I would suggest that our friends put the political games

aside and give the American people the certainty and the jobs

that they deserve. Take up the House bill, pass it right here

in the Senate, and send it to the President . . . without

theatrics and without delay.

Then yesterday afternoon Senator McConnell said:

The first thing we need to find out is whether there are

the votes in the Senate to pass what the House has passed.

So I say to my friend the Republican leader let's find out whether he has the votes in the Senate to pass what the House has passed. Let's vote on this now. We knew Monday the bill wouldn't pass the Senate, we also knew yesterday this bill wouldn't pass the Senate, and we still know it will not pass the Senate.

Here is why this legislation is a nonstarter. I will give 3 of about 33 reasons: The bill cuts unemployment benefits for 1 million Americans at a time when there are not jobs for one out of every four people seeking work. It weakens safeguards that keep our air clean and our children healthy, and the President has already threatened to veto it. In fact, he said he will veto it.

Legislation written to appeal only to the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party can't pass the Senate. Republicans will see that again, whenever they allow us to vote on this legislation that my friend, the Republican leader, said let's vote on right away. Right away was last night.

So let's get this vote over with. Then we can begin serious negotiations on how to prevent a $1,000 tax hike on American families. The sooner we put this useless, partisan charade behind us, the sooner we can negotiate a true bipartisan solution that protects middle-class workers.

Madam President, there has been a lot of talk about let's get to the omnibus, and let's pass it. However, it is not complete. There are major issues. We have made significant progress. There are still critical issues to be ironed out. There are issues that deal with foreign policy. There are issues that deal with the environment. There are issues that deal with--we have about seven or eight--what some would refer to as game stoppers. We could complete that work, but it is something that is not done now.

There is no reason, while that work is continuing, to hold up the middle-class tax cut. Congress is not going to go home for vacation-- remember, the bill that some want to pass, the omnibus bill, takes care of us, it takes care of legislators. It has Legislative Branch appropriations in it. So we shouldn't go home until we finish the business of the American people.

Preventing a $1,000 tax increase on American families is the most pressing business we have, and we are not going to allow Republicans in Congress to take care of themselves without taking care of middle-class families as well.

We hope to complete this important work soon--this week. If we can't, we should pass a short continuing resolution to keep the government open while we work through each compromise. We have passed short-term CRs many times before, and we should do it again if that is what it takes to prevent a tax on the middle class.

The bottom line is this: It is time for the two sides to come together and compromise. As I told the Speaker Monday and as I spoke on the floor yesterday and I have said this to my friend the Republican leader the House can't pass legislation that will succeed over here unless they get Democrats to support their legislation. We cannot pass legislation here because of how the Republicans have set not a majority rule but we have to get 60 votes. We can't get 60 votes unless we get Republican assistance. So we need to compromise. Legislation is there to compromise, but it might take a little more time. Republicans should give Congress a few more days to finish its job rather than rushing home for vacation.

I have already talked about the importance of doing this legislation as quickly as we can. I think it is extremely important, and we understand that it could be done--the vote could take place, and it would take 20 minutes to do that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the two scheduled votes in the Senate, we proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3630, which is the House-passed legislation--the House-passed legislation that, out of 435 Members of Congress, got 10 Democratic votes--that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill; that no amendments be in order prior to a vote on passage, and that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote threshold--which my friend, the Republican leader, seems to believe is the standard around here anymore--further, that if the bill is not passed, it remain the pending business, and that following I be recognized.

Reserving the right to object, my friend is living in a world of nonreality. Let's look for a way out.

The House of Representatives, which has a significant majority of Republicans, last week couldn't even pass a bill. That was in all the press. They couldn't get the votes. So what they did, in an effort to placate the far right so they could pass a bill with Republican votes, they stuck in a bunch of issues that are hard to comprehend--issues dealing with the environment that have nothing to do with this bill. Even a Republican Senator said that bill, standing alone, looks OK, but jammed in with everything else it doesn't look so good. They should be separate issues.

We have issues on the so-called omnibus or spending bill that have not yet been resolved, one dealing with Cuba, a very important piece of legislation in the minds of many Senators. One of the Senators who believes so strongly that this provision should be taken out is a Republican Senator from Florida. We have issues dealing with the environment which are extremely important: light bulbs, coal, and many other issues that haven't been resolved in this so-called omnibus.

So, Madam President, I think everyone can see very clearly that my friends on the other side of the aisle obviously want to have the government shut down.

As I have said before, and I will say again, they have had experience doing this. The presumptive Republican nominee Newt Gingrich tried that once and it didn't work so well. So I don't think it is going to work very well again. Everyone knows why the government is going to shut down, if, in fact, it does.

We have 160 million Americans who are out there cheering for us-- cheering for us--that we can get them the tax relief they deserve. We have well more than 1 million Americans who have been out of work for a long period of time who are cheering for us. We have businesspeople out there who are cheering for us, that there are certain tax benefits that are important to creating jobs that we need to do before we leave here.

So, Madam President, I object and ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives from the House a bill that continues funding for the Federal Government through December 21, 2011, it be in order for the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, to proceed to the bill; further, that the bill be read three times and passed, all with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, what I said is, I ask that if we get a bill from the House to have a CR, a continuing resolution, for another few days, that we be allowed to take it up. Under the rules of the Senate and the Congress, I cannot initiate a CR here. It is a tax measure and constitutionally has to start over there. So I have said that if the Senate receives from the House a bill that continues funding for the Federal Government--I said through December 21--any reasonable time is fine with me--it be in order for me, after I talk to the Republican leader, to proceed to the bill.

Madam President, I know Congressman Moran. He is a fine man who has been in Congress many, many years. But he should step over here and talk to Senator Menendez or Marco Rubio and see how they feel about Cuba and the language in that bill that changes things in relation to how they feel, which dramatically changes our relationship with Cuba, or how about the chairman of the Environment Committee, Barbara Boxer. See how she feels about going back, in effect, to some saying the Dark Ages, changing lightbulbs, or how about dealing with other environmental issues, dealing with coal. How about talking to some of the other Senators on that committee.

The bill is not complete. I think we could complete it very quickly if people sat down and focused on what we need to do to get out of here. But now it has not been completed. I do not care what Jim Moran says or what Mitch McConnell says, the bill is not completed.

But, Madam President, what is obviously extremely clear, which is extremely clear here, my friend the Republican leader has talked for days--I went through what he said on Monday, what he said on two separate occasions on Tuesday: Let's vote on this bill now. That is what he said. It is obvious that something has happened in the last few hours that suddenly they do not want to vote on their own bill.

Keep this in mind: The House has passed a bill that I have said and non-Democrats have said is a dead duck, DOA, dead on arrival. It is here. It is dead. And they do not want to vote on it. Do you think maybe they do not want to vote on it because Republican Senators are kind of embarrassed or ashamed of what is in that bill? I would think so.

Madam President, talk about a diversion--that is what we just heard. My friend the Republican leader has talked from the very beginning of this Congress that his No. 1 goal is to defeat Obama for reelection. That is not looking so good. Romney is stumbling, Gingrich is plodding along, heading now everyplace.

But, Madam President, because the Republican leader has caused us-- because we have the rules in the Senate, which I accept--has caused us to focus all of our attention on my friend trying to make sure the President is not reelected, we have spent months and months on things that were ordinarily done just like that.

Funding the government--we had numerous CRs for very short periods of

time. Finally, we were able to get that done. Then came the debt ceiling, and we spent 3 months on that--3 months of wasting time here in the Senate. Never have we done that. As I indicated and has been spread on the record of this body many, many times, under Ronald Reagan, the debt ceiling was raised 18 times just like that.

Also, Madam President, anyone who understands Washington--and there are a lot more people who understand Washington than the people who are in this Chamber--my friend says: have him--me--go deal with the Speaker. Well, the issue there is kind of stunning how my friend has said this: Go talk to the Speaker. Everyone knows the Speaker cannot move forward with any negotiations until this bill is defeated here, period. Obviously, that is the case. The Speaker cannot negotiate with me until this bill is killed.

So I repeat, the spending bill my friend the Republican leader complains about is not completed. The issue facing the American people is whether they are going to have tax relief the Democrats want to give them or whether they are going to face a shutdown that was first made very unpopular by Newt Gingrich. And there is going to be another one that will be just as unpopular.

We will both object, just for good measure--a bipartisan objection.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 380, 411, 458, and 459; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business tomorrow morning, Thursday, December 15, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 337; that there be 30 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate resume legislative session, and at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate return to executive session, resume consideration of the nomination, and there be an additional 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on Calendar No. 337; that 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 to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

As the Chair knows, Calendar No. 337 is Morgan Christen of Alaska.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 515 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kerry amendment No. 1462 be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 161.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no further intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 15, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session, under the previous order.

Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 3630 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I now object to any further proceedings at this time.

Mr. President, we expect to consider the DOD authorization conference report tomorrow. We also expect to consider the House Republican payroll tax cut bill or some version thereof.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 2 hours. The Republicans will control the first half and the majority will control the final half.

Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S.J. Res. 10 and S.J. Res. 24, both resolutions regarding balanced budget amendments. The Republican leader and I, yesterday, arrived at an agreement that we would have 8 hours of debate on this matter, and I think it should be a good debate. People have been looking forward to this debate for some time. Some are more interested than others, and this should give them ample time to say whatever they feel about this issue that is ripe for debate in the Senate and certainly the votes we will have tomorrow morning.

The Senate will recess this afternoon from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus meetings.

Madam President, H.R. 1633 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Madam President, I object to any further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Madam President, in the last month, Republican leaders have repeated this mantra over and over: We support a payroll tax cut for working families. But we have not seen any proof of this yet. It has only been talk.

Senate Republicans have twice voted down their own payroll tax proposal, and House Republicans were unable to bring their plan to a vote for weeks. We understand they are going to have a run at that tonight.

I have served in the House of Representatives. When I served in the House of Representatives, no one would ever consider pushing something through with a majority of the majority. When I served there, Bob Michel was the Republican leader, Tip O'Neill was the Speaker, Jim Wright was the majority leader and the Speaker, and they always worked together on a bipartisan basis to get legislation passed. It is only a new thing that now the Republicans are saying: We are not going to pass anything unless we can do it on our own. That is unfortunate.

I spoke to the Speaker yesterday. I have the highest regard for him. I consider him a friend. But I said to him, as seriously as I could, we are not going to finish the work for our country this year unless we work together. You cannot pass anything in the House unless you get Democratic votes because anything you pass with strictly Republican votes fails over here; and over

here we cannot pass anything unless we get Republican votes. It is a fact of life.

We have issues we have to complete this year. So we have to understand, as I explained to the Speaker yesterday, we are going to have to do this together. We cannot magically say 53 Democrats are going to pass something here. In the House, even though the Republicans have a majority, they know we have a bicameral legislature, and they have to get something passed over here also.

I am very disappointed in what the Speaker has done to get a vote over there that he thinks will pass. He keeps adding ideological candy to the proposal. Last week, they were supposed to have a vote. At that time, they could not get the Republican votes to do it. I suggested they go to either the former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, or Steny Hoyer, the minority leader over there--I do not know the exact title--but the two leaders, Pelosi and Hoyer, and the suggestion was turned down.

This ideological candy they have added to this bill to get rebellious, rank-and-file Republicans on board is not going to sell over here.

They recently added a provision to fast-track the controversial pipeline proposal attractive to the tea party, which is not opposed by President Obama. It is not opposed by him. He is saying this is such a big deal that, for example, the State of Nebraska feels it would-- unless there are some major changes made--badly damage that most important aquifer we have in that part of the country. In fact, it is probably the biggest, most important one we have anyplace in the country.

So as was announced yesterday by the Secretary of State, she said: If the Republicans are trying to push this on me, I cannot make a decision in 3 months. That is what the legislation calls for. If they do that, I will have to turn it down. The Secretary of State has said that in writing.

In effect, as some have said, what they are trying to do is kill the hostage. The hostage is the Keystone Pipeline. If they push this through, it is bound and doomed to failure.

But to tell everyone where they are coming from--they, the Republicans--Jim Jordan, who is a Republican Congressman, said about the Keystone Pipeline:

Frankly, the fact that the President doesn't like it makes

me like it even more.

I repeat, the President has not said he does not like it. But as a result of what has happened in Nebraska and other places along that pipeline, there are some major studies that need to go forward.

President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate have already declared the House legislation dead on arrival. Yet--after weeks of delay-- Republicans are going to vote on it tonight. They are wasting time catering to the tea party folks over there, when they should be working with us on a bipartisan package that can pass both Houses. We have offered solutions--serious, good-faith proposals with bipartisan support.

If Republicans continue to block these reasonable plans to cut taxes for 160 million workers, there, of course, will be consequences. Middle-class Americans will notice when they open their paychecks in January they will have less money to spend, and they will have Republicans in Congress to blame--no one else.

Also, for the third time in 2 weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered a qualified nominee, one of the President's nominees.

Last night, they blocked confirmation of Mari Aponte to serve as Ambassador to El Salvador--the job she already has. She has done it well for 15 months. She has finalized an important international anticrime agreement with the people of El Salvador and forged a strong partnership with El Salvador in many different areas during her time as Ambassador.

I hope the Republicans will come to their senses before her term expires at the end of the year and approve this good woman.

I had a Republican Senator come to me after the vote and say he believed Republicans wanted to vote for her, and he was glad I moved to reconsider the vote. I hope that, in fact, is the case.

Last week, Republicans blocked the nomination of Richard Cordray to serve as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Cordray has a record of protecting consumers from predatory lenders.

Two days before that, Republicans blocked the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. She is an exceptionally well-qualified person, with a great resume, an exceptional legal mind. She was blocked.

All three nominees were qualified. All three had bipartisan support. All three were committed, enthusiastic public servants. Yet Republicans opposed their nominations for one purely partisan reason: to deal a blow to President Obama.

This kind of Republican obstructionism has, unfortunately, become very commonplace. But it also has consequences, and Republicans aiming to hurt the President have once again harmed our country instead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the bill just passed by House Republicans tonight is a pointless, partisan exercise. The bill is dead on arrival. It was dead before it got to the Senate. The Senate will not pass it. The sooner we demonstrate that, the sooner we can begin serious discussions on how to keep taxes from going up on middle-class Americans. Democrats were ready to vote tonight to prove that the bill was DOA, dead on arrival. But I spoke to Minority Leader McConnell this evening, and he told me he will need more time. He will not be able to make a decision until tomorrow morning on when to vote on the House- passed bill. I cannot set the vote without his approval at this time.

This is a 180-degree change in his position from just a few hours ago. Just this morning, Senator McConnell said we should ``take up the House bill, pass it right here in the Senate, and send it to the President for signature without theatrics and without delay.'' That is a direct quote. I repeat, he said we should vote on this bill ``without delay.''

He is correct, and I can only wonder what happened in the last 8 hours to change his position so dramatically, so radically. As I said, we already know this bill is dead. We need to begin real negotiations on how to prevent a $1,000 tax hike on American families. The sooner we get this vote, the sooner those negotiations can begin in earnest.

I will speak with Senator McConnell again tomorrow to determine how soon we can hold this vote--an exercise in futility. Work continues toward finalizing an omnibus to fund the government for the rest of the year. In the meantime we should not hold up this middle-class tax cut.

On January 1, every American worker will have less money. In fact, 160 million American workers will have less money to spend on groceries and gas and rent unless Congress acts on their behalf.

T.S. Eliot said it about as good as I could figure a way to say it, when he said: ``Hurry up please, it's time.''