Floor Statements

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today Republicans filibuster a judicial nominee whose colleagues call her a ``brilliant legal mind'' with an ``abiding respect for the law.''

This nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Caitlin Joan Halligan, has outstanding credentials and strong support from across the political spectrum.

She enjoys the support of a bipartisan group of appellate lawyers, former judges, law enforcement officials, and more than 20 former Supreme Court clerks. And she has been endorsed by the National District Attorneys Association, the New York Association of Police Chiefs and the New York State Sheriffs Association.

She graduated with honors from Princeton and Georgetown University Law, where she was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. She served as a law clerk to Judge Patricia Wald on the DC Circuit, the court to which she was nominated, and to Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court.

She has served New York and this Nation well as a public servant for more than a decade.

Yet Republicans filibustered her nomination.

I ask my colleagues, if this truly exceptional candidate isn't qualified to be a judge in the United States of America, who is?

In 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators came to an agreement to protect the Senate as an institution and the right of the minority to influence debate. Democrats and Republicans averted the so-called nuclear option by agreeing that the minority's right to block judicial nominees would be preserved but it would be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.

I am concerned that today the Senate is backing away from that agreement. Ms. Halligan's nomination does not meet the standard of an extraordinary circumstance that agreement envisioned.

Republicans, now in the minority, will block a talented, experienced nominee with broad bipartisan support to please a few ideological extremists.

Mr. President, I was pleased to see that the President of the United States has issued a memorandum directing executive branch agencies to reform their records management. The goal is to improve performance, promote accountability, and increase government transparency by better documenting agency actions and decisions. The President's memorandum noted that the current Federal records management system is based on an outdated approach involving paper and filing cabinets, and it outlines a framework for moving the records management process into the digital age by including plans for preserving electronic records. This issue was highlighted in a recent report of the National Archives and Records Administration, which warned that Federal agencies have done a poor job of managing the increased volume and diversity of information that comes with advances in information technology.

I commend the President for taking this action, and I am pleased to say that the U.S. Senate is already carrying out the practices for its own records that he has recommended for the executive branch. Over the last 10 years, the Senate has preserved an average of 3,000 to 4,000 feet of textual records for each Congress. Those paper records have been supplemented by 2.5 terabytes of electronic records. The Senate's electronic records are being preserved at the Center for Legislative Archives within the National Archives.

With guidance provided by the Secretary of the Senate, 75 percent of all Senate committees are now engaged in archival preservation of their digital records. Several Senate committees have responded to the increased volume and complexity of electronic records by hiring professionally trained archivists to appraise, describe, and transfer these materials.

The operations of every Senate office have been transformed over the last decade. Our greater reliance on electronic communication and records systems has increased the need for preservation planning. Just as the paper records of the U.S. Senate, dating back to 1789, have been carefully archived, records generated digitally in the 21st century will require diligent attention if they are to survive for future use.

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

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

Mr. President, today following leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business until 4:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will be in executive session to consider four U.S. District judges. At 5:30 p.m., there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Ramos nomination. We hope the rest of the nominations can be confirmed by voice vote.

Mr. President, last week, my friend the Republican leader tried to convince us that Republicans realize it would be disastrous to raise taxes on the middle class. Here on the Senate floor, he quoted half a dozen news reports as evidence that the Senate Republicans support an extension of payroll cuts for 160 million American workers. I said at that time I was skeptical the Republicans support this tax cut. It turns out I was right. Last Thursday the Republicans shot down the Democrats' proposal to cut taxes for middle-class Americans, supposedly on the grounds it raised taxes on the richest of the rich. But a few minutes later the Republicans also shot down their own proposal--one they had placed on the Senate floor--to expand the payroll tax cuts even though it was paid for with their own hand-picked reductions in government spending. Well, they shot that down. They only got 19 votes plus the vote of the cosponsor.

Whatever my friend Senator McConnell may say, it is obvious that the Republicans are not interested in preventing a $1,000 tax increase on nearly every family in the Nation from taking effect on January 1. Democrats will not relent on keeping taxes low for the middle class.

Today Senator Casey will unveil a modified version of the proposed payroll tax cut that he introduced last week. Like our previous proposal, it will cut back taxes for 160 million American workers. That is 160 million workers, including 1.2 million Nevadans. This proposal will allow the average family to keep $1,500 to spend on necessities next year. Like our previous proposal, it will be fully paid for with a mixture of spending cuts that Republicans have already agreed to and a tiny surtax on the top .2 percent of Americans. Every spending reduction was agreed to by a bicameral group of Republicans in the supercommittee, so we know they support these cuts--or they should support these cuts. In an effort to make our proposal more palpable to Republicans, we conceded significantly to cut the tax on income above $1 million and make it temporary.

Democrats know how important extending and expanding the payroll tax cut is to working families. It is also important to our economy. Economists of every political persuasion agree that if Republicans block this proposal--raising taxes on American families by

$1,000 next month--it will have an immediate negative impact on our economy. It will halt our still fragile recovery in its tracks and drag us back into a recession.

We all know Congress cannot afford to play chicken with the economy. That is why Democrats are committed to passing the tax cut. Republicans need to be prepared to meet us part way. We are offering a serious proposal with meaningful concessions, including spending cuts to which Republicans have already agreed.

The scaled-back, temporary tax on the very richest Americans--a group with an average income of $3 million a year--is also an attempt to get Republicans onboard to pass what they say they want to do. We know a few of them said publicly that they are open to asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to our economic recovery. I was happy to see those press reports. I hope we have the courage to vote accordingly, as one Republican did last Thursday. One Republican voted the right way.

I repeat, this is a serious proposal and the Republicans should take it seriously. Here is why: Americans, regardless of political affiliation, say they wholeheartedly support the Democrats' plan to cut taxes for middle-class families. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans agree we should extend payroll tax cuts for 160 million American workers. Further, Americans overwhelmingly support our proposal to have millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share to help this country. Americans from every corner of the country agree. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents agree. When asked if they support a plan that would require people making more than $1 million to contribute a little more to ensure this country's economic success, the results were decisive: 75 percent, or three-quarters of Americans, said yes. Wealthy Americans agree. Two-thirds of people making more than $1 million said they would gladly contribute more. A supermajority of Republicans agrees, with two-thirds supporting the idea. Even a majority of 52 percent of members of the tea party agree. It seems the only place in the country they cannot find a majority of Republicans willing to speak up for sacrifice are Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Republicans across the country support our plan and the way to pay for it. Republicans in Congress dismiss it at their peril. I repeat, Republicans dismiss this at their peril. The American people are watching what my Republican colleagues will do.

Mr. President, will the Acting President pro tempore be so kind as to introduce the business of the day.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, Dr. Peggy A. Bulger will retire at the end of December after more than 12 years of service to the Library of Congress. As the Director of the Library's American Folklife Center, Dr. Bulger has worked to preserve our Nation's history for future generations.

Dr. Bulger began her service as Director of the American Folklife Center in 1999. She is the second person to hold the position since the Folklife

Center was established in 1976. The American Folklife Preservation Act states ``that the diversity inherent in American folklife has contributed greatly to the cultural richness of the Nation and has fostered a sense of individuality and identity among the American people.'' I couldn't agree more. Dr. Bulger has worked to preserve the unique nature of American folklife for future generations.

During her tenure, the center's archive has tripled. With more than 5 million items, it is the largest ethnographic archive in the United States and possibly the largest in the world. The collection is a treasure trove of American creativity that is reflected through music, stories, crafts, dances, foodways, and other forms of traditional expression.

I am particularly proud that under her leadership the Folklife Center developed and expanded the Veterans History Project. The project contains more than 78,000 pieces of war-time memories and experiences from Americans across our country. The Veterans History Project has become the largest oral history project in our Nation's history, and it will all be preserved for generations at the Library of Congress.

The Folklife Center also uses the latest technology to share its holdings via online presentations, as well as through webcasts and social media. As a result, students in Nevada and other States can access the Folklife Center's collections from their homes, classrooms, and others venues.

It is also important to note that Dr. Bulger and her colleagues have provided advice and support to struggling cultural programs during these difficult economic times. In my home State, for example, the center has served the Western Folklife Center in Elko as well as the Nevada Humanities. The assistance to Nevada's arts and cultural organizations has been invaluable as my State has weathered the economic recession.

I am proud to recognize Peggy Bulger, and I appreciate her important contributions to the American Folklife Center. I know I speak for the Senate when we wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 239, S. 384.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 343.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am told that S. 1944, introduced earlier today by Senator Casey, is due for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading but object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Tuesday, December 6, 2011; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and 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 until 11 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, about noon tomorrow there will be a cloture vote on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.

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