Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk begin calling the quorum and that the time be evenly divided for the duration of the consideration of the resolutions. If there are quorum calls during this debate, I ask unanimous…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk begin calling the quorum and that the time be evenly divided for the duration of the consideration of the resolutions. If there are quorum calls during this debate, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided on both sides during those quorum calls.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have more reporting to be done by the clerk on matters that will come before the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the prior order of the Chair be put in place again, that there be a quorum call that would begin now and that the time be charged equally.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, because of the time delay here, that the recess not start until 1 o'clock rather than 12:30.
I appreciate very much the courtesy of my two friends, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, and my dear friend from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, for being understanding. We had some word changes. We were tied up on words. Senator McConnell had to work that out this morning. We were able to get that done just now. I appreciate that very much. He is always very thoughtful and so easy to work with.
Our ability to debate and deliberate without restraints of time limits is central and unique to the Senate. It is supposed to be that way. It is in our DNA. It is one of the many traits intentionally designed to distinguish this body from the House of Representatives and from every other legislative body in the world. It has always been central to the Senate, and it always should be.
But when that arrangement is abused, we have to do something not merely in the name of efficiency or for the sake of a political party's fortunes
in the next election, we have to act because when abuses keep us from doing our work, they deter us from working together, and they stop us from working for the American people. And within these four walls, it degrades the relationships that make the Senate run.
What is special about the Senate is that this body operates by consensus. It runs on a fuel made of comity and trust. When abuses happen or when colleagues act in bad faith, it dilutes and degrades that fuel and the Senate stalls.
There are nearly as many opinions on what to do about the Senate as there are Senators. Senators Harkin, Udall of New Mexico, and Merkley have listened to many ideas and have worked to find solutions. I thank them for their time, efforts, and energy. So have Senators Schumer and Alexander. No one has worked harder than they have to find a way out of this crisis, and I admire and appreciate their efforts.
Leader McConnell and I have worked alongside all of them and with each other to find common ground.
In the spirit of compromise that we are trying to restore to the Senate, this is how we have agreed: As to secret holds, we have to get rid of secret holds.
Last year, a single Senator held up 70 nominations. Why? Because of some parochial issue in his State that had nothing to do with what we were trying to do in approving nominations. The standoff finally ended but only after it became public. What he did was within his right, but it was not the right thing to do, and the rule has to be changed.
Senators will no longer be able to hide, and the light of day will shine harder on the Senate as a body. I thank Senators Wyden, Grassley, and McCaskill for their leadership on this subject.
About nominations, we have to recognize that public servants are not political pawns. An appointment by the President to a Federal agency is a great honor. In recent years, it has become a sentence to purgatory.
The Senate no longer efficiently performs our constitutional duty of confirming nominees. That leaves important offices without leaders, leaves important duties unfulfilled, and unfairly leaves in limbo well- qualified nominees.
The Senate is responsible for confirming about 300 nominees to part- time boards and commissions. Every one of these nominees to boards and commissions requires the approval of the Senate. Because of that, the vetting process for these boards and commissions takes an inordinate amount of time. They spend as much time as the FBI does and other people who do the background checks on these part-time jobs as they do someone who is going to become an Assistant Secretary or a judge, and it just eats up time that is unnecessary. There is no reason for Senators to keep them from their posts. But that is exactly what happens. It is not always the fault of the Senators.
We have to get rid of as many of these nominations as we can, and that is what the Rules Committee leadership is recommending. Senator Schumer, the chairman, and Senator Alexander, the ranking member, have come up with something I think is so very important. They are going to help us get rid of about one-third of these nominations, not only these to part-time boards and commissions but others.
This process needs to be changed. We will work to cut by about one- third the number of executive nominations that require the Senate's approval. Senators Schumer and Alexander, as I indicated, are the leaders of this issue as far as what we have done to this point.
This legislation will be turned over, and they will be working with Senators Lieberman and Collins, who are the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction at this stage, to develop legislation that will do what I have outlined.
Third, we cannot afford to waste time for the sake of wasting time. One of the minority's favorite tactics has been to force or threaten to force the clerks to read amendments.
My colleagues will note that I said ``one of the minority's favorite tactics has been to force or threaten to force the clerks to read amendments.'' I did not say ``the Republicans' favorite tactic has been to force or threaten to force the clerks to read amendments.'' We have all threatened to do it. It is wrong, and it has to stop. That is what we are going to do later today.
To have these amendments read is nothing short of showmanship. In this day and age, it is almost always totally unnecessary. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when Senators' offices were their desks--that is all they had; they did not have offices like we have. Their offices were right here on the Senate floor, so hearing a clerk read aloud a bill was probably a more essential--and that is an understatement--part of the debate. Today that is no longer the case.
During the health reform debate two Decembers ago, while snow covered Washington and Christmas neared, opponents of the bill worked hard to delay its inevitable passage.
On a Saturday toward the end of the debate, the minority forced the nonpartisan Senate clerks to read the entirety of an important amendment to the bill. The reading started just before 8:30 a.m. and lasted until just before 4 p.m. That is more than 7 hours of time during which nobody listened to the reading of a bill everyone had already studied. It had been filed a long time before, and it was after each Senator had already decided how he or she would vote anyway.
We do not have time for these kinds of gratuitous delays. So the third change we will make is this: If an amendment has already been filed, a Senator cannot force its reading.
Finally, as to what we call around here inside politics, motions to proceed and filling the tree--let me talk a little bit about these two items. I have often expressed my concerns about the procedural hurdle of forcing a preliminary vote simply to determine whether we can have a second vote to determine whether we can debate a bill--the vote called cloture on the motion to proceed. It is another one of the most commonly used tactics deployed simply to frustrate progress and waste time.
Last Congress, we had 26 cloture votes on motions to proceed. Most all of them were bills that were not controversial. We had to hold a vote on whether to hold a vote on whether to debate a bill to promote tourism coming to our country called the Travel Promotion Act. After wasting days of precious time, it passed 90 to 3.
We had to jump through the same hoops before we could vote on extending emergency unemployment benefits, which passed with 87 votes, and before we could vote on letting the FDA regulate tobacco, which passed with 84 votes, and before we could vote on updating our food safety laws for the first time in a century, which passed with 75 percent of the Senate.
Democrats are bothered by how often Republicans have forced procedural votes such as those on cloture on the motion to proceed. I know Republicans are equally frustrated with me for filling the amendment tree on occasion. Their argument is--and they are right--it prevents amendments from being offered.
This agreement Leader McConnell and I have reached is going to clean up a lot of them. Just as I will exercise restraint in using my right as majority leader to fill the amendment tree, he and his Republican conference will curtail their habit of filibustering the motion to proceed. Both practices should be the exception rather than the rule. And starting now, they will be.
I will conclude again expressing my appreciation to those parties who have been so heavily involved in this effort: Senators Udall, Merkley, Harkin, of course my friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, and Chuck Schumer.
Especially, I wish to express my appreciation to the Republican leader. As we have said on this floor lots of times, what most all of the American public sees us doing is fighting. We are here arguing on behalf of a Senator on our side or a problem we have on our side. But much of the work done in this body is done by Senator McConnell and myself in my office or his office trying to work through some of these problems. They take a lot of time, and they take our patience and the patience of the entire Senate. That is why I started my remarks this morning telling everyone I appreciate their understanding as we are trying to work out these issues.
We have been working on this effort a long time. These changes are important. I appreciate the attitude of my friend, the Republican leader, in recognizing we have to make some progress.
The changes we will agree to today are, one, secret holds; two, reducing by one-third the number of executive nominations that are subject to Senate delays; three, ending the time-consuming practice of reading aloud amendments that have been publicly available for 3 days; four, limiting the use of filibusters on motions to proceed; and, fifth, filling the amendment tree only when necessary.
I know some want us to go even further. There are just as many arguments for not going too far. But remember this: We are making these changes in the name of compromise, and this agreement itself was constructed with the same respect for mutual concession.
Senator McConnell and I both believe our reverence for this institution must always be more important than our respective political parties. And as part of this compromise, we have agreed I will not force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate--that is the so-called constitutional option--and he will not in the future.
The five reforms we are making, however, are very significant. They will move us five steps closer to a healthier Senate--in the minds of many, not far enough; in the minds of some, too far. But that is what the Senate is all about. It is about compromise, consensus building.
Yes, we want the Senate to move deliberately, but if we want it to move we have to find a balance that encourages us to debate but also enables us to legislate. We are governed by a delicate mix of rules, rights, and responsibilities in this body. To that mix, we need to add respect.
The Senate should function as the Founders intended it to function and as the country needs it to function, not simply as slowly as the rules will allow it to function.