[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1641-S1643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            WORK TO BE DONE

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank our Republican leader, Senator 
McConnell, for bringing some perspective to this situation. I have seen 
the circumstances in the Senate and how the nominations process has 
changed over time. When I came here, there were no filibusters. Maybe 
there had been one in which a nomination was delayed and the nomination 
was withdrawn because it had certain problems, but virtually none. It 
was the position of the Senate that we did not filibuster nominations, 
and I still believe in that.
  But I would point out that in 2001 the Democrats met in conference, 
and they had a plan to change the ground rules of confirmations. They 
announced it to the New York Times. Cass Sunstein, Marcia Greenberg, 
and Laurence Tribe met with them, and they came out and started 
filibustering systematically the fabulous nominations that President 
Bush had sent to the Senate. He sent eight nominees early in his 
administration. Two of them were renominations of President Clinton's 
nominees. They were promptly confirmed in the Senate. But immediately 
filibusters of superb nominees such as Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers 
Brown, and others commenced, and we had a long process with that. This 
was led by the Democrats. Then-Senator Obama was one of them. He 
filibustered Justice Alito's nomination. We had not done that before. 
He participated in other filibusters. Senator Reid voted to block an 
up-or-down vote 26 times. Senator Leahy voted to block an up-or-down 
vote 27 times.
  What happened was there was such a controversy over this changing of 
the rules in the early 2000s that it resulted in a compromise. Fourteen 
Senators--called the Gang of 14--decided they would break the logjam 
and create a new rule. It was not a perfect rule. I really think 
filibusters are not the

[[Page S1642]]

right thing for judges. But they said: We will have them only in 
extraordinary circumstances. That sort of became the new rule, and a 
number of nominees eventually, after years of waiting, were confirmed. 
Others were not. That is sort of the way we operate today. But that is 
not the problem. That is not the problem at all.
  Since President Obama has been in office, he has had about the same 
percentage of confirmations as President Bush had during the same 
period of time. He has had fewer lower court nominations because he has 
submitted fewer nominations--about 20 percent fewer nominations than 
President Bush. The average time from nomination to confirmation for 
President Obama's nominees is within a week of the average time from 
nomination to confirmation for Bush nominees. The process is working 
here.
  What is happening? I am telling you, I know what is happening. This 
Democratic leadership in the Senate--and make no mistake, they control 
this body--has been trying to create a perception that there is 
obstruction going on, and they are going to pretend that these 17 
nominees, who would have come up for a vote in regular order, are being 
blocked. This is part of an obstructive tactic, and it is not accurate, 
and it is not correct. Nominations have been moving at the regular 
pace. It is a gimmick. It is a political stunt.
  What ought to be done in the Senate? We need to be working on what is 
important. We now will have, finally, after 3 weeks, votes today--
maybe--to pass the highway bill. Well, why did it take 3 weeks? We went 
about 2 weeks without doing anything. We have had about 2 days' worth 
of votes all of a sudden at the end of 3 weeks, and the bill will be up 
for final passage.
  Why was that not done 3 weeks ago? Because Senator Reid obstructed 
the ability of Senators to offer amendments, and he tried to move this 
bill forward without amendments, except the ones he picked, and that is 
not right. The majority leader does not get to pick amendments or how 
many should be offered to legislation in the greatest deliberative body 
in the history of the world, the U.S. Senate. He does not have that 
power. So he tried to move the bill forward, and Republicans said: No, 
we will not move to a final vote until you agree on amendments. Now he 
has agreed to 20 or 30 amendments. In about 2 days' time, they will 
have all been voted on--some of them were withdrawn--and the bill will 
come up for final passage.
  Why didn't it happen earlier? Because this is a rope-a-dope. They do 
not want to talk about the things that this country needs. One of them 
is a budget. It has been over 1,000 days since this Congress has passed 
a budget. Why aren't we spending time on that? Senator Reid said it is 
foolish to pass a budget. It is not foolish to pass a budget. We are 
required to pass a budget. This country has never needed a budget more 
than it needs it today--never.
  We are heading to financial catastrophe. Erskine Bowles chaired the 
debt commission--President Clinton's Chief of Staff--and he said we are 
heading to the most predictable financial crisis in our Nation's 
history. Why? Because of the debt we are running up. And we need to 
confront that, but Senator Reid did not want to talk about it. He did 
not want his Members to have to vote. If you bring up a budget, Members 
have to vote. They get to offer amendments. They will talk about the 
debt course of America, which is on an unsustainable path. Everybody 
says that. Why aren't we talking about that?
  Judicial nominations are moving at a reasonable pace, as they have 
always moved. There is nothing unusual about President Obama's ability 
to get his judges confirmed. I have probably voted for 90 percent of 
them. What is unusual is that we are violating the statutory law of the 
United States of America that says you should have a budget. We are 
required to pass a budget. By April 1, it should be before the Senate. 
It should be passed by April 15. Isn't that perfectly sane, that the 
United States of America would have a budget? And the Senate does not 
want to do that.
  What else should we be talking about? We should be working to have 
more affordable American energy. We all want to create jobs. Our 
colleagues on the Democratic side rammed through a big stimulus bill 
that spent government money, ran up $800 billion--every penny added to 
the debt of the United States. We were in debt and we spent $800 
billion--all borrowed, all adding to our debt. It did not really do 
anything for the economy. Only 4 percent of it went to roads and 
bridges. What a tragedy that was. It was supposed to fix our crumbling 
infrastructure. At least we would have had something concrete to show 
for it had we built roads and bridges.
  So now we are in this situation: How do you create jobs? We cannot 
keep borrowing money. We do not have it. Expert after expert who has 
testified before the Budget Committee, where I am the ranking 
Republican, has told us you cannot keep borrowing this kind of money. 
Experts have told us that the size of the debt we have now--$15 
trillion--already is slowing growth in the country. We need economic 
growth, we do not need it slowed, and it is being slowed because we 
have run up so much debt, experts tell us. So I am worried about that. 
We have to deal with it.

  How do we create growth? One of things we need to do is produce more 
American energy. We do not need a Secretary of Energy--I have taken to 
calling it the Department of Anti-Energy--who said in 2008 that he 
wanted to see the price of energy go up.
  He was asked I think yesterday in the committee: Do you still believe 
that?
  He said: Well, no, I have changed my mind since 2008. You know, the 
economy is not doing well, and maybe now at this point I don't think 
energy prices should go up.
  Can you imagine the Secretary of Energy fundamentally having as his 
guiding principle that he wants to raise the price of energy? And the 
President said it himself before he was elected.
  This is a radical idea driven by extremists who do not understand 
that the cost of energy hammers the American people. The average 
American is spending $4,000 a year on gasoline, at almost $400 a month. 
You were spending $200 a month on your gasoline when President Obama 
took office. Now you are spending twice as much: $400--$200 a month in 
the form of a basic tax on you.
  We are importing oil. But we are finding more in the United States, 
and we have better techniques for bringing it out of the ground. We can 
produce a lot more. Privately owned lands are showing increases in 
energy production and exploration. They are doing a good job. But the 
government owned lands are down 14 percent because the President is 
blocking production on government lands, blocking offshore production. 
He really is.
  We were projected to have issued lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico on 
12 major tracts. That has been reduced to just two in the last 2 years. 
This is putting us behind. Production of oil and gas in the Gulf of 
Mexico is down. Jobs are down. When we allow drilling in the Gulf of 
Mexico, oil companies bid for those rights. They pay money to the U.S. 
Government. Not only do they create jobs in America, they pay us money 
to get the right to drill and then they pay us for every barrel of oil 
they produce. It creates wealth for America. Why do we want to loan 
money to Brazil to produce oil and gas offshore when we can produce it 
in our own gulf?
  So those are things on which we need to be focused. Why aren't we 
talking about that, in addition to the budget?
  And taxes. I was talking to a businessman the other day. He said this 
investment tax credit that encourages you to invest in new machinery 
and other equipment for his company--he examined that, and he decided 
he would take advantage of it and accelerate a purchase of some things 
for his company. He got a big tax credit, but he said the paperwork was 
this thick. The lawyers and accountants and effort he had to go through 
cost him at least a third of the advantage he was supposed to get from 
the government. It is not necessary for things to be that complicated.
  We need simplified, progrowth tax reform. Why is that not on the 
floor of the Senate? Isn't that a priority for America? I think 
everybody can agree that if we simplified our tax procedure, if me made 
it more growth-oriented, we could create jobs without losing revenue to 
the Federal Government, create economic growth, and put our country on 
a path to a sound future.

[[Page S1643]]

We have to have economic growth, and we cannot get it by continuing to 
borrow from our children--really borrowing currently--to spend money to 
try to jump-start through a sugar high the American economy that is 
dragging along.
  We have this major problem with governmental regulations. I am 
hearing it everywhere I go--from farmers who are being told they cannot 
have dust on their farms. When Senator Roberts asked an EPA witness how 
are we going to keep dust down, they said, well, you can have a water 
truck and go by and water it. Now, how silly is that? They have work 
rules that keep children in families from helping out on the farm. They 
have rules dealing with a ditch, calling it a navigable stream. This is 
regulatory overreach of a monumental degree, and I am hearing it from 
business, I am hearing it from taxpayers, I am hearing it from farmers 
all over.
  Every regulation needs to be examined. If it produces a positive 
result for America in terms of health and safety and the general 
welfare, OK, I am for it. But if it is the kind of regulation that does 
not produce a benefit but adds to the cost of doing business--costs 
that add up for the average American consumer--then it needs to be 
eliminated.
  It would help create jobs and help make us more productive, as we 
work on producing American energy, which creates jobs in itself. That 
additional production of energy does have the tendency to pull down 
prices. There is no doubt about it. It may not happen day to day. But 
as energy reserves are increased, as energy productions and exploration 
occur and more is produced, it tends to bring down prices. So we need 
to focus on things that bring down prices of energy. We do not need to 
be mandating forms of energy that cost 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 times as much as 
the basic energy we have today.
  We cannot afford it. It adds to the cost of doing business. The 
consumers pay it with their pocketbooks when they go to the store, and 
when businesses look for a place to build a plant, they look at the 
rest of the world. If our energy prices are lower and reliable, then 
they can afford to invest here, hire American workers.
  But if our energy prices are too high--and I can cite examples of 
investments in my State of Alabama that were determined one way or the 
other based on energy prices. If the price of energy is too high, they 
go somewhere else. They cannot afford it. They have to seek the lowest 
price. That creates jobs and growth.
  We need to have an Energy Secretary who understands his job is to 
protect the health and safety of America and produce as much energy as 
we can at the lowest possible price, not to be engaged in some social 
engineering. I have to tell you, it troubles me that the Secretary of 
Energy does not even own a car, he rides a bike. I mean, this is who is 
running this country. It is the kind of idea that is not realistic for 
the average American citizen. People with big salaries and so forth, 
when the price of energy goes up, it does not bother them. But the 
average guy, the high prices hit his rent payment, hit his health care, 
his food, and he has to pay $100 more a month, $150 more a month for 
the same amount of gasoline.
  We have small business paying more. Tell me that does not hurt this 
economy. Tell me that does not raise unemployment. It absolutely does. 
It is stupid. We do not need to be doing things that do not make sense. 
We cannot afford it. This Senate needs to be focused not on some 
unprecedented, unheard of, gimmicked-up complaint that we are now going 
to have 17 cloture votes on judges, many of whom have been on the 
Senate floor less than 1 month.
  Half the nominees who have made it to the Senate today are now in 
committee. Senator Leahy, our Democratic chairman, has not moved them 
out of committee yet. They will move. He moves them very fast, frankly. 
How can it be Senator McConnell's fault that they have not been 
confirmed? It is a lifetime appointment. Judges are not entitled just 
to be given a lifetime appointment like that. People running for 
Congress, they work for months and years trying to achieve the job, 
putting a record out there. So it does not hurt for a judge to be 
sitting on the floor for a while.
  Maybe someone will come forward and say: Let me tell you what that 
judge did to me or this is what he did wrong or something. Sometimes 
that happens. So we need a steady process, and we are moving forward 
well within the traditions of this Senate.
  But what has happened is this Senate is obstructing legislation that 
is coming out of the House that would fix energy, that helps tax 
reform. There are small business growth proposals that are on the floor 
now, they are not even being brought up. They are being obstructed by 
Senator Reid and the Democrats. That is a fact. I am not making this 
up. So this is a body that is not doing its job. The House produced a 
budget. They produced a historic budget. That was realistic. I would 
like to have seen them go a little further, frankly.
  We may not have agreed with everything in it. But it was a historic 
budget. It changed the debt trajectory of America. It began to bring 
our debt on a downward path instead of this surging, upward path we are 
on. They did it last year and they are going to do it again this year.
  What is the Senate going to do? Nothing. We are not going to have a 
budget for the United States of America. It is a sad day. I feel 
strongly about this. I have seen the debates over judges. I saw 
fabulous judges, like Justice Alito on the Supreme Court, be 
filibustered. I saw Chief Justice Roberts' nomination sit for a long 
period of time when he was nominated for the circuit bench.
  Alabama's fabulous Justice Bill Pryor, now on the Eleventh Circuit, 
was blocked for months and months and months. Janice Rogers Brown, 
Supreme Court of California, African-American, great justice; Priscilla 
Owens, ``unanimously well qualified,'' Supreme Court Justice of Texas. 
She was fabulous. They held them all.
  The only ones they confirmed were the two judges President Bush had 
graciously reappointed, whom President Clinton had nominated but were 
not confirmed at the end of his term. I will close by saying we do need 
to work on this issue of what the Senate needs to be focusing on. I 
believe it needs to be focusing on a budget, energy, taxes, 
regulations, things that will make a difference for America, make our 
country stronger and healthier and more productive and more competitive 
without adding to the debt.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________