[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6909-S6914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Resumed
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 419,
S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 3254) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
Schedule
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I am told that S. 3637 is due for its second
reading and is at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by
title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3637) to temporarily extend the transaction
account guarantee program, and for other purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings
with respect to this bill at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will
be placed on the calendar.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. 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
[[Page S6910]]
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
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
Fiscal Cliff
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to
discuss what is known as the fiscal cliff, a mix of automatic tax hikes
and defense cuts that are set to hit at the end of the year,
jeopardizing our security as well as our economy. My message was pretty
simple: A solution is possible.
Republicans have been reasonable, and the President needs to lead. He
is the only one who can get us to a solution. If that is what he wants,
we will succeed. So it was with some concern that I read this morning
that the President plans to hit the road next week to drum up support
for his own personal approach to the short- and long-term fiscal
challenges we face. In other words, rather than sitting down with
lawmakers of both parties and working out an agreement, he is back on
the campaign trail, presumably with the same old talking points with
which we are all quite familiar.
Look, we already know the President is a very good campaigner. We
congratulate him on his reelection. What we do not know is whether he
has the leadership qualities necessary to lead his party to a
bipartisan agreement on big issues such as we currently face. So let me
suggest that if the President wants a solution to the challenges of the
moment, the people he needs to be talking to are the members of his own
party so he can convince them of the need to act. We are not going to
solve this problem by creating villains and drumming up outrage. We
will solve the problem by doing the hard work of sitting down and
figuring out a solution that involves tough choices on all sides.
That gets at another point I made yesterday. In the past, Democrats
have demanded tax hikes now for spending cuts that never actually
happen. Not this time. A balanced approach means real spending
reductions now. And I am not saying this because it is the Republicans'
position, although it is. I am not saying this because I have anything
against the government, which I do not. I am saying this because it is
the only approach that has any chance of working. No credible deficit
reduction plan we have seen over the past few years excludes real cuts.
If we want to prevent this crisis, Democrats need to be as serious
about cutting spending as they are about spending. It is that simple.
By the way, this is an approach Americans overwhelmingly support.
According to a recent AP poll, voters prefer spending cuts to tax hikes
62 percent to 29 percent--a more than 2-to-1 margin. Now, there is a
reason for this. The American people are not stupid. They know the
problem with Washington is not that it taxes too little but that it
spends too much. They also know the only reason we are even talking
about a looming fiscal crisis right now is because the Democrats have
spent the last 4 years creating it.
That is what I would like to focus on this morning--how we got into
this mess in the first place--because amidst all of the talk about
plans and proposals, it is easy to forget that we did not get here by
accident; we got here because Washington Democrats, from the President
on down, have done two things exceedingly well over the past 4 years:
spent other people's money and kicked the can down the road--spend
other people's money and kick the can down the road. For 4 years,
Democrats spent money we did not have in the misguided hope that it
would help the economy. They have borrowed trillions of dollars to keep
unemployment pretty much right where it was when they started. And here
is what we have 4 years later: a mountain of debt and a looming
national budgetary crisis.
Republicans are happy to talk about how to solve this mess, but make
no mistake, we will also talk about how we got here. The reason we are
having these negotiations is because Washington Democrats have spent
money without any care for the cost or the future and refuse to do
anything to protect long-term spending programs, such as Medicare, a
failure that is among the biggest single drivers of our debt.
All this reflects a very clear philosophy: For Washington Democrats,
every dollar that has ever been secured for anything is sacred--every
dollar that has ever been secured for anything is sacred--and they will
defend it to the death regardless of what it means for jobs or the
economy. But those days are over because you do not eliminate trillion-
dollar deficits by taxing the rich--not even close. It may be an
effective talking point, but as a matter of policy it is a minor deal,
and the Democrats know it. So, as we move into the final stretch, it is
time, as I have said, to put the talking points away and get serious
about striking a deal.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem. If
borrowing more than 40 cents for every dollar you spend does not
convince you you have a spending problem, frankly, I do not know what
will. If Democrats cannot admit we have a spending problem, they need
to talk to their constituents more. They need to get real. That means
changing the way things have been done around here for the past few
years.
Independent budget experts have been telling us for ages that our
long-term budget deficits are driven by the unsustainable health care
entitlements. What was the administration's response to that? Their
response was to add trillions more by creating an entirely new health
care entitlement program. We were promised that the President's health
care law would reduce health care costs. What did it do? We are now
told health care costs will rise as a share of our economy and the
taxpayer's liability. By one estimate, those costs will go up by more
than $\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years.
We know the number of Americans 65 or older will increase by one-
third over the next 10 years. According to the Census Bureau, there
were 40 million older Americans in 2010. There will be 54 million of
them a decade after that, and more than 72 million older Americans a
decade after that. What are the Democrats doing to ensure the programs
they rely upon will actually be there? We cannot ignore the facts. We
need to prepare for the demographic changes we know are coming.
Medicare is simply too important for millions of seniors to let it
continue down the road to insolvency. We must preserve it for today's
seniors and strengthen it for those who will retire in the years ahead.
As Congress looks for savings, we need to look at the new health care
entitlements too. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on
ObamaCare, it is ridiculous to suggest that we make changes to Medicare
and Medicaid while leaving $1.6 trillion in new ObamaCare spending
untouched.
For 4 years Democrats have been completely unbalanced in the way they
have spent paper dollars. Yet now that the crisis is upon us, they
solemnly advise us that we need to be balanced in
[[Page S6911]]
our solution. This is how you ensure the expansion of government. This
is how you end up with $16 trillion of debt, but it is not how you get
out of it. It is not how you solve the problem. You solve the problem
by taking tough medicine and tough votes. You solve it by doing
something different than what you have been doing all along. You solve
it with the help of a President who is willing to lead his party. You
don't just change your rhetoric and your talking points while telling
your base behind closed doors you aren't going to give any ground. You
change your behavior. For Democrats in Washington, as I have said, that
means getting serious for a change about cuts. The time for campaigning
is over. It is time to act.
Nuclear Option
Mr. President, yesterday the majority leader and I had a rather
spirited discussion about his intention to change the Senate rules
outside the process provided in those rules.
When he was in the minority, my friend from Nevada objected
strenuously to the very procedure he now wants to employ. He called
using a simple majority maneuver to change Senate procedure the
``nuclear option'' and described it as breaking the rules to change the
rules. Now that he is in the majority, he says the ends justify the
means. He says we have to make the Senate more efficient and we have to
violate the Senate rules to do that so he and his colleagues in the
majority can implement more easily their vision for America. According
to him, these minor changes won't affect anyone who has the thought of
making America better.
Let me say that again. The majority leader said these minor changes
won't affect anyone who has the thought of making America better. Of
course, in the majority leader's world, it will be just he and his
colleagues who determine what makes America better.
In short, according to my friend from Nevada, the means by which he
wants to achieve his ends don't matter, only his ends matter. That is
pretty convenient if you happen to be in the majority at the moment. I
say again, at the moment. But convenience or efficiency, as my friend
has described it, is not what the Senate has been about.
My friend the majority leader may have put it best in 2006 when he
made the first of his commitments to respect the rights of the
minority. This is what the majority leader said:
As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect
for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.
The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the
rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was
established to make sure that minorities are protected.
Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities
cannot. That is what the Senate is all about.
My friend from Nevada then committed that he was going to ``treat my
Republican colleagues the way I expect to be treated'' and that he
would do everything he could to ``preserve the rules and traditions of
the institution that I love.''
Inaccurately describing the essence and wise purpose of the Senate,
the majority leader sounded a lot like our former colleague Robert C.
Byrd. So I was quite surprised to hear our friend from Nevada assert
that Senator Byrd would actually support the heavy-handed tactic he
intends to employ.
I am not going to correct all the inaccuracies my friend made
yesterday, such as saying four times that it takes 10 days to get out a
bill. I don't know what version of Riddick's my friend has been
reading, but if it actually took 10 days to get on a bill I might
actually support some rule changes myself.
But I must disabuse my friend from Nevada about how Senator Byrd
would view the heavy-handed tactic he intends to employ. Unlike the
majority leader, I recall when our late colleague spoke on this topic
at a Rules Committee hearing the last time the majority leader
entertained ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' Senator Byrd
was unequivocally against violating Senate rules to change the rules
the way the current majority leader is proposing.
Senator Byrd began by noting that ``Our Founding Fathers intended the
Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited
debate and the protection of minority rights. Senators have understood
that,'' he stated, ``since the Senate first convened.'' That is Senator
Byrd on the history of the Senate.
Senator Byrd also noted that at the Constitutional Convention, James
Madison reported that the Senate was to be ``a necessary fence'' in
order to ``protect the people against their rulers,'' and ``to protect
the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves
might be led.''
How did Senator Byrd view the filibuster in the role of the Senate?
How did it relate to the Senate as a ``necessary fence''? Senator Byrd
said, ``The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence.''
Senator Byrd acknowledged that this right should not be abused, and
that ``there are many suggestions as to what we should do'' if it is
abused. He recounted procedures that currently exist under the rules--I
say again, procedures that currently exist under the rules--to address
it if it is.
As I suggested yesterday, Senator Byrd also indicated that simply
working a full week such as most people do--I mean, most people in
America have a 5-day work week--by simply working a full week we could
address some of these concerns. Senator Byrd bemoaned the fact that
``the Senate often works 3-day weeks.'' In other words, if you want the
Senate to be more productive, start working more. It is not rocket
science here. That is what Senator Byrd was saying.
But Senator Byrd was clear about what we should never do. He said,
``We must never, ever tear down the only wall--the necessary fence--
this Nation has against the excesses of the executive branch and the
result of haste and tyranny of the majority.''
Senator Byrd, as we know, was a historian. He was a skillful majority
leader who understood the unique importance of the Senate and the need
of a majority leader to keep his commitment. But he was also a
political realist who had been around enough to understand that
political majorities are fleeting, and if you break the rules to suit
your political purposes of the moment, you may regret having done so
when you find yourself in the minority. Senator Byrd specifically said:
I strongly caution my colleagues as some propose to alter
the rules to severely limit the ability of a minority to
conduct a filibuster. I know what it is to be majority
leader, and wake up on a Wednesday morning in November and
find yourself a minority leader.
To make sure there was no doubt as to his views on the subject,
Senator Byrd concluded by unequivocally objecting to the use of the
nuclear option that the Senator from Nevada is now proposing. He said:
The Rules Committee must, however, jealously guard against
efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by a simple
majority, circumventing rule XXII where a two-thirds majority
is required.
My friend the majority leader is no more correct about Senator Byrd's
views on the nuclear option, on the idea of breaking the rules to
change the rules, than he is about taking 10 days to get on a bill.
I will conclude by reading what are likely the last words Senator
Byrd spoke on the subject of the nuclear option, and I encourage my
colleagues to reflect on his wise counsel. This is what he said:
As I have said before, the Senate has been the last
fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in the
Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators
will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and
tradition in favor of the political party of the moment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Rules Changes
Mr. REID. 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
[[Page S6912]]
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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I certainly agree the Senate isn't
working. We get a few days in between recesses, rarely work at night,
and almost never do anything on Thursday. That is entirely within the
purview of the majority leader.
It is true that a few years back, when my party was in the majority,
we contemplated changing the rules, but cooler heads prevailed and we
didn't. The fundamental issue, as my friend lays out, is that he wants
to break the rules to change the rules. In other words, he and I are
not negotiating on these issues. He is deciding what will be the rule
in the Senate. He will break the rules in order to change the rules.
That is all anybody listening to this debate needs to understand. What
the majority leader is going to do is he is going
[[Page S6913]]
to break the rules to change the rules--one party only.
We ought to be negotiating rule changes. Rule changes ought to be
proposed by the majority leader and the minority leader together that
would surpass the 67-vote threshold, if it is designed to protect the
Senate from the whims of new majorities. There is always a temptation
when a party is in the majority to want to change the rules to benefit
themselves at the expense of others. It is particularly absurd to do it
right now because anything Senate Democrats would gain out of that
would go nowhere in the House. So there is no practical purpose served
by this. All it does is put on record that Senate Democrats are willing
to break the rules to change the rules. That is the fundamental issue.
Rules changes ought to be negotiated by the two leaders, as they have
been down through the years, and then proposed together.
As I have indicated on several occasions--and I will say again--I
think the frustrations the majority leader has had could have been
easily solved by putting some of his young Members in the Chair and
breaking down some--one person--trying to make it difficult to get on
to a bill. All this could have been fixed. Rather than complaining
about it, just do something about it. That is what I would have done,
if I had been in his shoes. He has chosen not to do that.
Rather than point fingers and continue to campaign--look, the
campaign is over. You guys had a pretty good day. You are in the
majority. But you can't seem to turn the campaign off. You just keep
running it forever. So here we are with this explosive nuclear option
being thrown into the Chamber at a time when we ought to be turning the
election off and trying to come together to solve the biggest problem,
which I talked about first, which is the fiscal cliff and the Nation's
seemingly hopeless debt and deficit situation. That is what we ought to
be doing. Instead, my friends on the other side just can't keep from
continuing to celebrate the election. You won. Now, why don't we
govern. The way to govern is to try to bring this body together.
The Senate has been built over the years on collegiality. We have
always had some personalities on both sides who made it a challenge for
whoever the majority leader was. I can remember back when we were in
the majority and Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio would sit out here on the
floor and read every bill. He was a royal pain in the you know what to
whoever the majority leader was at the time. The Senate survived all
that. We didn't engage in a rules change dictated by whoever was in the
majority at the moment.
This is exactly the wrong way to start off on a new year and to end
an old year with a ton of problems that we have to deal with. Here we
are, as a result of this suggestion that we employ the nuclear option,
arguing about arcane rules changes when we ought to be sitting down
together and trying to solve the Nation's huge deficit and debt
problems.
But the fundamental issue is this: Is the majority going to break the
rules to change the rules? That is the issue before the Senate. Are we
going to break the rules to change the rules--employ the nuclear
option, fundamentally change the body, not have a negotiation between
the two leaders about what adjustments might be appropriate to make the
Senate work better. Oh, no, we are going to do it on our own.
I think it is a huge mistake not only for the Senate, but it will
impact obviously our short-term ability to come together and to work on
the big problems the country sent us to solve.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. 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----
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield on that point?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. McCONNELL. Did the Senate majority at that time, made up of
Republicans, choose to go forward and do that? We did not do it. We did
not use the nuclear option. There was a lot of discussion about it
which related to judicial appointments, but in the end the majority
chose not to do it.
Mr. REID. 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. McCONNELL. We keep quoting Senator Byrd back and forth, but I
think it is appropriate to look at what he said in 2010. He said:
I believe that efforts to change or reinterpret the rules
in order to facilitate expeditious action by a simple
majority are grossly misguided. The Senate is the only place
in government where the rights of the numerical minority are
so protected.
I said in my prepared statement earlier what Senator Byrd said before
the Rules Committee:
The [Rules] Committee must, however, jealously guard
against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by
a simple majority, circumventing rule XXII where a two-thirds
majority is required.
I keep coming back to this because it has to do with the way any rule
change is implemented. That is the point. The majority leader has
suggested, and I think it is appropriate, that we talk
[[Page S6914]]
about rule changes together. But that is not what he is suggesting he
is going to do. He says he is going to break the rules to change the
rules and employ the nuclear option.
That is not a negotiation with the minority over rules changes. What
we ought to be doing is talking to each other about what adjustments in
the rules we could advocate together, and not one party with a majority
today--that might be in the minority 2 years from now--breaking the
rules to change the rules for some kind of misguided short-term
advantage. That is the problem.
So I would be happy to talk to the majority leader about these
issues, but I vigorously oppose--and I know Senator Byrd would
vigorously oppose--breaking the rules to change the rules. He was very
clear about that in 2010. I know he would object to it.
I hope somehow this nuclear option can be avoided. It seems to me to
be an absolutely unnecessary distraction away from much larger issues
confronting the future of our Nation.
Mr. REID. 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. 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.
____________________