[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6914-S6921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
following hour is equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first
half.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Rules Changes
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to continue the conversation
that our two leaders were engaged in earlier and also on yesterday.
This is going to be a very important issue for the Senate.
To put it into perspective for the American people, let me just say
that a rules change in the Senate is not a small or an inconsequential
matter. It is even more important if it is attempted to be done without
going through the normal process of changing the rules, which requires
a two-thirds majority. This is important because the Senate has always
considered itself a continuing body. It does not end and then begin
again as the House of Representatives does because the House has an
election every 2 years. In this body, Members are elected for 6-year
terms. As a result, every 2 years we have some turnover in the body,
but two-thirds of the body has already been here and continues forward.
So the rules of the Senate have always been continuing rules of the
continuing body, amendable by a two-thirds majority of the body. To
suggest a nuclear option by which a mere majority of the body can amend
the rules is itself a violation of the rules. It is an assertion of
power. But as the old saying goes: Might does not make right. And the
fact that the majority may have the power to overrule a ruling of the
Chair, thus establishing a new precedent and a new rule of the Senate,
does not make it right. That is why it hasn't been done.
In point of fact, there was a time a few years ago, as has been
discussed, when some members of the Senate Republican majority were
considering the use of the same parliamentary tactic to ensure a vote
on nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court and also for the Court of
Appeals. The feeling was that the Democratic minority had filibustered
over and over and over and had prevented votes, I think, on Miguel
Estrada, who was being nominated for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I
think he was filibustered seven separate times.
The Republican leadership was investigating the possibility of
ensuring that we could get a vote. The only way that seemed possible
was to assert this power of overruling the Parliamentarian's ruling
through the Chair and thus establishing by 51 votes--or a mere
majority--a new rule of the Senate.
That was deemed to be such a change that it was called the nuclear
option because it hadn't been done, and we could say that it was
comparable to the use of a nuclear weapon in a war. It was such a game-
changing proposition, to say the least, that Members on both sides of
the aisle got together in what they called the Gang of 14. I think
almost everyone in this body is glad that cooler heads prevailed; that
those 14 Members decided they would reach an agreement amongst
themselves that would make it impossible for either the Democratic
Party to automatically filibuster nominees or for the Republican Party
to have this right to change the rules just because they had 51 votes.
Therefore, they reached the compromise which, for judicial nominees,
was that there would be no filibuster except in extraordinary
circumstances.
Both sides deemed that a sufficient way of resolving the issue that
came before us at that time. Everybody stood down. The war did not
occur. The nuclear weapon was not used, and that was for the best of
the country and certainly for the best of the Senate. We avoided a
crisis and, certainly, there would have been a crisis. I can't imagine
that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would not have
reacted very badly to the use of that nuclear option had it been done
by the Republican majority.
Well, today the shoe is on the other foot. The Democratic majority
now has reason to believe that it would like to move forward with more
alacrity on legislation. Therefore, it believes that by this same
nuclear option procedure it should change the rules so that the ability
to filibuster at the beginning of the consideration of the bill is
eliminated.
The Republican minority naturally has said: Wait a minute. That is
wrong for two reasons. First of all, just as you accused us of doing,
you are changing the rules without going through the rules process
change. This is your own version of the nuclear option. If it was wrong
then, it is still wrong now. And most of us agreed after the fact that
it was wrong then. But, secondly, what you would do, if you eliminate
the requirement for cloture and a cloture vote if there is an objection
to a unanimous consent request to take up the bill or motion to proceed
to a bill, what you are doing is putting all of the power into the
hands of the majority leader--in this case, the Democratic leader--to
decide whether there will be any amendments at all from the Republican
side or even from the Democratic side. The only leverage that the
minority has to ensure that it will be able to offer amendments is to
negotiate with the majority leader and ensure that right exists. And
the only leverage it has is to deny cloture on the
[[Page S6915]]
motion to proceed in order to instigate that negotiation. It is
political leverage. Let's call it by its true name. But without that
political leverage, that check and balance, the majority leader in the
Senate takes a very giant step toward becoming exactly what the Speaker
of the House is, in effect, a dictator.
Now, I use that term in a very kind sense because the Speakers of the
House under whom I served as a Member of the House of Representatives,
and certainly the current Speaker of the House, are fine people who
care a lot about the institution of the House of Representatives and,
in some cases, care for some degree of minority rights. But they all
have one thing in common: They run the House. If they decide, through
the Rules Committee, there aren't going to be any amendments offered by
the other side, there aren't any amendments offered. Frequently the
minority is in the position of complaining about the fact that the
Speaker, through the Rules Committee, denies them the right to offer
amendments or controls which amendments they can offer, controls the
time.
So if you are a Member of the House of Representatives and you want
to offer an amendment, you can't automatically do that, as has been the
case in the Senate. You have to go to the Rules Committee--which is
hand-picked by the Speaker--and you have to ask them for permission to
offer an amendment and how long you will have to talk about that
amendment and the wording of the amendment and all of the other
conditions that the Rules Committee establishes for debate of the
matter on the floor of the House of Representatives.
When the Constitution was originally written, the Founders' idea was
that we would have two different legislative bodies that would provide
a check and a balance on each other. One would represent the immediate
passions of the people, the House of Representatives, the people's
body. If the people were emotionally invested in a particular issue,
the House was elected, and they would hurry up and pass that
legislation. They could do it with a majority because the power of the
Speaker was able to run over any minority rights. The minority wouldn't
be able to get in the way.
But when it came to the Senate the idea was, slow it down, think it
over. Let's make sure we want to do this. That is why we have the 6-
year terms, the continuing body, and the minority rights to offer
amendments.
That right to offer amendments is perhaps the most important way in
which the Senate is distinguished from other legislative bodies around
the world and from the House of Representatives because it does
guarantee minority rights. And not just party minority.
If you are a member of the majority party from a State that has a
very distinct and serious interest in a bill, the majority leader can
simply say: I don't want to consider your amendment. You are out of
luck under this proposal, whether you are a member of the minority or
the majority.
It is not just minority rights in the sense of political minority,
but also, let's say, you are from a small State rather than a big
State, and there is a bill on the floor that helps the big States, and
you want to offer amendments from a little State. It will be up to the
majority leader to decide whether you can even offer that amendment if
this rule change is adopted. So there are two very important reasons
the Senate should be very careful about proceeding down this path. That
is what the Republican leader has been talking about the last couple of
days here on the floor.
It is important for the Senate to reflect in a longer view not only
the views of the majority--political or otherwise--but also those who
might have some disagreement with the majority, the theory being that
the majority isn't always 100 percent right. In any event, people
around the country have a right to be represented through their Senator
to get their points of view argued and discussed and perhaps considered
for a vote here in the Senate. That has always been the way it is. It
is a tradition that has served this country well. To eliminate that
with this so-called rules change would do great disservice to the
American people, to the legislative process, to our Constitution, and
to the great ability of this body to perform its function in the way
that has been deemed so important for over 200 years now.
There is a reason this is called the greatest deliberative body in
the history of mankind--because we deliberate. We think about things.
We debate them. We have all kinds of points of view offered or
potentially offered through the amendment process, and if that is
denied, this will no longer be the body it has always been.
People before us have cautioned both Democratic and Republican
majorities not to take advantage of their sheer majority, Democratic
and Republican leaders. In fact, there is a very interesting new book
out by I believe the former chief of staff of the great Democratic
leader George Mitchell--I think joined in by a Parliamentarian at a
time when Republicans were in control, so it is a bipartisan-written
book--that talks about the necessity of maintaining the rules the way
they are and not using this nuclear option to change the rule, denying
minority rights. It is a book worth reading, and it is a book I commend
to my colleagues before we embark on what might be a very fateful step
in this body.
Let me make a couple of other points. Under Senate rule V--not to be
too in the weeds on this, but I think it is important for us to
actually know what we are talking about here. Here is the Senate rule
speaking to the amendment process. I am quoting now:
The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to
the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in
these rules.
And then Senate rule XXII says that to end debate on a motion to
amend or change the Senate rules:
. . . the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of
the Senators present and voting.
What I said earlier, that it takes a two-thirds vote to change the
rules of the Senate, is very clear in our rules. They are continuing
rules. So the notion that somehow this can be done with just a 51-vote
majority is explicitly rejected by the rules themselves. As I said,
when this issue has previously been raised, we have been very careful
not to use the mere power of the majority to change the rules but have
abided by the requirement of our own rules to do it according to those
rules with a two-thirds majority.
I spoke before about the rights of the political minority. I think it
is worth noting again that each Senator represents a lot of people in a
separate State, two of us per State. Our constituents deserve the right
to be heard in this body. It is one of the great opportunities that as
a matter of comity we have always accorded to each other. We are
courteous to each other on the floor because we understand it is the
best way for all of us to be heard. If a colleague wishes to raise a
matter while I am speaking and says, ``Will you just give me 2 minutes
so that I can raise this matter on the floor, and then I will be
done,'' of course we grant that request because we understand how
important it is for our constituents to be represented, to have a
voice. If another Senator needs to raise a point on behalf of the
voters in his State, we acknowledge that as necessary and important.
That is why we think it is virtually sacred that all Senators should
have the right to represent their people, their State. No State should
be disenfranchised, whether it voted Democratic or it voted Republican.
There are a lot of Democrats and Republicans in every State and a lot
of folks who do not belong to either party. They need a voice in the
Senate, and each of us represents those people. It is not right that
the voice of some Senators, and therefore their constituents, be
silenced because of, in effect, a power grab here through what has been
referred to as the nuclear option.
As my leader Senator McConnell noted yesterday, what is potentially
being proposed here would undermine the very purpose of the Senate as
the one place in our system where minority views, whether they are a
political minority or any other kind of minority, and opinions have
always been respected and in most cases incorporated into law. That
would be lost to the U.S. Senate.
Here is what the late Senator Robert Byrd, who all acknowledge was an
expert on the Constitution and the Senate rules, once said:
[[Page S6916]]
The Senate is the only place in government where the rights
of a numerical minority are so protected. The Senate is a
forum of the states where, regardless of size or population,
all states have an equal voice. . . .
The Presiding Officer and I can appreciate that because we don't come
from one of the bigger States.
Senator Byrd goes on:
Without the protection of unlimited debate, small States
like West Virginia might be trampled. Extended deliberation
and debate--when employed judiciously--protect every Senator,
and the interests of their constituency, and are essential to
the protection of the liberties of a free people.
He was specifically speaking to the point I made there: to ``the
interests of their constituency.'' It is not a Senator's right that we
are arguing about here; we are the voice of the people we represent. It
is our constituents' rights that would be denied by this process. They
deserve a voice. They have been guaranteed a voice through us, the
temporary stewards of their voice. To deny that voice, especially
through the procedure that has been suggested here, as the late Senator
Byrd said, would be a denial of something essential to the protection
of the liberties of a free people.
The current Democratic leader was one of the staunchest defenders of
the Senate's protection of minority rights for all of the reasons I
mentioned. He spoke eloquently about this on earlier occasions. He
believes and he has said that he is frustrated by the process that he
sees not working as quickly as he would like to see it work and, as a
result, has apparently changed his mind as to the process for changing
the rules as well as the rules themselves. But I think the whole
question of the filibuster needs to be properly understood here as
really meaning different things to different people. It is essentially
a tool that brings the Senate to the center because it requires
compromise. It requires people to get together and talk.
As I said, the right the minority has to filibuster the motion to
proceed is to say: Mr. Leader, unless you are willing to guarantee us
that we can have some amendments on this bill and that we get to pick
our own amendments, then we are going to force you to get 60 votes
lined up in order to proceed to the bill. That is the only leverage we
have. So you are not really filibustering. You are not trying to talk
the bill to death. You don't have any intention of taking a lot of
time. You just want to be heard. You want to have your amendment up. A
lot of times we say it will take just 10 minutes a side to debate it
and have a vote, but if the majority leader can say, ``Nope, you are
not going to be able to do that,'' then he can say Republicans have
engaged in a filibuster when all it is is an objection to his motion to
proceed without having the right to offer any amendments. So it is an
important tool but not the way most people think of it--to delay and to
talk things to death. That is not what has happened here. In most
cases, the majority leader has filed a cloture motion on a Friday and
we voted on it on Monday, so no time of the Senate has been taken in
the intermediate time period.
I know there is a narrative that the Senate has not been able to get
anything done during the past couple of years, but it is not because of
some unprecedented use of the filibuster. As I said, have you seen
Members down here talking hours on end about a particular issue or all
through the night or whatever? No, you have not seen that. That was
kind of done in a bygone era, when Strom Thurmond was here and some
others, but it has not been done.
We have not done a budget in 3 years. That has been a sore point
among a lot of people. You cannot filibuster the budget. So is the
reason we have not done a budget because there has been a filibuster?
Absolutely not, because the rules don't permit a filibuster of the
budget.
There are a lot of misconceptions here. I hope my colleagues will
take a deep breath, step back. Those who came from the House of
Representatives, as I did, remember what it was like when you were in
the minority in the House. Essentially you had no rights. Is that the
way you want it to be here? Because someday you are going to be a
minority in the Senate. This body will change majorities.
In any event, whether we are talking political majorities or not, as
I mentioned with respect to the Presiding Officer from the same State
as the late Robert Byrd, his State did not always have the power to be
heard because it is a small State, as is mine. So it doesn't matter
whether you are Republican or Democratic, your constituents have a
right to be heard. Our current Senate rules protect that right on
behalf of our constituents, and I believe it would be a grave error for
the current Members of this body or those who take office next year to
conclude that because they have been frustrated sometimes in what they
wanted to accomplish, it is worth it to just brush the minority aside
and say: Because I couldn't get everything I wanted, I was frustrated
with your desire to offer amendments, I am going to take that right
away from you by changing this rule in this way.
I think it would be regretted later in time. I think the reaction
would be the same as occurred with regard to the so-called Gang of 14
when this nuclear option was considered several years ago. I think most
people in this body now say they were wise people who brought us back
from the brink of this precipice. Had we gone over that, this body
would not be the same as it is today and we probably would be
regretting that decision greatly.
I urge my colleagues, who I know in good faith are frustrated at
their inability to do exactly what they want to do because they are in
the majority, to just stop and reflect on the damage this would do to
this institution, how they would feel if they were in the minority.
Members of my party are going to be pretty hard to convince we should
go back to the rule the way it is today if the rule is changed to our
disadvantage. That is really starting a nuclear war--from a
parliamentary point of view, I mean. It is not a good idea for anybody,
least of all for the American people.
I urge my colleagues who are considering this to be open to
alternatives, have an open mind, be willing to think this through, talk
it through, to have a congenial debate on the floor about the
possibilities, and eventually, I suspect, as has happened so many times
in this great body, reasonable positions have prevailed--maybe after a
lot of unreasonable ones were proposed, but generally we have come to
the right conclusions. We have done so because we respect each other's
rights. That has produced the best legislation in the 230 years of our
country's history.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I wish to thank my colleague from
Arizona for not just his remarks during the last few minutes but for
his service here. I think everyone on our side knows the Senator from
Arizona has strongly felt views, many times different than many of
ours, but that they are sincere, they are heartfelt, they are
honorable, and that they are not ``political,'' and I very much
appreciate that.
Let me say a few things, though, about these rules changes. The
overwhelming fact that hovers over this Chamber is that it is broken.
Nobody disagrees with that. The Senate is broken. This great, wonderful
institution that has had such a legendary history--perhaps the greatest
legislative body the world has ever seen--is dysfunctional. None of us
disputes that. We have to start from there. How do we change it so it
is no longer dysfunctional?
My colleague the Republican leader says, Well, it is personalities or
it is character or whatever. That explanation doesn't wash. The amount
of good character in this body is probably no different--no more, no
less--than the amount of good character in previous Senates that were
far more functional. I would argue that good character is pretty high.
By and large, we respect our colleagues as individuals and as Senators
on both sides of the aisle and across the aisle. So it is an easy way
out to say, Change character. I guess when one says ``change
character,'' they mean change their character. The bottom line is that
the Senate is broken and we cannot maintain the status quo.
I wish to quote my great colleague from Michigan Senator Stabenow--I
hope she won't mind--from a meeting we had this morning. She talked
about a constituent she had who said, When are you going to change the
rules? The constituent said, You sound like somebody who has suffered
from spousal
[[Page S6917]]
abuse and keeps suffering from it and suffering from it and suffering
from it and says they can't change it. Of course that person can change
it and of course we can change things.
What we are trying to do on this side is come up with some changes
that will make the Senate flow better but, at the same time, preserve
the essential character of the Senate. If we were to propose a rules
change that would say we need 51 votes for everything, we would be no
more, no less, than the House of Representatives. There are some on our
side, frankly--I think my colleague from Iowa at one point--who have
argued, Let's move the number down to 55. We are not doing that. The
rules changes we are entertaining are done with preserving the
character of the Senate and making sure an individual Senator's rights
are protected and that the rights of the minority are protected and the
place is not stampeded by majority votes. In the House, they can have a
majority of one and still pretty much get their way. In the Senate that
wouldn't happen, even if we had 55 or 58 or even 60 Senators with the
changes we have proposed.
So let's look at them. There have been attempts to not change the
rules but, rather, to sort of come to some degree of comity between the
parties. I know because under Leader Reid's direction, I was involved,
and under Senator McConnell's direction, Senator Alexander was
involved. Two years ago, when there was an attempt to do rules changes,
it was particularly Senator Alexander, for whom I have enormous respect
in the same way I have respect for Senator Kyl, who proposed that
instead of changing the rules we try to work things out better. There
is a basic rule here in the Senate which is that the majority gets to
propose the agenda. That is an enormous privilege and an enormous
advantage. We get to set the agenda in the committees and on the floor.
But the minority has the right to offer amendments which either poke
holes in what we have proposed or even talk about other subjects
because we don't have a rule, as they do in the House, where just about
everything has to be germane. So Senator Alexander and I attempted to
do that. We said, on the one hand Republicans will not block motions to
proceed, and let us go forward and debate bills, and on the other hand
we would allow a reasonable amount of amendments--germane and some not
germane--to the bills that came up.
Well, obviously, it failed early on in the Senate. The basic
gentleman's agreement didn't work. It is our view the agreement fell
apart when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said they will
not allow the President's nominee for the CFPB, the Consumer Financial
Protection Board, to move forward. She will now join us in the Senate
and discuss rules changes, in one of the ways that history works in
strange ways now. So we said we would allow some amendments. They said,
No, we are not letting her come up, period. That was against the
spirit, at least, of the agreement. I am sure if my colleague from
Tennessee were here, he might have a different interpretation, but at
least that is ours. But the overall point is the so-called gentleman's
agreement fell apart early in the Senate, never to be resurrected.
It is our belief on our side that we should allow amendments from the
other side, but they should not be abused. There should not be 50 of
them. They should not talk about everything under the Sun. Yes, there
can be some nongermane amendments--we understand what those are all
about--but it shouldn't be a piling on. It is our view, frankly, that
the goal of many of the other side was simply to obstruct whatever
happened here, to show that the government didn't work, in hopes that
there would be an electoral advantage to that argument and people would
change the Senate majority. Well, it didn't happen. So now there is a
new opportunity.
Our colleagues on the other side say the only reason we filibuster is
because you guys fill the tree. Well, let's look at the numbers. In the
last Senate--in this Senate up until now--there have been 19 tree
fillings by Leader Reid. There have been 110 cloture motions. That is 6
to 1, a little less than 6 to 1, more than 5 to 1, less than 6 to 1.
So, clearly, the filibuster--the use of the motion to proceed to
prevent us from getting on a bill unless it has 60 votes--has far
exceeded the number of times the leader has filled the tree. It has
been done on things that aren't even amendable, including judges,
appointments. There couldn't be objections that we wouldn't allow
amendments on those things. You can't amend: Let's have half the judge
be nominated to the sixth circuit or let's have the Assistant Secretary
of State only have these powers. That doesn't happen. So even on those
things, there have been filibusters. We asked right now--I think there
are about 20 judges pending--to move them. No, we are going to
filibuster. Yesterday, a sportsmen's bill, which has a lot of
dissension on our side and probably has more agreement on the other
side than this side, was filibustered. This goes on and on and on.
So the rules changes we are proposing will not prevent the minority
from exercising its rights, from being able to offer amendments, and,
in fact, from filibustering. The goal here is simple: Use the
filibuster sparingly, not 110 times in a session of Congress. Even in
the days of the great southern barons and the civil rights debates
where the people from the South regarded filibuster as their only
weapon to stop something they strongly--in my opinion very wrongly--
disagreed with, it was used a handful of times only on the major
debates of the time. Now the filibuster is used for everything,
including district court judges, offering small, minor amendments.
What we basically want to do, as some have proposed, led by the
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Udall, is say, If a Member wants to have a filibuster, they have to
talk; they can't just have one person get up and say ``I object'' and
then we need 60 votes or the bill doesn't come up. What will that do?
In my opinion, that restores the proper balance to the Senate. If a
Member has to talk--not just one person but everybody who is against
it--a Member is only going to be able to sustain that filibuster on
major issues. No doubt the other side would have had the ability to
sustain--even if we went 24 hours, 7 days a week--they would have
enough passion and enough enthusiasm and enough bodies that they would
filibuster the health care bill. Probably they would do the same on
Supreme Court Justices, as would we if we were in the minority, if we
vehemently disagreed with a proposal. But if a Member has to be on the
floor and actually filibuster as opposed to just invoking the rules,
they will use it sparingly because they cannot sustain it for every
amendment or every minor bill or, frankly, for bills that have a large
amount of support. We know there is a small number of our colleagues
who are much more focused on offering their own amendments or stopping
the whole Senate. We can name them from the other side of the aisle.
But under this rule, they would have to get more support than just four
or five people to do it over and over, and it wouldn't happen. So then
the filibuster would be used as it should be. We are not saying no to
filibustering. We are not suggesting going back to 51 and simple
majority rule. It would be used on major issues where there is a real
division and a lot of passion and strong feeling and conviction as
opposed to simply trying to block everything and tie this place in a
knot.
When filibusters would decline and there would be no motions to
proceed that would be debatable, what would happen? I guarantee my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that more amendments would be
allowed to be offered because we wouldn't be in this tit-for-tat
situation. Would we have unlimited amendments? No. Would it be that
every time we have a bill we have to debate a passion of a single
Senator from a single State over and over and over? No. But would there
be plenty of amendments and would the minority not being able to
filibuster most bills have sort of high ground, whomever that minority
is, that amendments should be offered? Absolutely.
The bottom line: We cannot do nothing. There is too much at stake in
our Nation to have the Senate paralyzed once again. The House is a
partisan body. It passes a lot of things in a very partisan way. The
Senate must still be the cooling saucer envisioned by the Founding
Fathers, by George Washington and James Madison. There must
[[Page S6918]]
be the ability where the ``passions of the people'' cool in this
government, and it resides in the Senate. The changes we have proposed
continue that tradition but prevent--mitigate strongly against, if not
totally prevent--paralysis, which is where we are right now.
Remember: 110 cloture motions. And that will happen again in the next
session, the next Congress, in the Senate, if we don't do something to
change it. The idea, once again, of just blaming this person or that
person is not seeing the larger problem that needs change and
correction. The proposals that I believe this side will make--and we
haven't yet discussed them in our caucus--will return the Senate to the
way it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers: a body where minority
rights have much greater strength than the majority, but a body where
bipartisan compromise is encouraged, not discouraged.
So to my colleague from Arizona I say: We are open to suggestions,
but suggestions that say ``you just change your ways'' we would say
back aren't going to reduce the gridlock. I believe Senator Alexander
and I and Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, when we proposed this
gentlemen's compromise 2 years ago and didn't change the rules, all had
the best of intentions, but it failed. We have our reason for why it
failed and they may have another, but it is indisputable that it
failed. We have to look at something new. I hope my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, if they don't agree with the proposals we are
likely to make, will have their own suggestions but suggestions that go
beyond just change the personalities, change the individuals, whatever.
In conclusion, this is a wonderful body. I have served in it for 14
years. I respect it, I revere it, and I still love, with all the
dysfunction, coming to work Monday morning, which is a test for me in
life. But our country has so many issues and so many problems and needs
the Senate to lead and needs a Senate that is not paralyzed in
gridlock. Without changing the rules, I fear we will have a repeat of
the last 2 years, where each side blames the other and nothing gets
done.
With that, I yield the floor. I know we have several colleagues on
the Senate floor who want to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with
the remarks of my colleague from the great State of New York, and I
look forward to working with him and the entire Senate to find ways in
which the Senate can continue to do the important work the public has
asked us to do.
Wind Energy Tax Credit
Mr. President, I rise this morning again to speak to the importance
of extending the production tax credit, otherwise known as the PTC, for
wind energy. I wish to mention that the production tax credit has been
used on many occasions to promote other kinds of energy development,
including natural gas. The production tax credit for wind,
particularly, is set to expire at the end of December and, as a result,
thousands of hard-working middle-class families in Colorado and across
our country who currently work in this important energy industry are at
extreme risk of losing their jobs.
In fact, many of these workers have already been laid off as
companies brace themselves for the expiration of the PTC. To put it in
stark terms, the potentially bright future of a quintessentially
American industry is uncertain unless we act as soon as possible.
I have come to the floor now some 22 times to discuss the wind energy
industry, and when I do so I highlight the positive effects the PTC has
had on one individual State. I have had the great opportunity and
privilege of speaking about the wind energy industry in the Presiding
Officer's State, the State of Montana, and today I want to take the
opportunity to talk about the Wolverine State. Michigan is another
remarkable illustration of how the PTC has revitalized manufacturing
and created good-paying jobs while providing the State with clean
energy.
We have seen improvement in the Nation's economy, but many families
and businesses across our country are still struggling to make ends
meet. This has been especially true in Michigan, a State that has one
of the Nation's highest unemployment rates and a sluggish manufacturing
base. This is all as a result of the tough economic times we have
experienced over the last 4 years.
But if we look at Michigan, the wind industry saw an opportunity in
Michigan. Michigan is known for its highly skilled workforce, and so
the wind industry took root in Michigan, took advantage of this
workforce, and now we see that in Michigan there is significant
manufacturing of wind turbines occurring there. That has reinvigorated
Michigan's industrial base, and it has aided in the recovery of the
State's economy.
If we think about it, thousands of parts go into each car
manufactured in Michigan, and wind turbines--from the towers to the
cells to the blades--are no different. Someone told me recently that
something in the order of 8,000 parts go into a wind turbine. So if we
think about that, the skills of these hard-working Michigan workers
translate into the development, the engineering, the construction, and
the manufacturing required for wind turbines, which then in turn
provides the State of Michigan and the local communities with thousands
of new jobs and billions of dollars in investment.
We can see all the green circles on the map of Michigan I have in the
Chamber that identify the places in which this manufacturing is
occurring. This is in large part as a result of targeted Federal
incentives, such as the production tax credit.
I would like to highlight further some of the many benefits of the
wind energy industry in Michigan. There are at least 40 facilities that
develop and produce various components for the wind energy industry,
and that supports about 5,000 jobs. Furthermore, wind projects have
contributed over $7 million in property tax payments to local
governments; and that is money that helps fund schools, infrastructure,
and other vital community services.
So the State is building the towers and the blades and the cells so
that we can harvest the wind. Michigan is taking advantage of that
opportunity as well. They are ramping up their deployment of this
technology to harvest the wind because the wind energy manufacturing
sector is located there. So it is a virtuous cycle, if you will.
In 2011, Michigan more than doubled its power production from wind
energy, and it is on pace to increase its capacity by another 50
percent this year. That would include the completion of the State's
largest wind farm, the Gratiot County Wind Project, which is located in
the middle of the lower peninsula. This project itself not only created
over 250 construction jobs and 15 permanent maintenance and operations
jobs, it also doubled the tax base of the local schools. This has
created a positive ripple effect on all these communities that has been
noticeable and powerful.
Moreover, there are currently enough wind projects under construction
in Michigan to nearly double the current wind power production in the
State, with even more potential developments in the works. The point I
am making is that the key is the production tax credit when it comes to
these projects and, most importantly, the jobs they create.
There remains a vast untapped potential when it comes to wind energy
in the State. In fact, the National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that
Michigan has enough wind power potential to meet 160 percent of the
State's current electricity needs. The extension, therefore, of the PTC
is essential to the continued development of Michigan's wind resources,
which will create good-paying American jobs, aid local communities, and
build a clean energy economy.
So it is pretty simple. The production tax credit, the PTC, equals
jobs, and we need to pass it and extend it as soon as possible.
How do we do that? Well, if we want that bright future to be
realized, we need to work together and extend the wind PTC now. It is
common sense. It has bipartisan support. It has bicameral support. We
need to extend it now, as soon as possible. The PTC has not only aided
in the growth and expansion of our manufacturing economies in States
such as Michigan, but it has also shown us that America can
[[Page S6919]]
and, frankly, must outcompete China and the other countries that are
trying to develop their own wind energy industry.
So let's come together. Let's find a path forward. Let's pass an
extension of the wind PTC as soon as possible. The longer we wait, the
longer we do not act, it puts the significant economic strides we have
seen in States such as Michigan and all around the country at risk, and
it substantially inhibits future job growth. We simply cannot afford to
cede this promising new energy technology and energy future to
countries such as China.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Udall for his work
bringing attention to this important issue.
To me, this issue is simple: Alternative energy, including wind
power, is not only a vital component of our environmental protection
efforts, but to growing our economy and creating jobs for the middle
class.
Michigan is the State that put the world on wheels. Through
innovation and dedication, entrepreneurs, engineers, and Michigan
workers combined their efforts not just to revolutionize
transportation, but to create an explosion of manufacturing employment
that helped create and sustain the American middle class.
Today, a new generation of Michigan innovators is harnessing the
power of wind, the promise of biofuels, the power of advanced
batteries. Earlier this year, I visited a wind farm in Breckenridge,
MI, that is a marvel of technology, as far removed from the farmstead
windmills of days past as a jet fighter is from the Wright Brothers'
plane. That wind farm is a textbook example of how the advance of
technology is helping Michigan's economy, enabling us not just to
recover from the setbacks of the past, but to lead us into a brighter
economic future.
Wind power is an important part of that advance. It is a rapidly
growing sector of our State's electrical generating system. Wind-
generating capacity more than doubled in 2011, and projects under
construction or in the development pipeline could increase capacity
tenfold or more. The more power we generate from wind, the more
affordable, clean energy is available to our State and Nation.
Michigan also has an important role in building advanced wind-
generation equipment, not just for our State, but for the United States
and the world. Roughly 40 Michigan facilities are engaged in this
business, many of them businesses that have turned expertise developed
in the automotive industry to this new and growing field. Already wind
is responsible for hundreds of good manufacturing jobs, and the
potential is nearly as limitless as the wind itself.
That is why renewal of the production tax credit is so important. The
PTC has been an important factor in helping this new industry grow. If
it is allowed to expire at the end of the year, it would not only
hamper efforts to generate more clean energy for Michigan homes and
businesses, but also dampen the potential for new manufacturing jobs
tied to wind power. That is not a good outcome for our environment, for
Michigan families or for the American economy.
So again I thank Senator Udall for his focus on this issue. I hope as
we work to address the many pressing issues we must resolve before the
end of the year, we can resolve this one as well, and maintain the
momentum of clean energy to help our environment and our economy.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Colorado, Senator
Udall, for speaking on this important issue, and for his constant
advocacy of the wind production tax credit.
We have entrepreneurs right now in Michigan and all across the
country who are working hard to invent our clean energy future.
I am thinking of companies like Ventower in Monroe, that just opened
their 115,000-square-foot wind turbine tower manufacturing facility
last year.
They have hired 150 people to build those huge wind towers that you
see along the highway. These are good-paying jobs of the future.
Energetx Composites is another company in Michigan that used to
manufacture luxury yachts. They took their experience with light-weight
materials and now they are producing the blades for the wind turbines,
and they have also hired workers in Michigan.
Astraeus Wind and Dowding Industries are doing the casting work and
manufacturing the hubs that allow those blades to turn and produce
energy. These are huge items--some as big as a house--and they need
people to build them, and ship them, and that means jobs of the future
in Michigan.
It also means a future that we can hand down with pride to our
children and our grandchildren. It is a future with a strong middle
class. It is a future where the American dream is alive and well.
We have been through tough times in Michigan, but wind power has been
a bright spot. This year, we more than doubled our wind capacity in
Michigan.
We now have more than 200 turbines running in places such as Gratiot,
Huron, Misaukee, and Sanilac Counties.
We have another nearly 300 turbines coming online in the Thumb area--
one of the areas of strongest growth in the State. And all of that
development means thousands of jobs in Michigan that depend on wind
energy technology.
But if Congress doesn't act by December 31, those businesses will see
their taxes go up. To raise taxes on the innovative companies creating
the jobs of the future? That doesn't make sense. That is why it is so
critical that we extend the wind production tax credit.
At a time when our companies are competing with other countries over
this technology, we cannot turn our backs on them.
China is spending millions of dollars every single day to beat us on
clean energy. They are investing in companies, building plants, and
making every effort to lead the world in this technology.
We are in a race, and we cannot afford to lose.
I urge my colleagues to pass an extension of the wind production tax
credit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
The Fiscal Cliff
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to spend a couple
moments talking about the work we have to do between now and the end of
the year. There are various ways to describe this, but it is usually
described under the broad umbrella terminology called the fiscal cliff.
Some debate the use of those words, but there is no question that we
have very difficult decisions to make in the next couple of weeks.
My primary concern--and I think this is a concern that is widely
shared in the Senate and across the country--is, What will all this
mean for middle-income families? What will their tax rates be? What
will their near-term economic security be? And what can they expect for
their families and for the communities within which they live,
especially at this time of year? A lot of families are not just
preparing for the new year and what will happen, they are also trying
to make decisions about spending, about holiday shopping, about
investments, about priorities in which they have to invest in their own
lives.
We know from some of the data, when it comes to debating what will
happen to middle-income families and their tax rates, the positive side
of extending those tax rates for middle-income families. We also know
the downside of not getting that work done, not extending them.
Just to give two examples, the Congressional Budget Office says
extending the tax rates for the middle-class would boost gross domestic
product by 1.3 percent and would increase jobs by 1.6 million. So those
are two very positive impacts if we can get the agreement, which I
think we can arrive at working with Democrats and Republicans to do
this, to extend the tax rates for middle-income families. So GDP up by
1.3 percent if we get the work done to extend those middle-class tax
cuts, and increasing the number of jobs by 1.6 million.
Another way to look at this is from the negative side of it as well,
the consequences of not getting this work done to extend middle-income
tax rates.
Mark Zandi, an economist who is widely quoted across the country and
[[Page S6920]]
by many of my colleagues in the Senate--I am not quoting, but this is a
summary--says that the economic impact of ending these tax cuts, not
getting an agreement, would reduce gross domestic product by $174
billion.
We do not want to do that. That would be a very bad result for
everyone. So whether we read the CBO numbers or we talk to economists
or read about their assessments or we talk to CEOs, they all agree we
have to deal with both the tax rate question for middle-income families
as well as making sure we are avoiding the across-the-board cuts, which
I will get to in a moment.
So there is much to do to solve our year-end challenge, and we
certainly have more challenges in 2013. But it is basically about
getting our fiscal house in order. Part of that is spending cuts, part
of that is getting more revenue, and, as well, even as we are getting
our fiscal house in order, dealing with various tax challenges along
the way.
We should point out that there has been a lot of progress made. I
will just give two examples of that. We know when the national job
numbers were announced in October, part of the reporting that was done
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was that we had an October number,
but then we had a September and an August number that was revised
upward, thank goodness. When we combine the August, September, and
October job growth numbers, it means in those 3 months we created more
than 500,000 jobs across the country. I should say the economy created
500,000 jobs. The exact number is about 511,000 jobs. So that is a
measure of progress.
I was just looking at some housing assessments. We are releasing a
report or a summary of some data this week in the Joint Economic
Committee.
Just to give you two examples on housing progress: The number of
privately owned housing units that were started last month increased by
31,000 units to 894,000 units at an annual rate. What that means is it
is up about 3.6 percent. That is good news, maybe even better news
because we want to get the assessment of people in the trenches. One
bit of good news on housing is that confidence among homebuilders rose
again in November. That will also be part of that report.
So it is an increase in jobs the last couple months, more economic
growth, more progress, more momentum and good information or good news
on housing. The problem is it is not good enough. We are not creating
jobs fast enough. The pace of the recovery needs to accelerate. It is
not moving fast enough for us to fully recover. I like to say and many
have used this analogy: We have been in a ditch. We have been down in a
pretty deep hole. We have been climbing out the last couple years, but
we are not out yet fully. We will be out and have a full recovery when
we see those job numbers increase.
So these decisions we make on tax policy, on the end-of-the-year
agreements we have to reach, are vitally important to continue that
progress, and, in fact, to move or accelerate the job growth numbers
even faster.
As I mentioned before, part of this is not just about tax rates, it
is also about reducing spending. Fortunately, there is a track record.
Despite all the rancor and partisanship in Washington, there is also
another story of bipartisan progress that was made over the last couple
years by agreeing to spending cuts.
We agreed to a little less than $1 trillion of spending cuts over the
next 10 years. So it shows we can come together. The main point I
started with is on middle-income families. We need to give middle-class
Americans certainty by the end of the year. Frankly, we should do it
even before the end of the year. We should do it in the next couple
days or weeks. We can do that by saying to our friends in the other
body, the House of Representatives: Pass the bill we passed in the
Senate which gives tax certainty, a continuation of tax breaks to 98
percent of taxpayers.
We should do that because it will provide some certainty for the end
of the year and for going into next year. I have an additional point to
make about that as it relates to the payroll tax cut. We came together
last year, late 2011 into 2012, as we had done a year earlier, to cut
the payroll tax, to reduce that tax so most workers, most families in
this country would have about $1,000 extra to put in their pockets,
more take-home pay that they could spend on their priorities and invest
in the priorities of their own families, whether it is making a
purchase for that family, whether it is paying for education, whether
it is just getting from point A to point B, putting gas in the car.
Whatever it is that family decides to use those extra dollars for, it
has had an enormously positive impact--122 million households were
positively impacted by that payroll tax cut.
What it means in terms of jobs--about 400,000 jobs created. So one of
the reasons we can say we are making progress in developing some
momentum behind the job creation numbers is because of the payroll tax
cut that was put in place in 2012. We know the kind of progress we are
making, the kind of certainty we want for middle-income families can be
badly undermined if we do not get an agreement not only on tax rates
but also on this across-the-board indiscriminate cut that would take
place if we do not have a bipartisan agreement.
This is known by that fancy term ``sequester'' or the other term
``sequestration.'' What that means, and I am not sure many people heard
that terminology before a year or two ago--but what that means is
across-the-board cutting. Some people say: That sometimes makes sense.
In my family, in my business or when we have to make a decision,
sometimes we have to cut spending across the board.
Unfortunately, if we do not make cuts that help our economy grow, we
will badly injure our ability to grow the economy in the near term and
in the future. So we all agree cuts have to be made. The question is,
How do we do that? Do we make cuts that are smart and that help us grow
or do we make cuts that are indiscriminate, without any kind of a
strategy behind them?
Fortunately, I think there is agreement that across-the-board cuts,
whether they are defense cuts which will impact jobs or whether they
are nondefense cuts which will also impact the economy, do not make a
lot of sense. It does not make sense to say all cuts are equal;
therefore, medical research should be cut in the same way an
inefficient program should be cut. That does not make sense. I think
most Americans understand that.
We have to get an agreement to avoid those automatic cuts. I think we
can. I think Democrats and Republicans agree it would be the wrong
approach to allow that to happen. I think we can get agreement on that.
What we need is a balance. Just as when any family has to make a
decision about their own budget or about their own spending priorities,
they need a balance. Obviously, the balance is two parts; one is
revenue and one is spending. So we need to get that balance in place.
We also need, in order to achieve that kind of balance, Democrats and
Republicans to be willing to work together--compromising, not getting
everything you want but getting enough of an agreement that we can move
the country forward.
Despite all the problems, I have a high degree of confidence we can
get an agreement. Folks will come together and compromise. Part of that
starts with putting in place an agreement, which is already one element
to the compromise. That is not just voting on but having the agreement
that says: Let's have certainty right now for middle-income families.
Everyone agrees, with very limited exception, that we should extend
tax rates--keep the tax rates the same for about 98 percent of the
American people. There is broad agreement on that. Some on the other
side do not want to have a conclusion to that because they want to have
a debate about what happens to the wealthiest among us, the very top
income earners, roughly about 2 percent of income earners.
But look, we have agreement on the other 98 percent. So what I would
say is whatever it takes to give meaning or integrity to the vote we
had in the Senate to get an agreement here but also encourage the House
to vote to say: Let's give middle-income families the certainty
they deserve, let's just say we are going to agree, Democrats and
Republicans, that 98 percent of taxpayers across the country are going
to have their tax rates continue.
Then we can have a big debate after that about what happens to the
[[Page S6921]]
wealthiest among us. I think it makes sense, at a time of high deficits
and a debt problem that will confront us for years, that we have some
part of that revenue come from the wealthiest among us. People across
the aisle might disagree with that. We can have a big debate about
that. But let's put in place, in law, the kind of certainty middle-
income families should have. I think we can do that. So let's get in
place an agreement for the 98 percent, and then we will have a big
debate about the wealthiest 2 percent. Let's get in place tax rates
that will allow us to do that.
I think a little history is instructive. We know that in the 1990s
and the 2000s, we know there is, according to the data, no relationship
between lower marginal rates for the wealthiest among us and faster
accelerated economic growth. I emphasize no relationship because I
think some have made the case.
Two examples. During the Clinton administration, to address the
growing budget deficit at the time, which was not as severe as today,
but it was a pretty substantial deficit, the top marginal tax rate was
raised. It went up on the wealthiest individuals. The economy grew at
the fastest rate in a generation and more than 22,000 jobs were added.
So that is what happened during President Clinton's two terms in
office. During the following 8 years, the top marginal rate was
lowered--not raised but lowered--for the wealthiest individuals. The
economy never regained the strength of the previous decade, the 1990s.
Job growth slowed and wages stagnated, leaving middle-income families
especially vulnerable when the great recession began toward the end of
2007.
That is some of the history. That is part of the foundation or
undergirding for the debate we are going to have on tax rates. This is
not a lot of theory or a lot of maybes. We have data and information
and kind of a track record trying it two different ways, the way we
tried this under President Clinton and the way we tried it under the
next administration. I think that is instructive.
Finally, I would say that for all the challenges we have, for all the
disagreements we have, I think most people in the Senate, no matter who
they are--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--whether they were
running for office this year or not, all heard the same message. They
all heard maybe two basic messages from people. At least that is what I
heard in Pennsylvania, all across the State, for longer than 2012 but
certainly most fervently with a sense of urgency this year.
Here is what I heard, a two-part message: Do something to create jobs
or do more to create jobs, move the economy faster. No question, I
heard that over and over. Soon thereafter, within seconds of saying
that, families or taxpayers whom I ran into across the State would say
to me: You have to work together with people in the other party to get
this done.
You know why they say that. That is not some unreal expectation that
the American people have of us. It makes a lot of sense. Because in
every family out there, whether it is in Pennsylvania or across the
country, in every business, small business or larger business, in every
one of those circumstances, in a family or in a business, those
individuals have had to sit down over the last couple years especially,
work out differences, set priorities, set goals, reduce spending
sometimes, make investments they knew they needed to make to grow their
business or to create more economic certainty for their family.
They have had to do that. All they are saying to us is just take a
lesson from the life of a lot of families in America. Sit down, set
priorities, work on coming together, and get an agreement. I think we
can do that. Despite all the differences, I think both parties
understand the urgency of those questions, whether it is the tax rates,
whether it is across-the-board spending cuts, which would be
indiscriminate and harmful, whether it is what we do about individual
programs, what we do in the near term to reduce deficit and debt.
We have to come together, as families have to come together, and make
agreements with people whom we are sometimes disagreeing with or not
getting along with every day of the week and make decisions that
businesses have to make almost every day of the week or at least every
month on their spending, on their priorities and on their investments.
I think we can do that. I know we have to do that.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________