[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6936-S6939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        House and Senate Action

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I just wished to address two things. 
The first is that we are having a continuing discussion about the 
budget of our country and about the taxes of our country and indeed 
about the unfair and often upside down nature of our current Tax Code 
that allows people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay 
a lower tax rate than a family who earns $100,000 a year.
  In the context of that discussion, there is one thing that I think we 
can do right now that would be important and helpful to the vast 
majority of Americans, indeed to 98 percent of American families and 97 
percent of American small businesses; that is, to assure them that 
their taxes are not going to go up on January 1.

[[Page S6937]]

  Assuming we cannot get to a budget agreement before January, then 
automatically all the Bush tax cuts will end. The Senate has actually 
passed a law that will allow those tax cuts to be curtailed, to be 
protected for families who earn $250,000 a year and less. That bill has 
passed the Senate. It is now over at the House awaiting action by the 
House.
  The Republican-controlled House is in a position, anytime the Speaker 
chooses to call up that bill, to pass a guarantee of protection from 
tax increases that will protect 98 percent of American families and 97 
percent of American small businesses. I think they should do that. It 
is simply awaiting their action. There is nothing more we can do in the 
Senate. We have already passed that bill. It is one step away--Speaker 
Boehner allowing it to be called up and having it voted on--from 
becoming law and protecting 98 percent of families and 97 percent of 
small businesses from a tax increase on January 1.
  There is a real likelihood we will have to go beyond January 1 
because so many of our colleagues have sworn that oath to Grover 
Norquist that they will not let taxes go up. He maintains the Bush tax 
cuts should last into eternity and anything above that would be a tax 
increase and violate the pledge.
  So we may have to wait until January 1, until the actual expiration 
of the Bush tax cuts vitiates that baseline and allows Republicans to 
enter into the very same deal they could have before, only now it is a 
tax decrease from the current rate that would presumably not get them 
in trouble with Mr. Norquist versus a tax increase from his--I think at 
this point--illogical and irrational projection of the Bush tax cuts 
into the indefinite future. So I call on our friends in the House of 
Representatives to pass that bill and give the vast majority of 
Americans relief from whatever uncertainty there might be about going 
beyond the January 1 deadline.
  The second issue I wished to address is to respond briefly to my 
friend from Arizona Senator Kyl, who spoke about the filibuster and the 
rules changes that are being discussed in this Chamber. He spoke this 
morning. I had the chance to watch a good part of his remarks on the 
television.
  I wanted to respond in a couple ways. First of all, I have the 
highest regard for Senator Kyl. We worked closely together trying to 
get a cyber security compromise. We worked together years ago on the 
immigration compromise. I have seen him in action on the Senate floor. 
He is very able. When he has reached an agreement with his colleagues, 
he is unshakeable and his word is good. I think very highly of him, 
although we do not agree politically on a great number of issues.
  But I did, in an atmosphere of great respect for him, wish to respond 
in a couple ways. The first is that I believe, at least, that there is 
a difference between what we are considering with this rules change and 
the so-called nuclear option that was threatened were respect to 
judges.
  The reason I think that is the case is that I have read the old 
opinions from previous Presiding Officers in the Senate and Vice 
Presidents in the past who have said that the way the Senate rules work 
is that although we are a continuing body, the way in which the rules 
continue from Senate to Senate is that we are impliedly readopting the 
rules as soon as we take any business under the rules each new session.
  The House behaves differently. The House has new rules each session. 
It is an entirely new reelected body each session. So they have to open 
by creating a new set of rules and adopting them. They do that at the 
beginning of every session. We virtually never do that. The rules 
continue. How is it that the rules continue? The ruling is that that 
continue because they are deemed to continue as soon as the Senate 
takes action under those rules, whatever it is. As soon as they take 
action under those rules at the beginning of a session, those rules are 
then deemed to be back in place, and we do not need to readopt them.
  But that does mean, at the beginning of each session, there is an 
opportunity, under the Constitution, to change the rules by a simple 
parliamentary majority of 51. I do not think that is breaking the rules 
to change the rules. That is part of the rule. That is how the rules 
actually work in the Senate, at least that is my belief and my opinion.
  Given that, I think arguing that this is somehow breaking the rules 
or the same as the nuclear option is not quite accurate. This and the 
nuclear option share the similarity of allowing the Senate to proceed 
with a simple majority. They do share that similarity. But this is 
different because we can only do that one early, first moment, as each 
new Senate comes into session. Some could say that is actually there as 
a safety valve for situations just like this where one party is 
consistently, regularly determinedly abusing a rule, but because the 
other party cannot get to 67 votes, they cannot change or correct the 
rule to restore the Senate to its proper behavior.
  I would note that I think there is virtually nobody in this Chamber 
who thinks the Senate is operating the way the Senate should. We have 
had literally hundreds of filibusters, and they are not the old-
fashioned filibuster people remember from ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington,'' when Senator Jefferson Smith stood at a desk, probably 
about there in their mockup of the Senate floor, and talked himself to 
exhaustion, reading from the Bible, reading from the Constitution. He 
may have even read from the dictionary. I remember there was an old 
reporter up in the press gallery speaking about this. He talked about 
it being one of the great examples of American democracy, one lone 
Senator able to speak until he is exhausted on a point that matters to 
him.

  People may have been frustrated by that kind of filibuster, but there 
was at least a kind of nobility to it. The filibuster of today is very 
different. It is a threat from the minority party to bombard something 
with amendments so it cannot be managed on the floor. It is a threat to 
filibuster, to which the majority leader has to respond by filing 
cloture, and when the majority leader is forced to file cloture, the 
minority gets the benefit. They get 30 hours of debate.
  Of course, as we have seen in the Senate, that 30 hours of debate is 
never used. It just consumes 30 hours of floor time, most of it spent, 
as the distinguished Presiding Officer and I and others who preside in 
the Senate notice, in quorum calls, in endless deadly quorum calls with 
the poor old clerk having to call off the names slowly and quietly in 
the Chamber and nothing going on.
  People who are looking at this on C-SPAN and who dial into the Senate 
very often see that nothing is going on. That nothing going on is 
usually the hallmark of the modern filibuster. It is a colossal waste 
of time. It is intended to be a colossal waste of time. Because if we 
do that hundreds of times, as our minority has, multiply those hundreds 
of filibusters by 30 hours each, and they have ruined thousands of 
hours of Senate floor time.
  That disables this institution, and it puts the majority under 
immense pressure to do the basic business of passing appropriations 
bills, the very simple operations of government. Very often we hear our 
colleagues on the other side criticize that we have not passed those. 
Those are complaints that are made with real crocodile tears because it 
is the consistent, relentless filibuster that puts the Senate in a 
position where it does not have floor time to do that work.
  I think, first of all, that what we are proposing is slightly 
different than the nuclear option, even though it shares that 
characteristic of getting to 51 votes, that it is unique to the rule 
function of the Senate, that it happens just that once, and that one 
could argue it is a safety valve that protects against situations like 
this.
  My second point is this is not a good situation for the Senate. We 
waste immense amounts of time. The filibuster is used constantly. It 
used to be that Senators filibustered bills that they violently 
opposed. Now the minority filibusters everything. How often have we had 
the experience that something is filibustered and we finally break the 
filibuster and when we actually get to the vote on the actual merits of 
the bill, it passes with 95 or 98 Senators supporting it.
  What do we conclude if you filibuster something that 98 percent of 
Senators are going to support when it finally gets to the floor? We can 
only conclude

[[Page S6938]]

that it is being used to obstruct and delay. There is too much of that. 
We have too much business to be done. So I do not think there is 
anybody who can say the Senate is working in a way that it should under 
the present practices. If it takes changing a rule to change those 
practices, I think it will be better for everyone.
  I also wish to point out that nobody is saying there should be an end 
to the filibuster. What we are saying is those who want to filibuster 
should carry the burden of being on the floor expressing their concerns 
and actually doing the filibuster. It is one of the great frustrations 
of those who have to defend against the filibuster that very often the 
members of the minority party do not even have to show up for the vote. 
The rule of the filibuster is that we have to get to 60 votes or it 
fails.
  Whether the vote is 60 to 1 or 60 to 40 does not matter. So we get 
thrown into having to show up and vote on filibusters, and the minority 
party does not even have to be here. We have heard a Senator say: Well, 
you know, you guys, you will be here on Monday because you have this 
vote you have to take. But we do not have to be here, so I am not 
coming back.
  We have had Senators who have actually forced a vote on cloture 
themselves go away when it came time for the vote, go home, and the 
rest of us had to be here to do it at that point. The filibuster is 
just being used to harass colleagues and to create difficulty, and I 
think that is a real problem and that it is worth pressing through it.
  Another concern that Senator Kyl raised is that people's voices would 
be silenced if the majority leader had the authority to go directly to 
a bill without allowing for amendments. Two points on that: First, I, 
for one, am perfectly open to a rule change that provides for some kind 
of an amendment process. As the majority leader said earlier, we have 
our proposal out there, where is yours? If we are going to negotiate, 
make a counterproposal. If the counterproposal contains a requirement 
that certain amendments be considered, a certain number of amendments--
germane amendments, one would hope--I think that is something that a 
great number of Senators on our side would look at with sympathy and, 
perhaps, with approval.
  That is an argument. I don't think it is a sufficient one because I 
do believe we can address that question, every question.
  I would conclude, because I see the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire here, that I think this is an issue we can work out and that 
we can work out together. I think we can make the Senate a better 
place, a place where there is more actual debate and more progress and 
more gets accomplished rather than just this relentless filibuster, 
this filibuster at all times, of all bills, all appointments, over and 
over, nonstop, completely jamming up this body and creating these 
enormous periods of delay while we go through procedural hoops and 
around procedural circles. We should be better than this, and the 
American people deserve better than this.
  I hope this discussion about changing the rules moves us from where 
we are right now--which is just wrong; it just isn't working--to a 
place where we can be a Senate again that requires people who want to 
filibuster to get up on their feet in this Chamber and say what they 
have to say until they are exhausted. So be it. I think that would be 
an improvement on the matters where I would feel strongly enough to 
filibuster, and I am confident that I would be willing to take that 
step in the event we were someday in the minority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes on 
the topic of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today as not just the Member from 
Delaware but also as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
to speak to the topic before us of the convention and whether the 
United States should ratify a convention on the rights of persons with 
disabilities.
  Our country has long been a global leader in recognizing and 
protecting the basic rights, the human rights of all people, including 
those with disabilities, and of working hard to be at the forefront of 
a global movement to improve access to the basic and essential aspects 
of productive daily life for those with disabilities. Today we have the 
opportunity to help extend those rights, the same rights that disabled 
Americans have to other people around the world. If we have that 
opportunity to promote freedom and human rights, why wouldn't we ensure 
these protections that apply to Americans apply to them abroad as well 
and to others, some of the nearly 1 billion fellow citizens of the 
world who live with disabilities.
  This treaty that is before us today was adopted by the United Nations 
in 2006 with 153 nations as signatories and so far 116 as ratifying 
parties. It has been 6 long years that the United States has not joined 
as a ratifying party. This treaty has passed with strong bipartisan 
support through the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote we took back 
in July after hearings, and it is been nearly 6 months since that vote. 
Yet this treaty, sadly, faces opposition on the floor of the Senate.
  This Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was 
negotiated during the Bush administration, and it enjoys strong 
bipartisan support. I am proud to join Senators McCain, Barrasso, 
Moran, Durbin, Harkin, Udall, and many others who have been advocating 
for its passage since March. It would, as has been said, not require 
any changes to U.S. law and would have no impact on our Federal budget. 
It would instead promote U.S. business interests by creating a level 
playing field for U.S. companies by equalizing accessibility 
requirements that foreign businesses must meet, and it would create new 
markets for innovative U.S. businesses with expertise in standards and 
technologies that would help ease the lives of those with disabilities. 
At least as importantly, it would promote access, mobility, and 
inclusion for disabled Americans abroad, especially wounded veterans.
  Last but not least, it would protect the right of families to 
homeschool their children if they choose to do so, a topic on which my 
office received many concerned calls from constituents. We heard 
directly from the Justice Department during our hearing on the Foreign 
Relations Committee on this convention that ratification of this treaty 
will not in any way erode the rights of parents with disabled children 
to educate their children at home if they so choose.
  In short, Mr. President, ratification only benefits the United States 
and protects Americans. The world has long looked to us as a global 
leader, as a moral compass, as a defender of freedom and human rights. 
In my view, we owe a great debt to many who have served in this Chamber 
before us, including, principally among them, Senator Bob Dole, who, 
along with many others, led the initial fight for the ratification of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  The least we can do for people with disabilities all around the world 
is to step to the plate, to ratify this Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities without delay. It is my hope this Senate, in 
a bipartisan way, can come together in the spirit of unity to protect 
dignity and human rights for all.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the ratification of 
this most important treaty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak 
for about 5 minutes on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here to join my colleagues, as I had the great 
pleasure of being in the chair for a while this afternoon to hear some 
of the expression of support for the Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities. It was very eloquent, and it was bipartisan. 
I begin by thanking Senators Kerry and Lugar for their efforts in the 
Foreign Relations Committee to not only pass the treaty in committee 
but to bring it to the Senate floor for this consideration.
  I certainly support ratification of the Disabilities Convention 
because it is

[[Page S6939]]

the right thing to do and because it puts the United States back where 
we belong: as leaders of the international community and defending, 
protecting, and promoting the quality of rights of all people in our 
world, regardless of their situation. From equality and 
nondiscrimination to equal recognition before the law, to access to 
justice, this convention touches on all these issues that Americans 
have long held near and dear to our hearts.
  Ratifying this convention would reaffirm our leadership, leadership 
that was established under the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act 
legislation that this Congress passed in 1990. This was the first of 
its kind, domestic legislation that addressed the barriers faced by 
individuals with disabilities. It sent a message to the world that we 
would support the principles of equal treatment and nondiscrimination 
with respect to those with disabilities.
  I want to recognize Senator Tom Harkin for his leadership in getting 
that legislation passed, and it had strong bipartisan support when it 
was passed back in 1990. That legislation still stands as a model for 
those who want to replicate our commitments and defend the rights of 
the disabled in their countries.
  I have had a personal opportunity to see what a difference the 
Americans with Disabilities Act could make in the lives of people, to 
see the impact this convention could have around the world, because I 
grew up before ADA was passed and my grandmother was disabled. She 
couldn't speak or hear. I remember in those days, when she would come 
to visit us--which wasn't very often because she lived a long way 
away--we didn't have any technology to allow her to watch television or 
to answer the phone, the kind of technology that now is available as 
the result of passing the ADA, technology that I would hope, along with 
the human rights that come with passing this convention, will soon be 
available to people in all parts of the world.
  We in the United States are already the gold standard when it comes 
to defending the rights of the disabled. So why would we not want to 
demonstrate to the world our intention to continue to fight for those 
less fortunate?
  This treaty is not only about ending discrimination against people 
with disabilities around the world, it is also about protecting the 
millions of U.S. citizens who travel or live abroad. Ratification will 
provide the United States with a platform from which we can encourage 
other countries to adopt and implement the convention standards and to 
work to end discrimination against people with disabilities.
  Let me just respond to some of the concerns we have heard, and some 
of these have been addressed already. I want to talk about what the 
treaty does not do.
  It in no way, shape, or form infringes on America's sovereignty as a 
nation. It does absolutely nothing to change American law. The treaty 
doesn't impose any legal obligations on the United States, and these 
facts were confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice during our 
consideration of the measure.
  The convention has overwhelming support from across the political 
spectrum. Over 165 disability organizations support the treaty, as do 
21 major veterans and military service organizations, including the 
VFW, the American Legion, and the Wounded Warrior Project. I can't 
imagine why, at a time when more of our warriors are returning home 
with injuries and disabilities, we would not want to stand in support 
of ensuring their rights and protections at home and around the globe.
  In closing, I want to quote from John Lancaster, who is a disabled 
veteran and the former executive director of the National Council on 
Independent Living, which is one of the oldest disability grassroots 
organizations run by and for people with disabilities. Mr. Lancaster 
testified at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of the 
treaty. I think his message was one of the most powerful, and it is one 
that I hope all of our colleagues will heed in thinking about 
consideration of this treaty.
  At the hearing he said:

       I'm appalled with some of the conversation that has been 
     going on here today.

  He was referring to some of the testimony at that hearing. He said:

       As a veteran and as someone who volunteered, laid my life 
     on the line for freedom, rights, dignity, and now, to have 
     this whole debate that we're not willing . . . to walk the 
     talk in international circles? To step up in a forum where 
     they advocate these things and to say ``We're not afraid to 
     sign this thing?''
       We aspire to what's in this convention. This is what we are 
     about as a nation--including people, giving them freedom, 
     giving them rights, giving them the opportunity to work, to 
     learn, to participate. Isn't that what we're about? Isn't 
     that what we want the rest of the world to be about? Well, if 
     we aren't willing to say this is a good thing and to say it 
     formally, what are we about, really?

  I think Mr. Lancaster put it very powerfully, and I couldn't agree 
more with his assessment. This is exactly what we are about as a 
nation. We should ratify this treaty. We should remind the world why 
defending the rights of the disabled is a principle that should be at 
the heart of every civil society.
  Mr. President, I hope when we get to the vote on this convention we 
will see the required votes to ratify this treaty and send to the 
entire world Mr. Lancaster's message.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________