[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.
____________________