[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 9 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S266-S270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THANKING OUR COLLEAGUES
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as I walked to the Capitol, I had not
intended to speak. But when I came in and started listening to Senator
Pryor and Senator Levin, and I listened earlier today to Senator McCain
and now Senator Alexander, it made me want to come to the floor and
thank them for the effort they have made to hopefully make us a better
working body in the next 2 years than we would have been otherwise
preceding this agreement.
When Senator Alexander made the remarks about our predecessor,
Richard Russell, and when he came home to Georgia after a rigorous
debate, an arduous debate, that took place on civil rights, it made me
recognize the appreciation and respect our predecessors had for the
result of the debating process.
As I listened to Senator Pryor, I had a flashback to 2 weeks ago when
a number of us attended the movie ``Lincoln.'' It was a screening of
the movie downstairs, and Steven Spielberg was there. I thought about
those great scenes in the movie ``Lincoln'' where the U.S. Congress
debated slavery and whether we were going to abolish it. We came to a
decision, we had a vote, we debated it, and the abolition of slavery
took place, all because the Congress functioned, all because
politicians took the issues to the floor. They challenged one another.
They worked hard for what they thought was best for the country. I
think tonight when we vote on the changes that will be adopted, we
preserve the interests of the minority. We preserve the best heritage
of this body. We put ourselves in a state where we will debate on the
floor of the Senate and make decisions for the American people, and the
result will be a better country and a better product by the U.S.
Senate.
So I thank, Senator Alexander, Senator Pryor, Senator McCain,
wherever you might be, and Senator Carl Levin, for a job well done.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to share a few comments on the
votes that we are about to take. In particular, I am struck by the
enormous amount of conversation over the last few days over how we make
this body, our beloved Senate, work more effectively in addressing the
big issues facing America.
I think all of us have had the experience of our constituents back
home recognizing that the last 2 years, and many years before, were
ones that we had a particular growing element of paralysis that we had
a responsibility to address. Tonight the Senate is going to be speaking
in a bipartisan fashion and saying this cannot continue in the same
way; that we need to take steps toward having a more functional Senate.
I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone in this Chamber
that I had hoped we would go a little further in addressing the silent
filibuster that has been haunting us in these Halls. But here is the
important thing. The important thing is that this Chamber is speaking
tonight in a bipartisan voice, in a strong voice, saying we must take
steps for this deliberation to work better. I think that message
reverberates with the American people who are looking at the many
challenges we face as a nation and who have been watching through the
courtesy of C-SPAN and seeing that often, when they want us to be
addressing these challenges, we are here in quorum calls.
A substantial amount of that can change, both with the modest steps
we are taking tonight and, hopefully, in the collaboration between the
two parties in the spirit of having a functioning legislature.
I want to thank a number of groups who have worked very hard to bring
to us the importance of making change: the Communications Workers of
America, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Justice, the entire Fix the
Senate Coalition, Daily Coast, Credo, the Progressive Campaign
Committee, and the nearly half million Americans who have signed
petitions to say: Please, Dear Senators, work hard on this. It matters.
I think their voices were heard.
So I extend my appreciation to the leadership on both sides who have
been working so hard to figure out these steps forward, to try to have
a series of tools on the motion to proceed, to figure out how we can
get more effectively to conference committee with the House, how we can
cut down on the number of hours that are often wasted after a cloture
vote on a nomination. So there is significant progress in a number of
areas.
I certainly pledge to my majority leader and to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to remain engaged in this conversation about the
functioning of the Senate. I appreciate the work they have done. I
appreciate the steps we are taking tonight. I also appreciate the
spirit in which many folks are saying: Let's make these things work. We
hope they work. And if they don't get us there, let's return to this
conversation because we do have that
[[Page S267]]
underlying responsibility to the citizens of the Nation to have a
Senate that can act. In the words of the President just outside a few
days ago, it is time to act. He called upon the Nation and he calls
upon us, and we make significant steps in that direction tonight.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about
our efforts to change the Senate rules.
For the second time since I have been in the Senate, the
constitutional option has been crucial. It has pushed this body to
seriously look at changing the way we do business.
This week the majority leader and majority whip declared majority
support for the constitutional option. As a result, the Republican
leader has finally agreed to some Senate rule changes.
As I said more than 3 years ago when I first proposed the
constitutional option, it is time for reform. There are many great
traditions in this Chamber that should be protected and respected. But
the paralyzing abuse of filibusters is not one of them.
Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I introduced a package of reforms that
is fair, that reins in the abuse, and that protects the voice of the
minority.
While I believe our reform package is a much better way to restore
debate and deliberation to the Senate, I appreciate the leadership's
efforts to get a bipartisan agreement. To move forward to reform the
filibuster and reduce Senate gridlock.
I have carefully considered the compromise proposal that Leaders Reid
and McConnell have crafted. I don't believe their proposal does enough
to reform the Senate, but it does show that there is consensus, that
both sides of the aisle recognize that the Senate is broken, that we
must have change.
The leaders' proposal is a step in the right direction. I am most
concerned that it does not eliminate the fundamental cause of Senate
dysfunction--the fact that any Member can halt Senate business without
even showing up on the Senate floor. We shouldn't do away with the
filibuster, but we should demand greater responsibility from senators
who use it.
The majority leader and the Republican leader are telling us that
they will make Senators who object or threaten filibusters come to the
floor and actually debate, using the existing rules. The proof of this
will be over the next 2 years. We will be watching.
I believe we could have achieved more substantive reform by using the
constitutional option to amend the rules with a majority vote. I know
several of my colleagues think this would set a dangerous precedent. I
disagree.
I know that we may serve in the minority at some point in our Senate
careers. Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I have not proposed any rules
changes that we are not willing to live with in the minority.
Senator Harkin made his proposal when he was in the minority. I
served in the minority in the House--which is a lot worse than the
minority around here. So I don't think looking at our rules and
amending them by a majority vote at the beginning of a Congress is
dangerous. On the contrary. It is a healthy exercise to make sure we
can still function as a legislative body.
We started this effort over 3 years ago. We have made progress. But
rules reform is not over. Our work is not complete. We should always
seek to find ways to be a better institution. That is why I believe we
should review and adopt our rules at the beginning of every Congress.
One of the resolutions today is a standing order--it applies for only
this Congress. We will have an opportunity to revisit this in two
years.
I want to close by saying this. Since the beginning of this process,
my actions have been guided by the great respect I have for the
institution of the United States Senate, my reverence for the many
great men and women who have served here, and my sincere affection for
my colleagues.
That remains true today. I want to thank my colleagues for their
consideration of our proposals, for their willingness to listen, and
for their friendship.
And I want to make clear to all those who have supported this
effort--our work will continue. Our cause endures. History has made
clear that substantial reform is more often than not the work of many
Congresses, not just one.
I commit to doing all I can to ensure that the Senate is not a
graveyard for good ideas, that it is once again the world's greatest
deliberative body, and that we have a government that truly responds to
the real needs of the American people.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are facing major changes in how the
Senate operates and even minor changes can have big consequences.
Since the Senator even from the smallest State represents hundreds of
thousands of Americans, any change to how senators are able to
represent their constituents' views is of great importance.
We have heard plenty of talk from the other side of the aisle about
how the Senate's current dysfunction simply boils down to Republican
abuse of the filibuster.
If you are a partisan Democrat and inclined to think the worst of
Republicans, then that explanation may hold water for you.
On the other hand, those who are more fair minded will find
themselves wondering if there isn't more to the story.
A fair analysis of what is wrong with the Senate must look at the
situation from both sides.
From the Republican point of view, the main gripe with how the Senate
has been operating recently is the inability of the minority party to
offer amendments and receive a fair hearing for our ideas.
The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment
regardless of party affiliation.
The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that members of the
minority party have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote by
the Senate, even if those votes don't fit the agenda of the leadership
of the majority party.
Of course, if those amendments don't receive a majority of votes in
the Senate, they cannot be passed.
No one is arguing for some sort of right of a minority of senators to
advance a minority agenda.
However, it is not uncommon for an idea that comes from the minority
party to attract votes from the majority party, even enough to pass.
This can be inconvenient or even embarrassing to the leadership of
the majority party.
Perhaps there is a Republican amendment that would reveal a split
within the Democratic caucus.
Perhaps a Republican might offer an amendment that has broad public
support and it would be hard for certain Democrats to explain to the
people they represent why they voted against it.
What's wrong with taking tough votes and showing the American people
where you stand?
Those who lecture us about majority rule can't have it both ways.
If an amendment gets the votes of 45 Republicans and 6 Democrats,
that is a majority, but that is exactly the scenario the majority
leader has been trying to avoid.
Minority amendments have routinely, systematically been blocked in
recent years in the Senate.
The Majority Leader has consistently used a tactic called ``filling
the tree'' where he offers blocker amendments that block any other
senator from offering their own amendment unless he agrees to set his
blocker amendments aside.
He is able to get in line first to put his blocker amendments in
place because of a tradition that the Majority Leader has priority to
be recognized by the presiding officer.
This doesn't appear anywhere in the Senate rules and it arguably
contrary to the rules.
This so called filling the tree tactic used to be relatively rare,
but it has become routine under this Democratic leadership.
So what are Republicans to do if they have amendments they want to
offer?
We can ask the majority leader to allow us to set aside his blocker
amendments so we can offer an amendment.
His response has been to ask us what amendments we want to offer, and
he will only agree to set aside his blocker amendments if he approves
of the particular Republican amendment.
If there are amendments that he doesn't like, he says ``No.''
Then, with amendments blocked, he makes a motion to bring debate to a
close, or ``cloture''.
When cloture is invoked, it sets up a limited time before a final
vote must take place.
[[Page S268]]
By keeping amendments blocked while running out that clock, the
majority leader can force a final vote on a bill without having to
consider any amendments.
Naturally, under these circumstances, members of the minority party
who wish to offer amendments will vote against the motion to end debate
and force a final vote until they have had an opportunity to have their
amendments considered.
However, when Republicans vote against the majority leader's motion
to end debate, we are accused of ``launching a filibuster''.
Many Americans may be surprised to learn that the Senate rules do not
define what constitutes a filibuster.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a filibuster as ``the use of
extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action
especially in a legislative assembly.''
The fact is, a filibuster can refer to any procedure perceived as
dilatory, which is in the eye of the beholder.
In the case I have described, if Republicans refuse to go along with
the majority leader's attempt to deny Senators the right to offer
amendments, is that an extreme dilatory tactic?
I would say it is a logical response to an assault on our rights.
Republicans can't be expected to vote for the majority leader's
motion to end consideration of a bill before we have had a chance to
offer any amendments.
That brings us to the so called ``talking filibuster'' proposal that
has been mentioned so much on the Senate floor.
Some have proposed that Senators be required to talk non-stop on the
Senate floor or a final vote can be forced, even if there have been no
amendments allowed.
In other words, when the majority leader has amendments blocked, if
Republicans want to defend their basic right to offer amendments, they
would have to go to the floor and debate non-stop.
That doesn't make any sense.
What does non-stop debate have to do with giving up your right to
offer amendments?
Here is where advocates of the so called ``talking filibuster''
confuse the issue.
As I mentioned, a filibuster can refer to any tactic perceived as
dilatory, but when most Americans think of the filibuster, they think
of Jimmy Stewart in the classic film Mr. Smith goes to Washington
standing and talking without stopping for an extended period of time to
delay proceedings and make a point. It just makes sense that if you
want to engage in this type of filibuster, you should have to actually
speak.
Some Senators would have us believe that somewhere along the line the
filibuster was mysteriously transformed so Senators no longer had to
talk on the floor of the Senate, but that is not the case.
The filibuster itself hasn't changed, just what we call a filibuster.
When Democrats complain about Republican filibusters, they aren't
talking about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters.
They are talking about Republicans refusing to vote for the majority
leader's motion to end consideration of bills without the opportunity
for amendments.
Again, the rules and traditions of the Senate dictate that Senators
have a right to offer amendment.
What justification can there be for forcing Senators to speak for
hours on the floor or lose the right to offer amendments?
That would just encourage the majority leader to block amendments
even more and use this new tool to jam legislation through the Senate
without considering alternative views. Such a situation would only make
the underlying problem worse.
This isn't just Republicans saying this.
Listen to what the New York Times said: ``The use of filibusters has
risen since the 1970s, especially when Republicans have been in the
Senate minority. But the most recent spike of Republican filibusters
has coincided with the Democrats' unprecedented moves to limit
amendments on the Senate floor.''
The current majority has moved to cut off debate and amendments on a
measure other than the motion to proceed over 100 times.
This doesn't even tell the whole story because much of the time, the
Senate Majority Leader doesn't have to actually use his amendment
blocking tactic.
He simply informs Republicans that he will block amendments, or
refuses to commit to allow Republican amendments before making the
motion to consider a bill.
Republicans can hardly be expected to vote in favor of taking up a
bill under these conditions.
I should point out that it isn't just members of the minority party
who have been affected by the blocking of amendments.
There have been far fewer opportunities for Democrat Senators to
offer amendments in recent years than used to be the case.
Not all Democrats will agree with every aspect of a bill brought
before the Senate by their own leadership.
Rank and file Democrats might also have ideas to improve a bill that
had not yet been considered before being taken up by the Senate.
Those who claim to want to fix the dysfunction of the Senate but who
focus only on the alleged dilatory tactics by the minority party and
ignore the heavy handed tactics by the current majority party are at
best only addressing half the problem.
Moreover, to the extent any change to the Senate rules strengthens
the ability of the majority to steamroll the minority, partisanship
will only get worse.
The rules of the Senate, which protect the rights of the minority,
force the majority to work with the minority if they want to get things
done.
As a result, the Senate has historically been a more bipartisan place
than the House.
That is a positive feature of the Senate that we should not discard
lightly.
The role the Senate was intended to play by our Founding Fathers is
clear.
I have described before how the Senate, with its longer staggered
terms and other features, was specifically structured to act as a check
on the passions of temporary majorities as represented in the House of
Representatives.
I won't go into detail on that subject again because it is already in
the Congressional Record, but I quoted James Madison, the Father of the
Constitution, at length.
I have heard some select quotes from the Federalist Papers also used
by some on the other side to argue that the Framers of the Constitution
actually favored a more strictly majoritarian system.
One common quote is from Federalist 58, which discusses how only a
simple majority is required for a quorum in the House of
Representatives. Madison explains that this is to prevent a situation
where a minority of Members can halt action by walking out, as happened
with Democrat State legislators during the redistricting fight in 2003
and more recently in Wisconsin during the debate about collective
bargaining for public employees.
In context, I see nothing that would contradict the expressed
concerns elsewhere in the Federalist Papers about tyranny of the
majority.
I have also heard a reference to Federalist 75, which ironically
discusses the supermajority requirement in the Constitution for
ratifying treaties.
The discussion is about whether the supermajority ought to be two-
thirds of Senators present or two-thirds voting, not whether there
ought to be a supermajority requirement.
We can never know what the Framers would have thought of the cloture
rule as it currently exists.
However, we know that the Senate was specifically intended to prevent
the majority from steamrolling the minority.
The fact is, our Constitution is a compromise between a purely
majoritarian system where the rights of the minority are threatened by
what Madison called the ``superior force of an interested and
overbearing majority'' and the system under the Articles of
Confederation where nothing could be done unless it was practically
unanimous.
Our goal should be to return to the tradition of the Senate as a
deliberative body where all Senators have an opportunity to put forward
proposals, and the Senate can work its collective will.
[[Page S269]]
Any reform of the Senate rules must balance the interests of the
majority with the rights of the minority, not tip the balance toward
one or the other.
If we fail to strike that balance, partisanship will only get worse.
That is easier said than done.
I know several Senators put forward proposals that they think are
fair and will fix the Senate.
However, it takes more than assurances that you are willing to live
under the rules you are prepared to impose should you find yourself in
the minority.
You can't say that for sure until you are in that position.
Any serious attempt at a fair approach to the Senate's problems must
involve engaging members of the other party and addressing their
legitimate concerns.
That means that any reform of the Senate rules must restore a full
and open amendment process where individual senators of any party can
offer amendments.
Does the deal before us meet that test?
I am not sure.
The deal the two leaders have struck does include a guarantee of two
amendments for the minority party, presumably picked by the minority
leader.
That at least acknowledges the legitimate concerns on my side of the
aisle about the blocking of amendments.
Two amendments is better than none, which is what we have had in
practice.
It is also better than a unilateral rules changes imposed by the
majority on an unwilling minority.
However, I have described how the right to offer amendments is a
fundamental right of individual Senators representing their respective
States.
There are 45 Republicans in the Senate, not 2.
It is also true that rank and file Democrats have plenty of proposals
they have a right to put forward.
They shouldn't have to ask their leader's permission to do so any
more than Republicans should.
Perhaps knowing that he will have to deal with two Republican
amendments, the majority leader will decide to allow more bills to be
considered under an open amendment process the way they should be. I
hope so.
However, it is also possible that the majority leader will decide
that there is no reason to ever go back to the traditional open
amendment process now that we have this new process that only
guarantees two amendments.
Two amendments could become the new ceiling rather than the floor.
If that is the case, we will have made the Senate more partisan and
more dysfunctional.
It remains to be seen these changes will work in practice and I will
be watching closely.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during my 38 years in the Senate, I have
served with Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, during
Republican administrations and Democratic ones. Whether in the majority
or the minority, whether the chairman or ranking member of a committee,
I have always stood for the protection of the rights of the minority.
Even when the minority has voted differently than I have or opposed
what I have supported, I have defended their rights and held to my
belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out and that
the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans
would do the right thing.
Yet over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have come dangerously
close to changing something central to the character of the Senate and
threatening its ability to do its work for the American people.
As a caucus, instead of trying to work with us on efforts to help the
American people at a time of economic challenges, Senate Republicans
have engaged in an across-the-board procedural barricade. On issue
after issue, from the DISCLOSE Act to efforts to curb massive subsidies
for big oil companies, from the American Jobs Act to the Paycheck
Fairness Act, from legislation to help small businesses to providing
support for our veterans, Senate Republicans have relied on the
unprecedented use of the filibuster to thwart the majority from making
progress. They have long since crossed the line from use of the Senate
rules to abuse of the rules, exploiting them to undermine our ability
to solve national problems.
Filibusters that were once used rarely have now become a common
occurrence, with Senate Republicans raising procedural barriers to even
considering legislation or voting on the kinds of noncontroversial
nominations the Senate once confirmed regularly and quickly by
unanimous consent. The leader has been required to file cloture just to
ensure that the Senate makes any progress at all to address our
national and economic security, and a supermajority of the Senate is
now needed even to force a vote on mundane issues.
That is not how the Senate should work or has worked. The Senate is
built on a tradition of comity, with rules that only function based on
the kind of consent commonly and traditionally given. The rules are not
built to aid and abet Senators using across-the-board filibusters and
obstruction at every turn. The Senate does not function if an entire
caucus takes every opportunity to use obscure procedural loopholes to
stand in the way of a vote because they might disagree with the result.
Without serious steps to curtail these abuses, the approach taken the
last four years by Senate Republicans risks turning the rules of the
Senate into a farce and calls into question the ability of the Senate
to perform its constitutional functions.
In an earlier period of Senate history, when the filibuster was
widely regarded as having become too great an obstacle for long-overdue
reforms--for which there was a wide and general national consensus--I
had the honor of playing a small part as a freshman senator during
Senator Walter Mondale's heroic and successful efforts to lower the
cloture bar from 67 votes to 60 votes. Then, as now, reform came
through arduous, bipartisan negotiation.
I am hopeful that the agreement reached today by the majority leader
and the Republican leader represents that kind of serious step toward
restoring the tradition of the Senate and its ability to work for the
American people. I am hopeful that the Republican Senators who join
today with Senate Democrats follow through on the commitment they are
making to curtail the abuse of Senate rules and practices that have
marked the last four years.
The progress we are making today is a credit to Senator Merkley,
Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others whose efforts to reform the
Senate rules are justified by the abuses we have seen. The diligence
and energy of these reformers provided the impetus for the agreement
reached today by the majority leader and the Republican leader. In my
view the agreement does not go far enough to address abuses, and I wish
it included more of the commonsense proposals put forward by the
reformers to make the Senate run more efficiently. As I did at the
beginning of the last Congress, I support their proposals to put the
burden of maintaining a filibuster on those seeking to obstruct the
Senate, rather than on those seeking to overcome the obstruction.
However, I am willing to accept today's agreement as a meaningful
compromise with concessions by both sides that will have the support of
senators from both parties, rather than the support of only one party.
I will support it because it can be adopted by a supermajority vote
instead of the kind of extended and damaging floor fight over the rules
that would undermine any progress we hope to make. With so many urgent
issues to tackle for the American people, we cannot risk giving
opponents of progress another excuse for inaction.
I am encouraged by the verbal agreement between the majority leader
and the Republican leader to change the practices of how the Senate
handles filibusters. Under this agreement, the bill managers and
leadership would call on Senators who are threatening a filibuster to
come to the floor, which will properly put the burden of a filibuster
on those seeking to obstruct, rather than those seeking to make
progress. The leaders will also press that postcloture debate time be
used for debate and will bring votes to produce a quorum to avoid
delay. These commonsense steps will help build on today's rules changes
to help curtail the abuses we have seen and restore the Senate's
ability to work for the American people.
[[Page S270]]
I also believe the Standing Order that is part of today's agreement
will give the majority leader new tools for overcoming the wholesale
Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominations. As
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have been especially concerned
about the damage being done by Republican obstruction to the Senate's
unique responsibility for ensuring that the judicial branch has the
judges it needs to do its job. Over the last 4 years, Senate
Republicans have abandoned this constitutional responsibility, using
unprecedented filibusters to delay and obstruct President Obama from
appointing to the Federal bench even judicial nominations that have
bipartisan support. As a result of this brand of Republican
obstruction, we begin President Obama's second term with the Judiciary
nearly 20 percent below where it needs to be in terms of judges, and a
prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that
does not serve the interests of the American people.
Senate Republicans have already forced the majority leader to file
cloture on 30 of President Obama's judicial nominations, almost all of
which were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed
overwhelmingly. Yet the Senate rules give the minority the ability to
demand 30 hours of floor time even after a supermajority of the Senate
has voted to end the filibuster of a judicial nomination. This extended
debate time is meant to give the Senate a chance to consider amendments
that are germane to a bill so it serves no purpose for judicial
nominations. Rather, it has been used by Senate Republicans as a threat
to obstruct the Senate for days just to get to a vote on each of these
noncontroversial nominations. Such an approach has made it easier for a
silent minority of Senate Republicans to make the costs too high for
the majority leader to push for votes on nominees and has led directly
to the unnecessary and damaging backlog of judicial nominations we have
seen for years on the Senate calendar.
The agreement reached today has a good chance of curtailing this type
of abuse of the rules in this Congress by reducing this extended debate
time after the end of a filibuster on district court nominations from
30 hours to two hours. I believe this change will increase the ability
of the majority leader to push for votes on district court nominations,
where the threat by Senate Republicans of extended debate time has been
particularly damaging.
Federal district court judges hear cases from litigants across the
country and handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal
courts. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a
Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with
deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their
States best and have been confirmed promptly with that support. Never
before in the 38 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything
like what has happened in the last 4 years, when we have seen district
court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason.
Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non-
partisan positions, needlessly stalling them for months with no
explanation.
Until 2009, Senators deferred to the President and to home State
Senators on district court nominees. During the 8 years that George W.
Bush served as President, only five of his district court nominees
received any opposition on the floor. In just 4 years, Senate
Republicans have voted against 39 of President Obama's district court
nominees, and the majority leader has been forced to file cloture on 20
of them, with many more left to linger month after month without a vote
on the Senate calendar due to the threat by Republicans to require half
a legislative week or more just to confirm one of them. As a result, it
has taken the Senate more than three times as long to vote on President
Obama's district court nominees as it did to vote on President Bush's.
The agreement reached today will blunt the ability of Senate
Republicans to block important legislation and district court
nominations without accountability merely by the threat of burning so
much Senate time. I wish that the proposal also applied to Federal
circuit court or Supreme Court nominations, where the extended
postcloture debate time also serves no purpose. But the progress I
believe we will make as a result of this bipartisan compromise is a
good first step towards helping us reduce the extended backlog of
judicial nominations created by Republican obstruction and should
result in more judges serving the American people.
There is no question that the reforms sought by many Democratic
Senators are justified by the extended and unprecedented abuse of the
Senate rules and practices by Senate Republicans that began when
President Obama took office. However, I hope that by reaching this
bipartisan agreement we build a foundation for restoring the Senate's
ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the
American people. Now the burden is on Senate Republicans to work with
us rather than hide behind an abuse of the rules to block progress.
The American people want Congress to be able to solve national
problems like disaster relief, comprehensive immigration reform, and
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. They want us to
work together on commonsense solutions to reduce gun violence and to
ensure that all Americans have access to a working Federal court
system. I hope that today's bipartisan compromise holds the promise of
getting more done to help the American people. I look forward to
working with those on both sides of the aisle in the coming months.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________