Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 99 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 99 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5628-S5640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I sat here patiently and listened to
the majority leader's speech, and I hope he will do me the courtesy to
listen to mine, since this is a very important day in the history of
the Senate. I want to make a couple of observations, which I hope my
friend the majority leader will listen to.
First, he is trying to justify in advance what would be a very clear
failure to honor his very clear commitment not to break the rules of
the Senate. What he is referring to are his own statements, not mine,
regarding extraordinary circumstances. He said that, not me. In other
words, to justify breaking his clear commitments not to break the rules
of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate, he is
attributing to me something somebody else said, and that somebody else,
by the way, is him. He is attributing to me something he said.
We need to keep our commitments around here and not break them, and
we need to be honest about quoting people around here. This is about
trying to come up with excuses to break our commitments. What this is
about is manufacturing a pretext for a power grab.
I listened very carefully to what the majority leader had to say.
What he is saying, in effect, is he doesn't want to have any
controversy at all attached to any of the nominees. In other words,
don't ask any questions. Advise and consent means sit down and shut up.
He was complaining about the number of questions the nominee for EPA
Administrator was required to answer.
What he conveniently left out was the chairwoman Senator Boxer
requested 70,000 documents. Why is it OK for the chairwoman to request
70,000 documents and somehow if the ranking member makes a lot of
requests it is some violation of some comity? When the Founders wrote
``advise and consent,'' I don't think they had in mind sit down and
shut up.
It is noteworthy that all of the people he is complaining about got
confirmed. So what he is saying is he doesn't want any debate at all in
connection with Presidential appointments, just sit down, shut up, and
rubberstamp everything, everyone the President sends up here.
On the calendar right now there are 21 nominations--21. There are 148
in committee. We don't control the committees, he does: 148 in
committee, 21 on the calendar. It is pretty obvious Senate Democrats
are gearing up today to make one of the most consequential changes to
the Senate in the history of our Nation.
I want everybody to understand, this is no small matter we are
talking about. I guarantee you it is a decision that if they actually
go through with it, they will live to regret. It is an open secret at
this point that big labor and others on the left are putting a lot of
pressure on the majority leader to change the rules of the Senate and
to do so, as he promised not to do, by breaking the rules of the
Senate. That would violate every protection of the minority rights that
has defined the Senate for as long as anyone can remember.
Let me assure you, this Pandora's box, once opened, will be utilized
again and again by future majorities and it will make the meaningful
consensus-building that has served our Nation so well a relic of the
past.
The short-term issue that has triggered this dangerous and far-
reaching proposal is simple enough. The hard left is so convinced that
every one of the President's nominees should sail through the
confirmation process that they are willing to do permanent irreversible
damage to this institution in order to get their way, and it appears as
if they have convinced the majority leader to do their bidding and
hijack the Senate. They are not interested in checks and balances. They
are not interested in advise and consent. They are not even interested
in what this would mean down the road when Republicans are the ones
making the nominations. They want the power and they want it now. They
do not care about the consequences. The ends justify the means ethos
has been resisted by basically every Senate leader in the past and it
is a clear and unequivocal violation of the public assurances that the
current majority leader made to the entire Senate, his constituents,
and the American people just a few months ago.
What is worse is we got to this point on the basis of an absolute
fairytale, a fairytale. Obviously, the left needed an excuse to justify
such an unprecedented power grab, so they simply made up a story about
Republicans blocking the President's nominees. The majority leader is
entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his facts. The facts
are the facts. Here is the real story. Almost nothing about this tale
so often repeated around here holds up to scrutiny.
The facts are that this President took office and the Senate has
confirmed 1,560 people. The Senate has confirmed every single one of
the Cabinet nominees who has been brought up for a vote--every single
one. The President has gotten nearly three times as many judges
confirmed at this point as President Bush in his Presidency.
Here is the point. What this whole so-called crisis boils down to are
three nominees the President unlawfully appointed--as confirmed by the
courts. A Federal court has held the three nominees were unlawfully
appointed. Two of the three are direct parties to the litigation and
the third one was appointed at exactly the same moment in the exact
same way. One of these nominees has been held up by inaction over at
the White House related to structural reforms that the administration
and even the nominee himself, Mr. Cordray, now say they are willing to
work with us on. The fact is, indisputably, we have been confirming
lawfully nominated folks routinely and consistently: The Energy
Secretary, 97 to 0; the Secretary of the Interior, 87 to 11; the
Secretary of the Treasury, 71 to 26; the Secretary of State, 94 to 3,
just a few days after the Senate got his nomination; the Secretary of
Commerce, 97 to 1; the Secretary of Transportation, 100 to 0; the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 96 to 0; the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare

[[Page S5629]]

and Medicaid Services, 91 to 7; the Chair of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, on a voice vote--in other words, unanimously.
What about the nominees still awaiting confirmation who have not--not
been unlawfully appointed? The Senate is ready to vote on them too.
Regretfully, in my view, frankly, all of them appear ready to have the
votes to be confirmed. I don't necessarily support them, but they have
the votes to be confirmed. Why don't they call them up? The majority
leader determines what the order of business is around here. He could
have scheduled votes if that is what he wanted to happen. Why don't we
have a vote on the Secretary of Labor? What about the Administrator of
EPA? The NLRB nominees who were not unlawfully appointed--there are
some other NLRB nominees who were not unlawfully appointed--why aren't
we voting on them?
As I said, pending the expected negotiations on reforms to the CFPB,
the Senate would likely confirm the chairman to that position as well.
We need to be honest about what is going on around here. The only
crisis is the crisis the Democrats are creating with their threats to
fundamentally change the Senate, something the majority leader said
just a few years ago he would never even consider. Here is why he said
that: Because going down this road is ``ultimately . . . about removing
the last check in Washington against a complete abuse of power.''
Those are the words the majority leader himself used in describing
the very thing he is now threatening to do--the very thing he is now
threatening to do.
Let me sum up what is going on around here. Senate Democrats are
getting ready to do permanent damage to this body to confirm three
unconstitutionally appointed nominees by a simple majority vote. They
are willing to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the
Senate in order to confirm three nominees that the Federal courts have
said were unlawfully appointed. Every other nomination we are talking
about has either already been confirmed or is on the way to being
confirmed, but they will not call them up. He gets to decide when we
vote. Where are the callups for EPA and Labor and the three NLRB
nominees lawfully appointed?

If this is not a power grab, I don't know what a power grab looks
like. The President appoints three people unconstitutionally, the
second highest court in the land confirms they were unlawfully
appointed, and Senate Democrats want to break the rules of the Senate
to confirm them. This is not the story we just heard from the majority
leader, but this is a fact.
The entire phony crisis--absolutely phony, manufactured crisis--boils
down to three unlawfully appointed nominees. The Democrats say we are
holding up the others. It is not true. He gets to schedule the votes.
Where are they? Bring them up. The truth is, if there is anyone to
blame for holding up things in the Senate it is the Democratic
majority. They are the ones blocking nearly 30 fast-track nominations,
many of whom Republicans have already agreed to confirm unanimously.
They are the ones, the Democrats, who have yet to schedule votes on
McCarthy and Perez, despite the fact that both of these highly
controversial nominees already have enough votes to clear the 60-vote
hurdle.
I do not like the facts, frankly, and I am not going to be voting for
either of these nominees. Tom Perez in particular is a far left
ideologue whose record of bending the rules to achieve his ends is
deeply concerning to me and just one of the reasons I plan to vote
against him. But to pretend the power to confirm these folks lies in
the hands of anyone but the majority leader is totally disingenuous.
The White House knows what I have just said. I have told them. The
majority leader would know it too if he spent a little more time
working with his colleagues in a collegial way and a little less time
trying to undermine and marginalize people.
The real reason, as I said, is that the far left and big labor are
leaning hard on Democrats to go nuclear. Go nuclear--they love the
sound. The majority leader is about to sacrifice his reputation and
this institution to go along with it because what they truly want is
for the Senate to ratify the President's unconstitutional decision to
illegally appoint nominees to the NLRB and the CFPB without the input
of the Senate. They know they cannot get that done under current rules.
They know time is not on their side. The second highest court in the
land ruled unanimously that President Obama had no power to do what he
did. Another court has since concurred. Now the Supreme Court is set to
hear the case in just a few months. They obviously thought it was
important enough to be dealt with at the highest Court in the land.
This is not a fight over nominees at all. It is a fight over these
illegal, unconstitutionally appointed nominees. It is laughable to
think Democrats would ever agree to such a thing if we were talking
about a Republican President's unlawful nominees--laughable.
It is equally irrational to think we would go along with this. In
fact, no Senator, regardless of party, should ever consider ceding our
constitutional duties in such a way.
I advised the Romney team before the election that if he won and I
was ever elected majority leader, I would defend the Senate first in
these battles. I would defend this institution against a Republican
President trying to abuse it. That is a precedent set by majority
leaders, such as Robert Byrd, who revered this institution because they
knew what it was to be in both the majority and the minority. It is
what the best leaders of the Senate have always done. It is absolutely
tragic to think these days may be over.
Here are the battle lines. On one side are people who think the
President should have the power to unconstitutionally ignore Congress
and their constituents. Those are people who believe in it so firmly
that they are willing to irreparably damage the Senate to ensure they
get their way. They are willing to do something the majority leader
himself said would contribute to the ruination of the country. I am not
making up his quotes; that is what he said.

On the other side are the folks in my conference, and even some
Democrats, with the courage to speak up against this power grab. We are
the folks who believe deeply that a President of any party should work
within the bounds of the Constitution, and that Senators of both
parties should fulfill their own constitutional obligations to
thoroughly vet nominees. We also believe in giving those nominees a
fair hearing. If you look at the facts, you will see we have already
been doing that.
As Senator Alexander noted, no majority leader wants written on his
tombstone that he presided over the end of the Senate. Well, if this
majority leader caves to the fringes and lets this happen, I am afraid
that is exactly what they will write. In the majority leader's own
words: Breaking the rules to change the rules is un-American. Those are
his words, not mine.
I hope the majority leader thinks about his legacy, the future of his
party and, most importantly, the future of our country before he acts.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I assume the words ``I agree'' are words
that mean something. We had a colloquy on the floor, and at that time
he said he wouldn't do anything extraordinarily--he said that, and I
said I agree.
I would like to talk about a few other things. Here is a direct quote
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said a few years ago: The Senate
has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate. The first
Senate adopted its rules by a majority vote which specifically provided
a means to end debate instantly by a simple majority vote.
This was the first Senate at the beginning of our country, and that
was so we would have the ability to move the previous question and end
debate. This is not the first time a minority of Senators has upset a
Senate tradition or practice. The current Senate majority intends to do
what the majority of the Senate has often done: Use its constitutional
authority under Article I, Section 5 to reform Senate procedure by a
simple majority vote. That is what Senator McConnell said.
The interesting thing here is my friend talks as if: Gee, this has
never been done before. But the fact is it has been done many times.
Since 1977, it

[[Page S5630]]

has been done 18 times--about twice every year. I think that is pretty
interesting. It has happened 18 times just since 1977: December 12,
1979; November 9, 1979; March 5, 1980; June 11, 1980; June 10, 1980;
another time in 1980; 1986, 1985, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1999, 2000,
2011. Those are the times the rules have been changed, overruling
precedence--as my friend Senator McConnell said--with a majority vote.
It is also important to note that, without getting into a lot of
legal jargon, the Constitution gives the nomination power to the
President. The Constitution does not provide for a supermajority of the
Senate to provide its advice and consent. The Drafters of the
Constitution knew how to provide for supermajorities when they wanted
to. The very same clause in the Constitution that gives the President
the appointment power--the clause from which I just quoted--also
provides for consortium of treaties, which is two-thirds. Same
paragraph. Legislation and other things require a simple majority.
My friend the Republican leader has made my point. He talks about all
the votes--97-0, 100-0, 98-0. That is the whole point. It takes months
and months and sometimes years to get to where we can vote. They stall
everything they can, and they have done that. That is the whole point.
It was supposed to only be under extraordinary circumstances, and I
went into some detail to explain that. Is this extraordinary
circumstances? Of course not.
He talks about Richard Cordray and how they just want a little tweak
in the law. Here is the tweak in the law they wanted: Dodd-Frank knew
we would have trouble with the appropriations process because the
Republicans don't let us do much appropriating at all. So in the wisdom
of the people who drafted Dodd-Frank, they said: We are going to make
sure the position that Cordray is talking about always has the
resources to do what they want to do. So they did something unique and
said the money will come from the Federal Reserve. The little tweak the
Republicans want to do is to switch that and give it to the
Appropriations Committees. They won't let us do appropriation bills.
That is like giving us nothing.
My friend went into great detail about the NLRB. For the entire
history of this country, the President has had the power to recess-
appoint people. The Republicans have found a gimmick here that now they
are saying--no one has raised any objection about the qualifications of
the people the D.C. Circuit said shouldn't be sitting there. No one
raised anything about their qualifications. If there were an effort to
avoid what is going on around here, they should approve these people.
The other Alice-in-Wonderland statement made by my friend is: The
majority leader can set votes whenever he wants. Oh, don't I wish.
Stall and obstruct is what we have around here. It is very hard to
schedule votes. As has been indicated by me a few minutes ago, we wait
and we wait, and finally we get a vote after months and months--and I
indicated sometimes years--and then it is a big and overwhelmingly
positive vote. Yes, because there is nothing wrong with the person to
begin with.
As I said early on: He makes my case. There isn't a single word that
has been said here today about the qualifications of the three people
who are seeking to go on the NLRB--or the two Republicans. He has not
produced any facts to question their abilities. He just argues that the
President's timing was not quite right.
I think everyone realizes that when you are trying to get somebody
confirmed, such as Richard Cordray, and you are waiting 725 days, maybe
that is a little too long.
Listen to this biggy here: The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics--that may sound like
a big fancy word, but that is an extremely important position in the
Secretary of Defense's office--has been waiting 300 days. The Governor
for the International Monetary Fund, Jack Lew, our present Secretary of
Treasury, has been waiting 169 days. It is now probably 172, I guess,
since this could be old; the EPA, 128 days; Secretary of Labor, 114
days; NLRB, 573 days; the Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, 111 days;
Associate Attorney General, 294 days; Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation--shouldn't we have something going there? Well, they
don't believe in the program so we have been waiting now for 295 days
to even have a vote on that.
Remember, he said I can schedule a vote whenever I want. I wish that
were true.
Member of the Board of Directors for the Tennessee Valley Authority,
292 days; Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
156 days. The average of those few people I mentioned comes to 260
days.
I presented my case. The case is: This is not working. For the
Republicans to come here today and say: Well, that is fine, we will
give you Cordray, all we want you to do is change things so the man
never has any money to do his job doesn't sound like a very good deal
to me. There has been no answer to these periods of times when we
waited and waited, and finally we get somebody approved by an
overwhelming margin. Why? Because all they are doing is stalling.
I used to do a little work in the courts and I would have a jury. I
would appeal to the jury to make a decision. The jury I am appealing to
right now is the American people. They know the Senate as it used to
work. Our approval rating is in the swamps, and we need to do something
to change that. Will this change everything? No. But remember: Since
1977, the rules of the Senate have been changed a couple of times a
year in this body. My friend the Republican leader said previously that
that is okay; that is what the majority could do.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on the issue of delay, there are 148
nominations in committees. The majority leader's party controls the
committees. They can come out at any point. On the calendar of business
on the floor 21 nominees are pending.
The majority leader, I am sure, will remind everybody he always gets
the last word so I am sure he will speak again. But I would remind
everybody of the core point here: He gave his word without equivocation
back in January of this year that we had settled the issue of rules for
the Senate for this Congress. That was in the wake of a bipartisan
agreement to pass two rule changes and to pass two standing orders. So
at the core of this is the majority leader's word to his colleagues and
the Senate as to what the rules would be for this Congress. He gave his
word, and now he appears to be on the verge of breaking his word.
Secondly, the only nominees--let's make sure we understand this--
likely to have a problem getting cloture are the ones who were
unconstitutionally appointed, according to the Federal Court in the
District of Columbia.
So where we are is the majority leader wants to fundamentally change
the Senate after breaking his word in order to jam through three
nominees the Federal Courts have said were unconstitutionally
appointed. That is where we are.
I think it is a sad day for the Senate. I hope the majority leader
will reconsider what I consider to be a highly irresponsible action on
his part.
Is the Senator from Tennessee going to pose a question to me or to
the majority leader?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I will wait until the majority leader finishes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. My friend the Republican leader continues to ignore his
words, that he would process nominations consistent with the norms and
traditions of the Senate. Please. That is just ignored by him? If
anyone thinks since the first of this year that the norms and
traditions of the Senate have been followed by the Republican leader,
they are living in gaga land.
The Republican leader agreed that we should not have filibusters
except in the case of an extraordinary circumstance. He agreed with
that, but he ignores that.
I think it is also worth talking a little bit here about how the
Republican leader complains that people just don't like Congress. Well,
there is a reason for that, and the Republican caucus deserves most of
the blame. The Gallup organization polled Americans last

[[Page S5631]]

month and asked for some of the reasons why people disapprove of
Congress. The two top reasons outdistance all others. They don't like
Congress because of gridlock and not getting anything done. Is that our
fault? No.
Surveying the years that President Obama has been in office, one can
see time after time when Democrats reached out to Republicans to get
things done, and no one can see where they have done that. One can see
that time after time the Republican leader has pressured his colleagues
not to work with us.
There is no reason Congress should be held in such low regard. We
should clear the calendar. They are not going to do that. They are
going to continue this process over the next 3\1/2\ years, badgering,
saying: We are really good. We got this nomination done, and we
approved it 98 to 0--after waiting months.
It is the first time ever in the history of this country that the
Secretary of Defense has been filibustered.
So I appeal to my friends on the other side of the aisle, remember
the words I read from Senator McConnell where he said a simple majority
has the right to do this. And we know that is true.
Mr. WICKER. Would the distinguished majority leader yield for 30
seconds?
Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. WICKER. I would ask the majority leader, in an hour or so
Democrats are going to have lunch with Democrats, and Republicans are
going to go to another room and have lunch with Republicans and talk to
each other about what the other side is doing. This is such a serious
matter. It may be the wise thing to do. I totally disagree. But I think
the majority leader will agree that this is a watershed moment.
Could it be that early next week, just once we could all meet
together, perhaps in the Old Senate Chamber--every Democrat and every
Republican--for a caucus where actually Republicans listen to Democrats
as to what they perceive as the grievances and rank-and-file Democrats
listen to our side?
People are off in classified briefings right now. People are in
committee meetings. People are doing the work of the Senate whether the
public realizes it or not.
We are not listening to each other as rank-and-file Members. I would
implore the leadership of this body, next Tuesday let's clear the Old
Senate Chamber and get every Republican and every Democrat who wants to
be there and actually quit talking past each other and see if there is
a way for us to avoid this pivotal watershed moment in the history of
the Senate.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Mississippi. I
am going to start the process today. I am going to file cloture on a
bunch of nominations, and those votes will occur next week when we
schedule them. I would be happy to see if there is a way I can meet
with a few Senators. I have already done that with a few Republican
Senators, and I am happy to see if there is a way of getting us
together. We had a nice caucus together not long ago led by Senator
McCain, which was really memorable, but I listened to a bunch of them.
I say to my friend, if you are so concerned--and I know you are--
about the process, I think you need to take a look at where you are.
About Cordray, I am so tired of hearing this tweaking: All we need is
to tweak this a little bit and we will let you have it.
I repeat, I say to my friend, that the tweak is to take away his
ability to exist. That is not a tweak; that is further obstruction and
distraction from what a law we have is meant to do.
The NLRB, all the happy-talk I hear here--and I don't say that to
disparage anyone--we will be happy to help you with that, but get rid
of those two people.
No one questions their qualifications.
And I am happy to hear my friend here suddenly so enthused with that
court decision. The court decision doesn't stop us from doing anything.
The court decision is something that says that we can do whatever we
want to do. We are a legislative branch of government. We don't have to
follow what the Supreme Court does.
So without going into any more dialog, I appreciate what my friend
says. I think what he needs to do with his caucus--we are going to have
one today--is take a look at NLRB. There are five of them. We have no
problem with the two Republicans. Let's get that done. Let's get
Cordray done. Let's get the Secretary of Labor, who has waited such a
long time, and we have the Secretary of the EPA.
I say to my friend, I don't know why his caucus has such heartburn
over things dealing with labor. My friend said--I don't know exactly--
leftwing big labor bosses. We have the Secretary of Labor who is being
held up. We have three NLRB people being held up. Let's try to work our
way through that. I would be happy to listen to any way he thinks we
can get through that. If we can't, Tuesday we know what is going to
happen.
Mr. WICKER. Just to understand, is that a yes on trying to get us
together, as Republicans and Democrats, as early as lunch Tuesday to
see if there is some way we can talk about this?
Mr. REID. I am happy to consider that. I have talked to a number of
Republican Senators. One of them called me at home last night. I was
happy to take the call. He said: What happens if cloture is invoked on
the people you put forward? Well, if that happens, I have no
complaints. I would hope everyone would learn from this process.
I think we need to look at what I just said. All you need is six
Republicans to agree to do something about NLRB, to do something about
Cordray without taking away his abilities.
Are there any appropriators here on the floor? I have been away from
the committee for a while. We are not doing much appropriating around
here. I know Senator McConnell and I were on the committee together. I
gave my spot up to Ben Nelson some time ago. I still have seniority
protected there.
So I am happy for the Senator's suggestion. We will take a look at
that. But it is a very simple problem here. We need to get the labor--
and they are not big bosses. But my culinary workers--70,000 of them in
Las Vegas alone--who have problems with management, they want to be
able to gripe to somebody.
Mr. WICKER. Would the distinguished leader yield on simply one
further matter?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. WICKER. Did the majority leader understand, as I did, Leader
McConnell saying just a few moments ago that the Secretary of Labor
nominee is likely to go forward very soon?
Mr. REID. That is what he said.
Mr. WICKER. And that the EPA Administrator is likely to go forward
almost immediately? So we really are down to the three positions where
there has been a U.S. appeals court decision, which arguably could be
viewed as an extraordinary circumstance.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, this is the first time we have dealt
with this. As the Senator knows, Senator McConnell is one of those who
led the charge a number of years ago. I read part of his statement.
It would seem to me that it would be appropriate for folks to
understand what I just said. It doesn't take somebody who has been here
as long as Senator Byrd was.
I would also say this. To say to me now: We are going to do
McCarthy--well, she has only waited 150 days. We are going to do Perez;
we will do him right now. But that is the problem, I say to my friend--
we shouldn't be waiting around here for months and months to get a vote
on one of these nominees. That is the whole issue.
So I appreciate his consideration. I am going to go now to my office
and meet a few people. I am happy to answer any questions while I am
here on the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. First of all, I know there have been a number of
conversations, and I appreciate the majority leader allowing me to talk
with him recently on the phone. And I know we have an issue here. I
would just go back to the question from the Senator from Mississippi.
Last night I was on the phone with numbers of Members of high esteem
in the Senator's caucus, and when I talk with them about this issue,
they have no understanding whatsoever about any background. They just
say: Look, I am frustrated, so I am going to vote for the nuclear
option.

[[Page S5632]]

And I would say, to respond to the Senator from Mississippi, that the
Senator is right. So we have some things that are coming up here
momentarily. It is possible that many of them--maybe all but many of
them--will be resolved. But it seems to me, unless we do the thing the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi just mentioned, there is going
to be a continual gap of knowledge regarding these issues.
So I would just say that I think the majority leader knows I do
everything I can and the senior Senator from Tennessee does everything
he can to try to make this place work. We want to solve our Nation's
problems.
I think if the majority leader will put the actual votes off to at
least Wednesday, there may be some resolve. But I really would please
ask that we have that opportunity the Senator asked for so that really
both sides--we need to understand the other side's grievances more, and
I know very respected Members on the Democratic side need to understand
ours. I think that would be very, very helpful, and I really believe it
would cause the leadership to be far more productive and worthwhile,
and the majority leader could come in every morning smiling the way he
is right now.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, to my friend from Tennessee, from the day he
got here he has tried to follow on the mold set by Senator Alexander.
They are both conciliators. They like to work things out. We haven't
been able to work too many things out, but they try. No one tries
harder than they do.
I just want to say this: We talk about extreme circumstances. That
was the colloquy my friend and I had here on the floor. So to now say
the NLRB is extreme circumstances is like somebody setting a house on
fire and then complaining their house is gone. The extraordinary
circumstances have been created by you guys.
So I say again to my friends here in the Senate that I would be happy
to do a joint meeting with the two caucuses but not to come here and
just throw numbers around. The point is that I want this resolved and I
want it resolved one way or the other. I am through.
Just to remind everyone, for two Congresses--the last one and this
one--I have gone against the wishes of the vast majority of my caucus
not to have done something before. And we did a few things. Most of
them were window dressing that hasn't accomplished much of anything on
the rules that we changed.
So I am happy to have a group of Senators indicate to me how we are
going to get these people I have on the calendar done. This is no
threat. I just think that would be the appropriate thing to do. If we
have something positive to report in a joint meeting without going back
to the same stalling, obstruction--I don't need to go over this list of
people again. Some have been waiting for years to get something done. I
just am not going to continue doing that. We have to have something
more than my friend coming to the floor and saying: I am not going to
do anything unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I think that
has been stomped into the ground. So there is name-calling we need to
stop.
I am happy to go to my caucus today and make my case. I am very
fortunate that I have a pretty good hand on the caucus, and we are
going to go ahead and do what is good for the country. I hope that, as
everyone knows, the vote will be scheduled anytime we want on Tuesday.
Any other questions?

Reservation of Leader Time

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

Order of Business

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes
and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.
The Senator from Tennessee.

Nominations

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his
statement, for the time he has spent.
I was looking at the Executive Calendar. But, first, I have spent
most of this week working on the student loan issue, as the majority
leader knows. And we are coming to an agreement, it looks like, as we
have with a number of other things. But I would like to renew to the
majority leader the suggestion that we all get together next week and
talk this through, as the Senator from Mississippi has suggested. I
think it would be a wise thing to do.
There are other Senators here who wish to speak, so I will try to be
succinct. Let me address just a few of the points the majority leader
made.
One reason I think it would be wise for us to get together as
Democratic and Republican Senators is what he is saying is different
from the way I read the facts, and one of us has to be wrong about
that.
For example, have Republicans used the filibuster to deny President
Obama's nominees a position in government? The answer is a fact. I
invited the Senate Historian and the Congressional Research Service
over to my office. I asked them the question. Here is the answer to the
question: In the history of the Senate, no Supreme Court Justice has
ever been denied his or her seat by a filibuster. There was a little
incident with Justice Fortas that Lyndon Johnson engineered, but that
was different. So in the cases of the Supreme Court, zero.
How many district judges have been denied their seat by filibuster?
The answer is zero.
How many Cabinet members have been denied their seat by a failed
cloture vote filibuster? The answer, according to the Senate Historian
and the Congressional Research Service, is zero.
How many circuit judges have been denied their seat by a filibuster?
The answer is seven. How did that happen? Democrats, for the first time
in history, when President George W. Bush came in, blocked five. And we
said: Well, if you are going to change the precedent, then we will
change the precedent, so we blocked two. That is what happens around
here. But other than that, it is zero.
Then the majority leader said there has been some big delay about
President Obama's nominees. These are not throwing statistics around.
That is either true or it is not true.
Here is what the Washington Post says and the Congressional Research
Service says. The Washington Post, by Al Kamen, on March 18, 2013:
President Obama's second-term Cabinet members are going through the
Senate at a rate that ``beats the averages of the last three
administrations that had second terms.''
President Obama is being better treated in terms of his Cabinet
nominees than the last three Presidents.
I asked the Congressional Research Service the same question. They
said: As of June 27--last month--his nominees were still moving, on
average, from announcement to confirmation, faster than those of
President George W. Bush, faster than those of President Clinton.
Someone in the Democratic caucus needs to hear this. The number of
Cabinet nominees who have been denied a seat by filibuster is zero.
President Obama's Cabinet nominees are moving through the Senate faster
than his last three predecessors. That is important information.
Now, are there a lot of nominees sitting around for too long a period
of time? I have the thing we call the Executive Calendar right here.
Senator McConnell referred to it. I could go through it quickly. I
count 24 people on the calendar. The one who has been on there the
longest was reported by committee on February 26 of this year. That is
a little over 4 months ago.
Let's be very elementary about this. The only way you get on this
calendar is to be reported out of committee. The only way you get out
of committee is for the Democratic majority to vote you on to this
calendar. So we can fill this calendar up any time the Democratic
committee majority wants to.
Of the people here, there is a brigadier general named Long. The
committee has asked that we hold that. There is Jacob Lew to the
International Monetary Fund. Bring him up. Bring him up. He will be
confirmed.
Let's go back to that. The only way you get a name to a vote on the
floor is if the majority leader brings his name to the floor. Jacob Lew
has been

[[Page S5633]]

reported from Committee since April 16. Bring him up.
Here is an Air Force person. Here is Ms. McCarthy from Massachusetts.
She has been reported from the committee. Bring her up. The Republican
leader has said she will get cloture. That means she will be confirmed.
He said the same thing about the nominee for the Department of Labor.
He has been reported since May 16.
Mr. President, I am not a very controversial person. I was held up
for 88 days by an ill-tempered Democratic Senator, for what I thought
was no good reason, relying on article II, section 2 of the
Constitution's right to advise and consent. President Reagan's nominee
for Attorney General Ed Meese was held up for 1 year, and nobody
thought about changing the rules of the Senate because it used its
constitutional authority to advise and consent. Former Senator Rudman
was held up by his home State Senator until Rudman withdrew his name,
and then he ran against that Senator and was elected to the Senate.
The advice and consent responsibility of the Senate has gone on since
the days this country was founded.
If you go down through this list of people, there are only 24 on the
list. He could bring them all up. And 24 is not very many.
Then it reminds me that right after that are the privileged
nominations. What are those? Those are the result of our rules changes
which removed a number of people from Presidential confirmation and
created a whole new category for several hundred executive positions so
they do not go through a more cumbersome process, and that is working
very well.
So zero filibusters denying nominations, Cabinet members going
through the Senate more rapidly than the last three Presidents. So what
is the beef? What is going on? There are only three judges on this
calendar, an embarrassingly small number for us to deal with. We could
clear this calendar in one afternoon. How do we do that? The majority
leader brings them up--except for three who are illegally appointed.
Now, I will not go into a long thing about the three illegally
appointed, except to say they are illegally appointed.
Most of the Founders of this country did not want a king. They
created a system of checks and balances, and they created a Congress,
and they created an ability for us to restrain an imperial Presidency.
That is what this advice and consent is supposed to do, and we should
exercise that, as former Senator Byrd used to say most eloquently on
this floor. It is our opportunity to answer questions. Just because the
majority leader seeks to cut off debate does not mean that person is
being denied confirmation.
I will give you an example: Secretary Hagel. The majority leader
tried to cut off debate 2 days after he came to the floor from the
committee. We said: We want a little more time to consider this. We
will be glad to vote for him for cloture in 10 days. He went ahead with
the cloture vote and called that a filibuster. But Secretary Hagel is
sitting in his spot as Secretary of Defense today.
So you can go down through all of these nominations and really find
no evidence--no evidence whatsoever. So we need a meeting of the two
caucuses to say: What is going on? Why are you seeking to do this?
The last thing I would like to say is, it is appropriate from time to
time in the case of subcabinet members to use the cloture to deny a
seat. That has happened seven times. John Bolton was one that the
Democrats did to President Bush.
As I conclude my remarks, I would like to say this: The majority
leader said: Well, we have changed the rules 18 times.
Never like this. What he is proposing to do is to turn this body into
a place where the majority can do whatever it wants to do. That is like
the House of Representatives--so the majority can do whatever it wants
to do. A freight train can run through the House of Representatives in
1 day, and it could run through here in 1 day if the Majority leader
does this. This year it might be a Democratic freight train. In a year
and a half it might be the tea party express. There are a lot of people
on that side of the aisle who might be very unhappy with the agenda
that 51 people who have creative imaginations on this side of the aisle
could do if they could do anything they wanted to do with 51 votes.
I like to read a lot of history. John Meacham's book about Jefferson
has a conversation between Jefferson and Adams at the beginning of our
country. They were President and Vice President, I guess, at the time.
Jefferson said to Adams he feared for the future of the Republic if it
did not have a Senate. ``[N]o republic could ever last which had not a
Senate. . . . [T]rusting the popular assembly''--that means the House,
that means a majority vote institution--``for the preservation of our
liberties. . . . [is] the merest chimera''--or illusion--
``imaginable.''
One other distinguished public servant said the same thing in his
book in 2007. This is what Harry Reid said in his book when he wrote
about the nuclear option. He was talking about the then-majority leader
Senator Frist. He decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the
filibuster for judicial nominations.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I will be through in just a minute. I ask unanimous
consent to speak for another minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. So the leader said:

Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the Majority Leader,
had decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the
filibuster for judicial nominations.

This is Harry Reid writing.

And once you opened that Pandora's box--

Said Senator Reid--

it was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who
couldn't get his way on something moved to eliminate the
filibuster for regular business as well.

Senator Reid wrote:

And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States
Senate.

I do not want Senator Reid to have written on his tombstone he
presided over the end of the Senate. Yet if he does what he is
threatening to do, that would be what he is remembered for in the
history of this country.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the
majority leader this morning. What he said was confirming nominees
should be the norm, not the exception--confirming nominees should be
the norm, not the exception.
Well, I would ask, respectfully, that the majority leader take a look
at actually the record because you cannot ignore the facts.
Of the 1,564 nominations that President Obama has sent to the Senate,
only 4 have been rejected--4 of 1,564. During the first 2 years of the
President's first term in office--the 111th Congress--the Senate
confirmed 9,020 nominees and rejected 1. In the second portion of that
first term--which was the 112th Congress--the Senate confirmed 574
nominees and rejected just 2. Now, during the 113th Congress, the
Senate has confirmed 66 nominees and rejected just 1.
In terms of Cabinet nominees--and we heard the majority leader speak
of that--the Congressional Research Service shows that President
Obama's nominees have waited an average of 51 days. That is shorter
than for President George W. Bush and shorter than the time under
President Clinton.
When you take a look at judges--and the majority leader talked about
that--the Democrats should remember the Senate has already confirmed
more judges this year so far than were confirmed in the entire first
year of President Bush's second term.
When you go over this item by item, detail by detail, what you see is
that confirming nominees is the norm, not the exception.
It was interesting to listen to the majority leader talk about Don
Berwick, who was actually nominated to be the head of Health and Human
Services, Medicare. As the Medicare nominee, what happened? The
Democratic chairman of the committee never ever scheduled a hearing.
The Democrats are in charge of that nominee. The President made a
recess appointment. There was never even a nomination hearing.
We go through the years and look at the quotes, and here is Senator
Reid in 2005:

[[Page S5634]]

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate
history in the quest for absolute power.

He said:

They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers.

Senator Reid said:

I doubt that that's true.

I think we should all follow that advice. We are not wiser than the
Founding Fathers. It is not time to throw out the rules.
Then, even as majority leader, in 2009, Senator Reid said:

[T]he nuclear option was the most important issue I've ever
worked on in my entire career, because if that had gone
forward it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it.

So there is not a problem with President Obama's nominees being
treated fairly and being treated in a timely fashion. There is not a
problem with his nominees in terms of not being confirmed--1,560
confirmed, 4 rejected.
Senate Democrats should remember--should remember--their prior
commitments and abandon this plan before irreparably damaging the
Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Senate Rules

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this morning a significant debate began
on the floor of the Senate as to how to make the Senate function within
the framework of the Constitution and within the norms and traditions
of the Senate.
Indeed, the Constitution envisioned three coequal branches of
government, and it provided checks and balances. One of those was that
when the President nominates individuals for executive branch
positions, Congress could serve as a check. Specifically, the Senate
was given that power, to review the qualifications and make sure there
was not something outrageous about the nomination, as a check on the
Executive.
This principle was embedded as a simple majority review. Indeed, in
the Constitution, it is in the same paragraph that lays out a
supermajority standard for treaties, but retains a simple majority
standard for reviewing executive branch nominations.
The Senate in recent times has started, however, to use the privilege
of having your say; that is, everyone should be heard before a decision
was made, as a way to change that fundamental principle in the
Constitution from a simple majority to a supermajority. We can't close
debate here in the Senate without a supermajority. Even though no one
has anything else to say, that power has been used to prevent a simple
up-or-down vote.
Under this theory of three coequal branches of government, no one
could envision that a minority of one Chamber of the legislature could,
in fact, completely undermine either the executive branch or the
judicial branch. That certainly was never anticipated. Indeed, the
reason it was left as a simple majority is that our Founding Fathers
who were writing the Constitution had experienced the challenge of what
a supermajority would do. Madison said, regarding the supermajority,
``The fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.''
He said in Federalist Paper No. 22, speaking from the painful
experience as a New York representative to the Congress that created
the Articles of Confederation, that supermajority rule results in
``tedious delays; continual negotiation, and intrigue; contemptible
compromises of the public good.''
Madison was not the only one to observe the deadly nature of
paralysis to a Congress. In Federalist Paper No. 76, Alexander Hamilton
lays out the nomination process in great detail. Indeed, he says he has
kept the nomination power with the President and not the legislative
branch to avoid the ``party likings and dislikes, partialities and
antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who
compose the assembly.''
He then went on to argue the Senate is necessary to vet nominees for
the ``intrinsic merit of the candidate'' and continued, ``the
advancement of the public service.''
Hamilton states that he expects nominees would be rejected only when
there were, and I quote, ``special and strong reasons for the
refusal.''
This principle of oversight to make sure that something that is
outside the bounds of reason is done by the executive branch has now
reached a point of deep abuse.
Our majority leader came to the floor earlier today, and he laid out
the history of how the nomination process has been bent from an
unrecognizable process that neither Madison nor Hamilton nor any of our
other Founders could have envisioned, a process that allows this Senate
to utilize the privilege of having your say on the floor and turn it
into a weapon of destruction against the legislative branch and the
judicial branch.
We can take a look at how long it has taken folks to be able from the
announcements and their waiting time to get a vote, such as Richard
Cordray, 724 days and counting; Alan Estevez, 292 days; Jack Lew, 169;
and so on and so forth.
The traditional norm of the Senate, a timely up-or-down vote with
rare exceptions, is certainly missing today.
The executive branch is headed by the President, who was elected by
the citizens of the United States. In this case President Obama was not
elected once, he was elected twice. He was elected with a vision, and
people expect, the citizens expect, that the President will operate the
Presidency consistent with implementing that vision and carry out the
responsibilities of an executive branch.
This cannot be done if the folks necessary to lead different agencies
or sit on different boards cannot get through the nomination process in
this Senate.
For those who are passionate about believing in the vision we have,
the constitutional vision, the balance of power, the coequal branches
of government, we must act to remedy the deep abuses we are
experiencing today.
Let me first emphasize the extensive delays. Executive nominees who
are ready to be confirmed by the Senate have been pending an average of
258 days, the better balance of a complete year, more than 8 months
since they were first nominated--258 days. This hardly meets the norm
or the tradition of the Senate of timely consideration. This has been a
prime cause of the difficulty filling executive branch slots. Not only
does it make the vacancies extend for a long period of time and,
therefore, dysfunction in executing the responsibilities of government,
but it certainly makes it more difficult to recruit qualified folks who
don't want to be held in limbo and procedurally tortured by a minority
of the Senate in this fashion. This is not new. This did not start this
year, but it keeps getting worse.

In that context, let's go back to January. In January, there were a
series of bipartisan modest changes in the rules, and they were
accompanied by a promise of comity. That is c-o-m-i-t-y, comity.
Specifically, the pledge by the Republican leader was this:

Senate Republicans will continue to work with the majority
to process nominations, consistent with the norms and
traditions of the Senate.

What are those norms and traditions? Those are timely consideration,
up-or-down votes, with rare exception.
Let's take a look and see if what has happened over the last 6 months
is consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate and let's
start first with looking at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Only weeks after the January pledge, 44 Republican Senators sent a
letter that said: ``We will not support the consideration of any
nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director''--
February 1, 2013, just days after the Republican leader pledged a
return to the norms and traditions of the Senate.
This is not within the norms and traditions of the Senate, even going
back to our Founders, who pointed out that they were worried about
partisan, party-affiliated differences and animosities permeating the
system. They laid out a simple nomination-confirmation process about
the qualifications of the individual, not about the legitimacy, if

[[Page S5635]]

you will, of the agency. It is a policy decision. It is a policy that
has been passed in this Senate saying the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau is a valuable addition to end practices that are predatory
financial practices.
We had a consumer safety group that looks at things such as keeping
lead out of the paint on children's toys. That is very important, and
it goes on to monitor the safety of toys and many other aspects.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 10
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. We indeed in this case are talking about an agency that
will protect our families from predatory financial practices. We all
know what those are. They are hidden charges on prepaid credit cards.
They are exploding interest rates on mortgages, where there is a teaser
rate for 2 years and then the mortgage zooms up from 4 percent to 9
percent, driving defaults. In fact, that was a major factor, not only
in the loss of homes of millions of families but also a major factor in
the meltdown of our economy.
What is good for the family, building successful families, is also
good for building a successful economy. We had that debate, and we as a
Senate approved creating this organization. Now we have 44 Senators who
say they are going to destroy this agency by blocking a Director from
ever being appointed. This is 100 percent outside the norms and
tradition of the Senate.
Of course, that restoration of the norms and traditions was the
promise made on this floor by the Republican leader just days before
this letter was sent.
According to the Senate Historian, this is the first time in history
a political party has blocked a nomination of someone because they
didn't like the construction of the agency. Let me repeat that. This is
the first time in history.
A few weeks later we had another first, the first ever filibuster of
a Defense Secretary nominee. The New York Times wrote: ``The first time
in history that the Senate has required that a nominee for Secretary of
Defense clear the 60-vote hurdle.''
This is the first time in history. The irony, of course, is that the
nominee was a former Republican colleague of this Chamber, Chuck Hagel.
Certainly this was out of sync for the norms and traditions of the
Senate.
Then we come to this spring, again, unprecedented delay tactics. A
Republican former House Member called the boycotting of Gina McCarthy
``an unprecedented attempt to slow down the confirmation process and
undermine the agency.''
Is that consistent with the norms and traditions that were promised
in January? It is not.
In fact, I sit on the committee that voted Gina McCarthy out. When we
tried to have the vote, we were faced with the boycott; that is, a
quorum was denied because our colleague, Senator Lautenberg, was
extremely sick and could not attend. Taking advantage of his illness,
Republicans decided not to show up and therefore block that nomination
from coming out of the committee. Only when Senator Lautenberg came in,
in the midst of an extreme illness, did the Republican members attend
the committee. This is part of this ongoing process of unprecedented
obstruction.
Real delays involve real hurt. It is not an academic debate. This
obstruction is having a real impact on people's lives.
Let's turn to the National Labor Relations Board. In a few weeks in
August, there will no longer be a quorum of the NLRB. This means for
the first time in 78 years there will be no referee in place between
the rules for the conduct of employers and employees. That referee
makes sure that illegal practices by workers don't occur and illegal
practices by employers don't occur. We lose that referee in a few weeks
and that, as Members of this Senate have expressed, is their
goal. Again, this is unprecedented--not putting forward a policy debate
over eliminating the National Labor Relations Board but instead
undermining it by blocking the ability to hold up-or-down votes on the
nominees.

Workers are deeply affected by whether this referee is in place.
Kathleen Von Eitzen, a Panera baker who tried to organize her fellow
bakers, came to Washington, DC, to talk about how they have been unable
to get to a final contract and how, in the process, their members have
been cut, in some cases their hours have been cut, and a whole host of
other retaliatory measures. These are the things you need a referee
for--to say that is not acceptable or to judge the evidence as both
sides present it. That is why we need the NLRB.
How about Marcus Hedger, who was fired for taking a friend through
the shop floor. It just so happened Marcus was a union leader in his
shop. He asked permission to escort a friend through the floor and it
was granted. Then the employer said: Aha, we got you. We can fire you
because you know you are not allowed, under the rules, to escort a
friend through the shop floor.
The NLRB ruled quickly, saying this was an extraordinarily flimsy
pretext for firing someone because he happened to be a shop steward,
and it was during the timeframe of a labor negotiation. The company was
trying to send a message. They were trying to say: If you support
workers organizing to fight for living wages, you may get fired, and
here we have just set an example.
It is the NLRB that is the referee that says those sorts of
unacceptable tactics cannot occur.
Back to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It has refunded
Americans $425 million in savings by getting rid of credit card tricks
and traps.
I think it is important we fight for the success of our families.
These are family values. We should not measure the success of our
Nation by the size of the gross domestic product. We should measure it
by the success of our families, and eliminating predatory tactics is an
incredibly important piece of that puzzle that touches millions.
What we have seen is this: The pledge made on this floor by our
Republican leader in January--the pledge that said we will return to
the norms and traditions of the Senate for nominations--has not
occurred. The Republican leader may indeed have had every good will in
making that pledge, but it requires the cooperation of the entire
caucus and that certainly has not occurred and we haven't heard a
strong effort to abide by that pledge made in January.
So it is time to restore the norms and traditions in the Senate,
where the Senate provides a check on outrageous nominations, but it is
a check, not a form of paralysis. It is advise and consent, not
paralyze or veto.
For those who love democracy, it has been sad to see this Chamber,
once considered the premier deliberative body in the world, fall into
such a State of paralysis and dysfunction. It is up to us, as Members
of this body, to come forward and say that is absolutely unacceptable.
That is the debate that was started today. I applaud the majority
leader who in January of 2011 strived to resolve this dysfunction
through a gentleman's agreement, but within weeks that gentleman's
agreement was in tatters. I applaud the majority leader for his
instinct in January when he sought modest bipartisan rule changes with
the promise of comity and a pledge from the Republican leader to return
to the customs and traditions of the Senate. His instinct was right. We
should be able to accomplish these things by restoring the social
contract.
The leader, Harry Reid, has gone the extra mile and then another
extra mile in seeking to adopt the social contract that held this body
together, but now what we see is it has not been reciprocated. The
pledges made, the promise of comity, the gentleman's agreement has not
resulted in material changes in tactics employed on the floor of the
Senate. So now we have to work to restore the vision of our Founders,
the vision of simple majority, with timely up-or-down votes on
nominations. We owe this to the executive branch, and we certainly owe
it to our citizens who reelected President Obama.
I wish to address one last point; that is, it has been argued what
the majority leader is proposing--that we, if necessary, change the
rule or change the application of the rule in order to make this place
work again--is unprecedented.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S5636]]

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. I have in my hands a document entitled ``The Senate's
Power to Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote,'' and this lays out a
whole host of viewpoints expressed in 2005 that I think would be
interesting reading for my colleagues across the aisle because it was
their document.
I also have a long list of cases where every other year, on average,
we have changed the application of a rule in order to make the Senate
function in a different way, a better way. So this is far from
unprecedented.
It is time for us, together as Senators, to live up to our
responsibility and restore the power to the executive branch to put
their folks in place, operating under our advise and consent in the way
envisioned in the Constitution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I come to the floor to
speak about the rules issue that has come to a head in the Senate. We
have seen unprecedented obstruction by the other side of the aisle.
They have continually blocked nominations--and I will get into the
numbers--and this is something that has been building since we came in,
in this Congress. We had a debate about rules, and we didn't do the
things we should have done. We should have put in place a talking
filibuster. There is no doubt about it. We should have put in other
rules changes. What has happened is we find ourselves in the situation
of a tyranny of the minority.
What is a tyranny of the minority? The Founders talked about it. The
Founders saw that if a situation was created where a minority could
block the action of the Senate, then the minority would actually be
governing, and that is the situation we have before us. The minority
governs when it comes to nominees, and they have blocked nominees in a
very significant way. I can't repeat enough that this is unprecedented
in the history of the country.
The President can't get his team. What is at issue is we have a
President of the United States who had a very big win in the last
election. He put himself out there, he campaigned on a number of
issues, and he won the election. So one would think he can now get his
team in place, but he is unable to get his team in place. He tries to
propose people.
For example, in talking about the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, we have a very qualified attorney general--and I was a former
attorney general a few years back--a young man the President put
forward from Ohio who was very well qualified. He has not been able to
get a vote. He is in an agency that is tremendously important to the
middle class, he is in an agency that is important to consumers, and he
is able to do things that are very important for consumers across this
Nation when it comes to bank loans, when it comes to safety issues, and
all across the board. Yet we have a situation where he cannot be sworn
in and do his job as a full-time appointee for that agency. This is
absolutely unprecedented, and we have to tackle this issue.
What is happening with the minority side is, if they do not like a
nominee or they do not like the policies the nominee stands for or they
do not like the administration's policies, they prevent the nominee
from taking office at all. In effect, through the minority process that
is being utilized, they are determining policy.

That is what the big objection is, and I think we are going to have
to address this. I am very supportive of Leader Reid coming out and
saying we have to address this, we have to deal with this, and I think
we are going to deal with it starting today and flowing into the next
week or so.
It was mentioned here recently that the Republican policy committee
put out a document entitled ``The Senate's Power to Make Procedural
Rules by Majority Vote.'' I believe that document was put into the
Record.
Earlier in the debate this document was referred to, and I just want
to make sure everyone understands it is very clear, in reading this
document, that at the time of April 2005 and in that period, the
Republicans were making very strong arguments that we could go forward
with rule changes during the middle of a session. They were pointing
out that Majority Leader Robert Byrd--and we all know Robert Byrd was
one of the Senators in this institution who studied and knew the rules;
most people believe Robert Byrd knew the rules better than any Senator
in the last 100 years--always felt we had the right, under the
constitutional option, to make changes that needed to be made.
In 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987, Majority Leader Byrd established
precedence that changed Senate procedures during the middle of a
Congress, and I think that is what we are talking about, something
along those lines. This is a critical issue for us as we try to move
forward and we try to govern.
The Democrats have a majority and a big majority, if we consider the
Independents who have joined with us, no doubt about it. Yet we cannot
govern because of the procedures being utilized today.
I wish to highlight a little of this unprecedented Republican
obstruction. Executive nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the
Senate have been pending, on average, for 260 days--more than 8 months
since they were first nominated. The Senate confirmed only 34 executive
nominees by the July 4 recess compared to 118 at this point in the Bush
administration. There are 184 pending executive nominees.
Since President Obama took office, Senate Republicans have
filibustered 16 executive nominations and two nominees, including Mr.
Cordray to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, via
filibuster. For the first time ever, Senate Republicans filibustered a
nomination for the Secretary of Defense. As the New York Times noted,
``The vote represented the first time in history that the Senate has
required that a nominee for Secretary of Defense clear the 60-vote
hurdle before a final simple majority vote.''
That is the New York Times.
Senate Republicans continue to block the nomination of Gina McCarthy
to be EPA Administrator, claiming she has been unresponsive. Mrs.
McCarthy was forced to answer more questions than ever before--more
than 1,100 questions--since Senate Republicans boycotted her hearing at
the committee I serve on, the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Mrs. McCarthy was previously environmental adviser to Mitt Romney.
She has very good credentials.
I urge my colleagues to look at what she did in New Mexico. Here you
have Gina McCarthy. There is a potential for a lawsuit. It is an issue
that has to do with air quality in New Mexico. She ended up pulling all
the parties together through her Regional Administrator and reached a
compromise where we closed down two coal-fired plants and opened in
their place two natural gas-fired plants. It was considered by the
Governor, the EPA Regional Administrator, and everybody as a win-win
for everyone, and she engineered that from her position at air quality
there in the EPA.
Another point that should be made about Gina McCarthy is Gina
McCarthy is a woman who has already been approved by the Senate. She
was approved in a lopsided vote and has been doing her job for 4 years.
So what are we doing that they are saying she has to be filibustered,
she has to be stopped because they don't like the policies she is going
to put in place. It is absolutely outrageous what is happening, and we
need to rein this in. I agree Senator Reid is headed in the right
direction to do this.
I applaud Senator Murray for her good work with Senator Reid and the
leadership team in terms of trying to address how we govern and very
much appreciate how she has tried to shape this issue and tries to
always work with the Republicans on this issue. We have tried to work
through these things and haven't been able to.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my
colleague from New Mexico. As a former chief executive myself, it is
remarkable to me that regardless of who is the President of the United
States, he or

[[Page S5637]]

she ought to be able to get their team in place, with appropriate
oversight and review. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the case in
this body.
Many of the other debates we have had are important, but in my 4-plus
years that I have been here, this supersedes everything else that if we
could reach some resolution on, I think might go further than any other
action in both lowering some of the rhetoric and lancing some of the
boil of partisanship in the Senate, as well as doing more for the kind
of job growth that is still so desperately needed. That is getting our
fiscal house in order, getting our balance sheet in order.
We have seen some good news as the economy recovers. We have seen our
annual deficit numbers go down, although I have to look with somewhat
jaundiced eyes when the press is saying: Hallelujah, this year our
deficit may only be $746 billion. That is still not good enough, and
the solution set we are looking for is not that far away.
I am going to make a couple comments and then ask my colleague, the
chair of our Budget Committee, to once again make an offer to proceed
with regular order, something that is in the backstop of this debate
about rules, something our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--
perhaps appropriately--beat us over the head for 3 years about the fact
that we ought to have regular order around the budget.
It has now been 110 days since the Senate approved a budget, after a
marathon session that went to 5 in the morning--a session that I think
even our colleagues on the other side who didn't vote for the budget
would agree was open and appropriate to rules and everybody got the
chance to have their say and offer their ideas.
Now, for the 16th time, we are going to come and ask our colleagues:
Let's abide by regular order and go to a budget conference. Let's do
the hard work that is necessary to make sure we finish the job of
getting the kind of deficit reduction, getting our balance sheet in
order, that will allow this economy to move forward and, quite
honestly, allow us to get back to regular order on issues such as
appropriations bills and a host of other things. I can't speak for
everyone, but people in Virginia and I imagine people in Washington
State--and I see colleagues from New Mexico and Florida--and elsewhere
are saying: What are you doing? Why can't you get something done?
Every day that we remain in this paralyzed state, while it may be
great late-night fodder for comedians about Congress's inability to
act, at some point this dysfunction erodes the underlying confidence
the American people have in our institutions. That is not good for
American democracy, and it is not good as well for the ability of our
economy to recover.
One of the things we have seen in press reports and what is starting
to seep into consciousness is the actions that were set up in
sequestration; that they don't seem to be as bad as people think. But
let's remind ourselves that sequestration was set up to be the
stupidest option possible, an option so stupid that no rational group
of people would ever let it come to pass.
I have cut budgets as Governor. I have cut budgets in business. There
is a smart way and a stupid way to cut a budget. We set up a process
that was so stupid that no rational group would ever let it happen.
One of the reasons why I think our approval rating hovers around 8
percent is we didn't come together, we didn't let this budget process
take place, and we allowed this sequestration to move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the majority has expired.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for a 5-minute extension.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator
from Virginia to finish his statement, for me to have 8 minutes of
morning business, and then allow our colleagues on the other side to
respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I don't have objection to the time they
want to use. What is our order on the time until 12:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 12:30, the Senate will stand in recess.
Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that after they are done with
their remarks, I have 10 minutes. I may have an objection, and probably
will, and would like to speak on that as well. I want to make sure we
could have unanimous consent on that. I don't intend to keep us in
longer than we need to be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Budget Conference

I just want to point out the fact that we are now starting to see
furloughs in the Federal workforce. There is no State in our Nation
that is more ground zero, that is getting hit harder than the
Commonwealth of Virginia with sequestration. There are real people who
are being hurt.
We have talked about some of the numbers, whether it is in Head Start
or NIH grants, but let me share some of the things I have heard in the
last 2 weeks from Virginians.
Pat Hickman, who works at the Department of Defense in northern
Virginia, says: ``I'm tired of hearing, `It's only one day,' and `it's
only 20 percent.' ''
Pat is now starting to decide, because of these 11 days of furlough,
whether she is going to have to start to curtail her contributions to
her Thrift Savings Plan. Her retirement would be in jeopardy.
Another employee whose name didn't come forward said that if you have
kids in school, during the summertime they are in daycare. This Federal
employee spends $2,000 a month for daycare, and they are not getting a
discount on these expenses that are built into their family budget. How
could they have planned 1 year out that they were going to get
furloughed 11 weeks in a row?
Craig Granville, who works down at the shipyard in Portsmouth, says
that furloughing for the next 12 weeks will hit their expenses hard. He
has a wife who is currently going for treatment for an illness and the
insurance company only pays half. They have to decide do they cut back
on the wife's treatment or do they go into their savings.
I have letters and comments from Virginian after Virginian urging
us--begging us--to take off our Democratic and Republican hats and put
the interests of our country first and foremost.
I know we have lots of differences on how we want to approach and
bridge this gap. We are never going to get to bridge the gap in our
differences on the debt and deficit and on the budget unless we can get
to conference and try to work it out.
I say in strong support of our Budget chairman, I thank her for the
great work she has done in getting a budget in a fair way, where our
Republican colleagues had a chance to raise their objections. I hope
and pray we will get to that conference so we can get this issue
resolved.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
There is no one in this body more passionate to do the work to get us
to a balanced bipartisan deal, to put the budget deficit and the budget
issues behind us, and to get our country back on track than the Senator
from Virginia. I know he wants to get to a conference committee as
badly as I do--not to demand that we only have our position but to work
with others to find a bipartisan solution.
As he so eloquently stated, it has been more than 100 days now since
the Senate did pass a budget, and we have tried now 15 times to take
the next step to move to a bipartisan conference with the House. Every
time we have asked, we have been blocked by a tea party Republican with
the support of the Republican leadership.
I understand that for some factions in the Republican Party,
``compromise'' is a dirty word. That may explain why they have offered
up excuse after excuse for blocking the regular budget order we are
trying to work toward. They refuse to allow a conference before we get
to a so-called preconference framework. They demand we put
preconditions on what can be discussed or talked about in a bipartisan
conference, to claiming that moving to a budget conference--which
leading Republicans called for just

[[Page S5638]]

months ago--was somehow now not regular order, to most recently
claiming we need to look at a 30-year budget window before we look at
the major problems we have in front of us right now, when we can--and
must--do both at the same time.
I know there are significant differences between our parties' values
and our priorities. Some of us--Democrats and Republicans--think this
is a reason to come together and try to reach a bipartisan deal in a
budget conference now. It has been heartening to hear from Senators
McCain and Collins and many other Republicans who have chatted with me
about why they believe we need to have a formal bipartisan negotiation
move on this. Unfortunately, there is a small group of Senators who
would prefer to throw up their hands and stall until we reach a crisis,
when they think they can get a better deal.
Last week, I was home in my State, similar to most Senators, and I
talked to a lot of Americans who don't understand that kind of
approach. They run their businesses and help their communities and
support their families by compromising every single day. They can't
afford to wait to reach agreements until the very last minute, because
when that happens, they have to deal with the consequences. But that is
exactly what my Republican colleagues are doing to thousands of my
families in the State of Washington. Because Republicans will not allow
us to come to the table, the automatic cuts from sequestration are
impacting everything from children who depend on Head Start to our
national security. What is more, many of the same colleagues will try
to tell you that sequestration is not impacting American families. As
the Senator from Virginia just talked about, I can tell you firsthand
that the impacts are real.

For thousands of families in my home State, these become a reality
tomorrow morning. That is because furloughs for the Department of
Defense employees begin this week--equivalent to a 20-percent pay cut
for 650,000 defense workers nationwide. Bases in my home State of
Washington are being affected, and the first furlough date at Joint
Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State is tomorrow. So instead of going
to work, thousands of workers in my State will go home. The 9/11 call
center and the fire department will be understaffed. Airfields are
going to be shuttered except for emergencies. The military personnel
office is closed. The substance abuse center is closed. The Army
Medical Center is going to close clinics, and even the Wounded Care
Clinic is going to be understaffed.
I am reminded of one worker I met last week, Will Silba. Will is a
former marine, an amputee. He works now as a fire inspector, and he
told me that because of these furloughs he is going to have to get a
second job. He is going to struggle with his mortgage payments.
While these furloughs are going to directly impact thousands of
people and civilian employees, the leaders at Lewis-McChord have made
it very clear that the furloughs are going to hurt our soldiers. They
are going to limit their access to medical care. They are going to cut
back on the family support programs. They are going to make it tougher
to find a job when they finish their military careers. Why? Because our
colleagues refuse to work together. To me, this is unacceptable.
Because some Republicans would like to preserve the harmful cuts from
sequestration despite these kinds of impacts, we have a $91 billion gap
between the House and the Senate appropriations levels for next year.
If we do not resolve that gap, we are headed for another round of
uncertainty and brinkmanship, another unnecessary burden on our
economic recovery and the millions of Americans who are looking for
work every day. Some of my Republican colleagues say they are fine with
that. In fact, House Republicans are reported, right now, to be busy
working on a debt limit ransom note--right now--and so far that ransom
note sounds quite a lot like the Ryan budget. As you know, the budget
we did pass here in the Senate was very different, but that is exactly
why we have to resolve our differences in conference. That is where we
come together in a public fashion and talk about our differences and
work out agreements.
I believe we have an opportunity, a window of opportunity over the
next few weeks to do what Americans across the country have asked us to
do--compromise and confront these problems before we head back to our
home States for the work period in August. We do not have a lot of
time, but I am confident that if those of us who can see working
together as a responsibility rather than a liability come to the table,
we can get a fair bipartisan agreement.
By the way, I was very discouraged to hear just this week from some
tea party Republicans--many of the same ones who are now blocking us
going to conference--who are already talking now about shutting down
the government in order to defund ObamaCare. Not only do they want to
push us to a crisis, but they want to do that in order to cut off
health care coverage for 25 million people and reopen that doughnut
hole we know so much about, causing seniors to pay more for their
prescriptions, and end preventive care for seniors, and the list goes
on.
This is an absurd position. We should not be talking about shutting
down the government. I really hope responsible Republicans reject this
approach and work with us on real solutions, not more political fights.
My colleagues and I are going to continue urging the Senate Republican
leadership to end their tea party-backed strategy of manufacturing
crises and allow us to do the work we were sent here to do and go to a
conference. I urge them to listen not just to Democrats but to many
Members of their own party who want to get to a budget conference and
allow us to get to work to solve the Nation's problems.

Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 25

Today I come to the floor to ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that
the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the
budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof;
that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to
appointment conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the
authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each
side: the motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to
instruct relative to taxes and revenues; that there be 2 hours of
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior
to a vote in relation to the motions; that no amendments be in order to
either of the motions prior to the votes; and that all the above
occurring with no intervening action or debate.
I ask unanimous consent for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I do not
oppose going to a budget conference with the House. I think I have
shown, especially in the last week, a willingness and ability to
compromise on important issues--one, quite frankly, very unpopular
among people supportive of my candidacy--in my time here in the Senate
when we dealt with the issue of immigration. My concern is that when
this goes to a budget conference with the House, they will negotiate
the debt limit--an issue that I believe is so monumental it should be
debated on its own merits and by itself.
So what I am arguing for is a compromise. Let's go to conference but
assure everyone here that this is not a conference that is going to
deal with the debt limit issue. We need to deal with that issue
separately.
I ask unanimous consent of the Senator on a compromise. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so that it not be
in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes
reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify her request?
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I will object, but let me just say
this. What the Senator is requesting is that we tell our conferees
before they ever get to the conference committee what they can do on a
specific issue. What I offered in my original offer is to have a vote
on that, which is how we do this here. The Senator is requesting not

[[Page S5639]]

that we have a vote but that we have a demand.
I respect the Senator from Florida. He has worked very hard, as he
stated, on immigration reform. He is working now to try to get the
House to pass that. At some point they will go to conference. What he
is saying is that when his bill goes to conference, what he wants to do
is allow any Senator on this floor to make a demand of that conference
committee before they get there--not a vote, not a majority vote, but a
demand from a small minority of what is going to be in that conference.
We cannot agree with that.
What I have offered is a vote on that, which is what we are--a
democracy. You are allowed to vote, and if enough Senators agree with
that position, that is what we would direct the conference to do. But
this body is not built on a demand from one Senator or a small group of
Senators on a conference before we go there. We are a democracy.
So I again object to his request as he said and renew my request,
which will allow a debate and a vote on that issue he is requesting, as
happens in a democracy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification. Is
there objection to the original request?
Mr. RUBIO. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, let me say at the outset on this debt
limit issue that we have been told by everyone here that the debt limit
is not going to be dealt with; they don't intend to deal with it; that,
in fact, we have rules in place that prohibit that from happening. So
if the intent is to say we are not going to deal with the debt limit,
why not just put it in writing? Why not just agree to it? I think it
raises suspicion that they refuse to take the debt limit off the table
in writing in a specific motion, even though they told us that is not
the case.
But I want to raise a couple of points in regard to all this debate
we are having. We heard a lot of debate about the impact of the
sequester on this country. I do not dispute that it will have an
impact. In fact, I voted against the deal that actually gave us the
sequester, and I voted against it because, while I believe deeply we
need to constrain spending because we are spending a lot more money
than we are taking in, about $1 trillion a year more than we are taking
in, borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend in the Federal
Government--for the folks visiting here in the gallery, you may be
shocked to hear that. Every dollar the Federal Government spends, 40
cents of it is borrowed. When you borrow it, that means you have to pay
it back with interest. That is your money. That doesn't come from a
tree. That is money taxpayers are eventually going to have to come up
with. And for the youngsters here, I want you to understand it is
primarily going to come from you in the years to come.
So the reason I thought the sequester was a bad idea is because that
sequester is going after things that by and large are not the drivers
of our debt. The drivers of our debt are certain programs that are
built in a way that are unsustainable, important programs such as
Medicare. I believe in Medicare. I support Medicare, as I tell anyone
when they ask me about it. My mother is on Medicare. I don't want to
see Medicare hurt or changed for her. But I also recognize that if
Medicare is going to exist when I retire, we better start making some
changes to it for future retirees, people 20 or 30 years from now. That
is where we should be focusing our reform efforts.
We cannot get the other side to agree on any sort of changes. There
was an effort in the House last year to try to do something very
serious about that. They brutally attacked it. There was a reference to
the Ryan budget a moment ago. The Ryan budget--I am not saying it was
perfect, but it was the most serious effort yet in this Congress, in
this city, to reform a program that is going bankrupt on its own.
I think the only thing worse than the sequester is to raise taxes to
prevent a sequester because that will hurt job creation in America. The
only thing worse than the sequester is not to have any spending
reductions at all, which leads me to the point that was raised earlier
saying that we are not going to agree to a short-term budget unless
ObamaCare is defunded and that we are threatening a crisis by shutting
down the government.
Let me say that one of the people who said that was me, so let me
address that for a moment. Let me tell you what the disaster is. The
real disaster is ObamaCare itself. In fact, it is such a disaster that
the people who supported it are now delaying implementing portions of
it. Just last week we were told that one of the key components of the
law requiring that employers provide insurance--they are going to have
to delay that by a year, conveniently until after the next election.
Here is the other thing we found out last week. I know that under
ObamaCare, when you go in and say, I make so much money, you can
qualify for the government to give you extra money to buy insurance.
Guess what. They now admitted they have no way of verifying how much
money you really make. Basically, it means people are going to get to
show up and say, I only make $20,000 a year, and get their subsidy,
with no way to verify the truth about what they make.
It is not limited to that. The disaster that is looming with regard
to ObamaCare impacts every single American. Here is a list of them that
was recently produced by the Heritage Foundation. They missed a bunch
of deadlines.

Most states resisted Obamacare's call to create insurance
exchanges, choosing to let Washington create a federally run
exchange instead. However, a Government Accountability Office
report noted that ``critical'' activities to create a federal
exchange have not been completed and the missed deadlines
``suggest a potential for challenges going forward.''

That is right--you may have to go on a Federal exchange--including,
ironically enough, the Members of the Congress and their staffs--and
the exchange doesn't exist yet. You are going to be expected in a
couple of months to sign up for something that doesn't even exist yet.
That is one part of the disaster. There are many others.

The administration announced in April that workers will not
be able to choose plans from different health insurers in the
small business exchanges next year--a delay that [a liberal
blogger] called ``a really bad sign of ObamaCare
incompetence.''

Here is another one, the child-only plans--one of the things people
were excited about. There was a drafting error in the law that actually
led to less access to care for children with preexisting conditions.

A 2011 report found that in 17 states, insurers are no
longer selling child-only health insurance plans, because
they fear that individuals will apply for coverage only after
being diagnosed with costly illnesses.
Basic health plan: DELAYED.
This government-run plan for states, created as part of
ObamaCare, has also been delayed, prompting one Democrat to
criticize the Administration for failing to ``live up'' to
the law and implement it as written.

The early retiree reinsurance--it is broke.

The $5 billion in funding for this program was intended to
last until 2014--but the program's money ran out in 2011, two
years ahead of schedule.

Waivers:

After the law passed, HHS discovered that some of its new
mandates would raise costs so much that employers would drop
coverage rather than face skyrocketing premiums. Instead, the
Administration announced a series of temporary waivers--and
more than half the recipients of those waivers were members
of union health insurance plans.

It goes on and on. This thing is a disaster. I don't care about how
you feel about it, there is an insurance crisis in America, let there
be no doubt. People are struggling to find access to quality health
insurance. We should deal with that, but this approach is a disaster.
No matter how you feel about it, it is a disaster. It cannot be
implemented in time. You don't think that is looming over our economy?
I just left a meeting with an owner of a chain of restaurants. They
are worried about it. They don't know what to make of it. Why, if you
ask what it is going to look like next year, they don't know. They
don't know. We are in July already, folks. We are going to implement
this? We are going to force this on our economy? You don't think that
is a disaster? You don't think in the

[[Page S5640]]

real world--not in Washington or the think tanks--small- and medium-
sized businesses and individuals are holding back on investing or
holding back on making moves? You don't think someone who decided to
leave their job, take their life's savings, and open a business because
they believe so much in their dream--you don't think this uncertainty
is hurting that from happening? It is.

You cannot grow your economy unless people are willing to start new
businesses or grow existing businesses, and ObamaCare is keeping that
from happening. That is the disaster.
Why would we fund a disaster? Why would we pay for something out of
the American taxpayer's wallet we know isn't going to work? When they
talk about shutting down the government and how it is going to be a
disaster--ObamaCare threatens to shut down our economy. I am telling
you this is a disaster. We should not fund it, and we should not have a
temporary budget around here that gives money to this thing. It is a
disaster, it will not work, and it is going to hurt people.
The other thing about this debt limit that I make such a big deal
about--let me tell you why. We owe $17 trillion, and that is bad, and
it is bigger than our economy. Here is the worst part about it: There
is no plan in place to stop that from continuing to grow. You heard
right. There is no plan. This budget the Senate passed--I am glad we
passed a budget--only makes it worse; it doesn't make it better.
Where is the urgency? What are we waiting for? This isn't going to
take care of itself. We are not going to win the Powerball lottery and
pay this thing off. When is someone going to step up and say it is time
to solve it?
I have been here now 2\1/2\ years. If on the day I got elected you
told me we would go 2\1/2\ years without seriously dealing with this, I
wouldn't have believed you. I would have said: Look, I know it is going
to be hard, but we have to do something. We are 2\1/2\ years into this,
and they are saying: We are going to raise the debt limit, and we don't
want any conditions. We don't want to deal with anything that fixes it.
People say: Well, the debt is something that is far off in the
future. It is off in the future, but it is also happening now. Do you
think when people decide to invest money to start a new business or
expand an existing business--which is how you create jobs; that is how
jobs are created in the private sector.
If you graduated college, went to school, got your degree, and now
you can't find a job, I will tell you why you cannot find a job: The
businesses that create those jobs will not create them until all of
this is figured out. People do not want to risk their hard-earned and
saved money in an economy that is headed for a catastrophe.
Look at what is happening in Europe now. Europe has a debt problem.
You know how they have had to deal with it? Disruptive changes in
government and tax increases. If you think that stuff attracts
investment in business, you are out of your mind. There isn't a chamber
of commerce in the world that tells people: Come to us. Here we have
high taxes and heavy debt that will make those taxes even bigger in the
future.
The bottom line is that the debt limit and the fact that we don't
have a solution for the debt is also the reason for the crisis. We need
to begin dealing with this seriously and stop playing games. Someone
has to draw a line in the sand, and I know many of my colleagues and I
intend to do so every chance we get.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold that suggestion.
Mr. RUBIO. Yes.

____________________