[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S268-S281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1845, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1845) to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Reed) amendment No. 2631, relating to extension
and modification of emergency unemployment compensation
program.
Reid amendment No. 2632 (to amendment No. 2631), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance,
with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2633, to change the
enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2634 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2633) of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2635 (to amendment No. 2634), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Restoring Deliberation
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has made a very
important call to restore the Senate as
[[Page S269]]
the great deliberative body it was intended to be. I would like to
continue to add my voice to that call. In fact, I am going to expand on
some observations I made previously before the Senate, I believe in the
month of December last year.
The Senate is a unique body designed with a very unique purpose in
mind. In the Federalist Paper 62, attributed to the father of the
Constitution James Madison, the unique role of the Senate is explained
this way:
The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the
propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to
the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced
by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious
resolutions.
When Madison talks about ``factious leaders'' and ``intemperate and
pernicious resolutions,'' he basically means what we call partisanship
and the ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislating all too
common these days.
What might come as a shock to anyone who has followed the Senate
lately is the fact that the Senate was specifically designed to check
partisan passions and ensure that Americans of all stripes are fairly
represented through a deliberative process. Clearly, the Senate is not
fulfilling the role the Framers of the Constitution intended, in recent
years.
To find out what went wrong, we first have to examine how the Senate
was supposed to function. About this propensity of legislatures to be
dominated by factious leaders acting intemperately, Madison goes on to
say:
Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and
from proceedings within the United States, as well as from
history of other nations.
Note that in advocating for the creation of a Senate to counter this
negative tendency, Madison references examples from proceedings within
the United States. Many State legislatures in the early days of our
Republic were unicameral, with frequent elections and weak executives.
This led to many instances where a temporary majority faction would
gain control and quickly pass legislation that advantaged the majority
at the expense of the minority.
The Senate has been called the greatest deliberative body in the
world because it was specifically designed to proceed at a measured
pace and to guarantee that the rights of the minority party be
protected.
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate
and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and
private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our
governments are too unstable, that the public good is
disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that
measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of
justice and the rights of the minority party, but by the
superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
What is unique about the Senate is that the rules and traditions
force Senators to work together to prevent Madison's ``overbearing
majority'' from steamrolling the minority party. Because the rules of
the Senate are built around consensus, as opposed to the House of
Representatives where the majority party dominates, it forces Senators
of all parties to listen to each other and to work together. While that
was true most of my time in the Senate, it has changed in recent years.
If anyone wonders why the tone in Washington has become so heated
recently, the loss of the Senate as a deliberative body is certainly a
big factor.
There is an apocryphal story which may or may not be historically
accurate but which certainly depicts how the Senate was intended to
function. The story goes that when Jefferson returned from France,
where he was serving during the Constitutional Convention, he asked
George Washington why the Senate had been created. Washington
supposedly replied by asking Jefferson, ``Why did you pour that tea
into your saucer?''
``To cool it,'' Jefferson said.
Washington responded, ``Even so, we pour legislation into the
senatorial saucer to cool it.''
In the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee sets out the
terms of debate for each bill. If you want to offer an amendment in the
House, you have to go hat in hand to the Rules Committee and ask their
permission. If the House leadership doesn't like your amendment, you
are out of luck.
By contrast, the Senate has a tradition of allowing extensive debate
and amendments by any Senator without prior approval from anybody.
However, that tradition has gone out the window under the current
majority leadership. We have seen an unprecedented abuse of cloture
motions to cut off the deliberative process paired with a tactic called
filling the tree--blocking amendments from being considered. The Senate
majority leader has effectively become a one-man version of the House
Rules Committee, dictating which amendments will be debated and which
ones will never see the light of day. He has done so again on the
unemployment bill currently before this Senate. In fact, he has been
quite unashamed about saying he is not going to allow any amendments.
This strips the ability of individual Senators to effectively represent
their State, regardless of political party. Blocking amendments also
virtually guarantees that any legislation the Senate votes on will be
more partisan in nature, violating the very purpose of the Senate
according to James Madison.
By empowering the majority leader at the expense of individual
Senators, the people of the 50 States lose their voice in the Senate
and party leaders get their way instead. The people of Iowa sent me to
the Senate to represent them, not to simply vote up or down on a purely
partisan agenda dictated by the majority leader.
Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship these days, but
there is no opportunity for individual Senators to work together across
the aisle when legislation is drafted on a partisan basis and
amendments are blocked.
Bipartisanship requires giving individual Senators a voice,
regardless of party. That is the only way to get things done in the
Senate. In the last decade, when I was chairman of the Finance
Committee and Republicans controlled the Senate, we wanted to actually
get things done. In order for that to happen, we knew we had to
accommodate the minority, we had to have patience and humility and
respect for that minority--attributes that do not exist on the other
side anymore. We had some major bipartisan accomplishments, from the
largest tax cut in history to the Medicare prescription drug program,
to numerous trade agreements. Those kinds of major bills do not seem to
happen anymore.
The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment
regardless of party affiliation. Each Senator represents hundreds of
thousands to, in the case of California, 36 million Americans, and each
has an individual right to offer amendments for consideration. The
principle here is not about political parties having their say but duly
elected Senators participating in the legislative process.
Again, as part of our duty to represent the citizens of our
respective States, each Senator has an individual right to offer
amendments. This right cannot be outsourced to party leaders. The
longstanding tradition of the Senate is that Members of the minority
party as well as rank-and-file Members of the majority party have an
opportunity to offer amendments and get votes in the Senate.
The now-routine practice of filling the tree to block amendments has
been a major factor in the destruction of the Senate as a deliberative
body. This is usually combined with filing cloture to cut off further
consideration of a bill, which has occurred to a truly unprecedented
extent. In a deliberative body, debates and amendments are essential,
so cloture should be rare. Abuse of cloture strikes to the very heart
of how the Senate is intended to work.
It is important to note the majority leader has tried to pass off the
cloture motions he has filed, which are attempts by the majority party
to silence the minority party, as nothing but Republican filibusters.
There seems to have been a concerted attempt to confuse cloture motions
with filibusters. But the Washington Post fact checker has caught the
majority leader in this distortion, giving his claim of unprecedented
Republican filibusters two Pinocchios. In fact, a report by the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service called ``Cloture Attempts on
Nominations: Data and Historical Development,'' written by Richard S.
[[Page S270]]
Beth, contains an entire section entitled ``Cloture Motions Do Not
Correspond With Filibusters.''
The abuse of cloture, often combined with the blocking of amendments,
prevents all Senators from doing what they were sent to do--not just
Members of the minority party. It has even gotten worse. Even where the
majority leader has decided he is going to be open to amendments, he
has created out of whole cloth new restrictions to limit Senators'
rights.
First, he normally only opens the amendment process if there is an
agreement to limit amendments. This is usually only a handful or so of
amendments. Then he has magically determined that only germane or
relevant amendments can be considered. Of course, nowhere do the Senate
rules require amendments to be germane, other than postcloture.
Senators elected in the last few years appear to be ignorant of that
fact. We will hear some of my colleagues argue against an amendment
saying it is nongermane or nonrelevant. They have fallen totally for
the majority leader's creative rulemaking, thus giving up one of their
rights as a Senator with which to represent their State.
I cannot count how many nongermane or nonrelevant amendments I had to
allow votes on when I processed bills when Republicans were in charge.
They were usually tough political votes. But we took them because we
wanted to get things done and that is the way the Senate operated. You
do not see that nowadays. The current majority avoids tough votes at
all costs. If you wonder why things do not get done around here in the
Senate, that is one of the reasons they do not get done.
The American people sent us to get the work done and to represent our
constituents and that means voting, not avoiding tough votes. We
sometimes hear this is a question of majority rule versus minority
obstruction. Again, that ignores that each Senator is elected to
represent their State, not simply to be an agent of one of the
political parties. There are policies that have majority support in the
Senate that have been denied a vote. Understand, we have been denied
votes on amendments that even a majority of this Senate supports.
What happened during debate on a budget resolution proves my point.
The special rules of the budget resolution limit debate so it cannot be
filibustered, but it also allows for an unlimited number of amendments.
A Republican amendment to the Senate Budget Committee in support of
repealing the tax on lifesaving medical devices in President Obama's
health care law passed by an overwhelming 79-to-20 vote, with more than
half of the Democrats voting with the Republicans rather than their
party leader.
We also had a Republican amendment in support of the approval of the
Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada, and that passed 62 to
37. Votes such as these that split the Democrats and hand a win to
Republicans are exactly what the majority leader has been trying to
avoid by blocking those very same amendments on legislation. Of course,
that is probably the explanation of why we did not take up a budget
resolution for more than 3 years prior to this year.
Until we put an end to the abuse of cloture and the blocking of
amendments, the Senate cannot function as James Madison and the Framers
of the Constitution intended. We must bring back the Senate as a
deliberative body. Our politics today desperately need the cooling
saucer of the Senate, as George Washington described the Senate to
Jefferson. The action by the majority leader to make it easier to
consider nominations on a purely partisan basis went in the wrong
direction. In the face of bipartisan opposition and with no Republican
votes, the so-called nuclear option established a precedent,
effectively overruling the rules on the books. A better move would be
for the Senate to establish the precedent that filling the tree and
abusing cloture to block a full amendment process is illegitimate.
It is time to restore the Senate so it can fulfill its constitutional
role. Senator McConnell has made a thoughtful and well-reasoned appeal.
I hope my colleagues will listen for the sake of this institution, for
the good of the country as a whole, and out of respect for the Framers
of the Constitution who set up the Senate as a unique deliberative
body.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last week I said on the Senate floor
that serving in the Senate is becoming like being asked to join the
Grand Ole Opry and not being allowed to sing. Here is what I meant by
that. Take last week. The Democratic majority leader from Nevada
brought up unemployment compensation.
How do we help unemployed Americans go to work? I can't think of an
issue more important to our country. All of us have ideas about how to
do this, but he brought up his idea. It hasn't been considered by a
committee. When he put it on the floor, he cut off amendments, he cut
off debate, and he cut off votes.
Soon we will be discussing minimum wage. How to increase family
incomes in America is the foremost issue facing our country. We all
have ideas about that.
We were elected to deal with it. We have been in a long period of
unemployment. We believe the economy is bad for a variety of reasons.
We--on this side--believe a big, wet blanket of rules and regulations
have been increased by the Obama administration. We want to debate
that. We want to talk about it. We don't believe the old idea of a
minimum wage is the solution. We are for maximum new jobs and maximum
job training and learning opportunities so people can get those jobs.
We want the economy to grow. We should be debating that. That is why we
are here. But the Senator from Iowa, my good friend and the
distinguished chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, said, No, we won't hear this in committee. There might be
embarrassing amendments. So, unfortunately, insofar as the way the
Senate functions, this year is beginning just as last year ended, and
Republicans objected to this.
Some of the news outlets wrote down--I read some of the stories this
morning--and they said, After a while, the Senate will begin to debate
internal procedure and process. Sometimes process is important. We have
something called the U.S. Constitution. It is kind of old-fashioned. It
has a lot of process in it. In fact, it has a checks-and-balances
system in it that is envied by the world. There are citizens all over
the world who would like to have a government that functions in the way
ours has for over two centuries. Process can be very important. In this
case, as the Republican leader often says, process and procedure are
substance, because when we are not able to talk about unemployment
compensation, when we are not able to offer our ideas about how to help
unemployed Americans go back to work, that is substance.
That is a central issue facing our country. We think we have better
ideas than the idea the majority leader put on the floor and we would
like to present those ideas on behalf of the people who elected us. We
are not the important ones. We are all political accidents here--all
100 of us. We all know that. We worked pretty hard to get here and we
had some luck to go along with it. What does that give us? Not just a
chance to have our say, but to have a say on behalf of the people of
Tennessee, in my case. They want me to weigh in on the big issues
before our country.
ObamaCare is one of the reasons so many people are unemployed. I am
sure the other side doesn't want to talk about that. I wouldn't if I
voted for it. But I was in a room with the chief executive officer of a
major restaurant company who told me that because of the new costs of
ObamaCare on his large company, they were going to start running their
restaurants with 75 employees instead of 90 employees. That doesn't
sound like more jobs to me; that doesn't sound like help for unemployed
Americans.
This is the forum in which we debate these issues. So I suppose it
might be
[[Page S271]]
embarrassing for our friends on the other side to debate these issues,
but it shouldn't be. If they believe in them, they should want to stand
up and defend the issues, just as strongly as we want to say our point
of view. I suspect there are a good number of my Democratic friends who
have amendments they would like to offer on putting unemployed
Americans to work. They might wonder, How did I ever get to a U.S.
Senate where I can't do that, just as someone might wonder in
Nashville, why did I join the Grand Ole Opry if they won't let me sing?
The majority leader's actions go to the very heart of our government.
It is not about internal procedure, it is not about process. It is
about the major issues facing our country.
Tennesseans didn't send me to Washington to rubberstamp the majority
leader's ideas--not this majority leader or any majority leader.
Tennesseans sent me here to represent them and to advocate their point
of view and to give them a say on ObamaCare, on balancing the budget,
on fixing the deficit, on helping unemployed Americans find jobs, on
dealing with wages, on raising family incomes. That is why I am here.
That is my job. And they expect me to have a chance to have not my say
but their say on the issues that face the American people. By his
actions, the majority leader is destroying the Senate, which was once
described as ``the one touch of authentic genius in the American
political system.''
There is a new book out which I mentioned on the floor the other day.
My guess is it will become the leading history of this body. It is
written by the former Senate Historian, Richard Baker, and the late
Neil MacNeil, who wrote what many consider to be the best history of
the House of Representatives. They say in the book that the genius I
just talked about--``the authentic touch of genius that is the
Senate''--the major reason for that is the opportunity for extended
debate.
They point out, as I think any of us would, that there have been
abuses with the filibuster, more delays than are necessary; that the
Senate doesn't work as well as it should not just over the last few
years but over a long period of time. But the fact is, in this body,
which is virtually unique in the world in requiring that 60 of 100
Members must agree before we cut off debate, that helps forge
consensus. That helps forge consensus, as we did on the student loan
agreement earlier this year. There is a good example of a good debate,
of different opinions on both sides of the aisle, of Democrats and
Republicans working together. When we finally got to 60 or 65, we got a
result with the Republican House of Representatives and the Democratic
President going along with us, and it was a victory for the students of
this country. We cut in half the interest rates they pay and took the
whole argument out of a political football.
The Senate was created for three reasons. The first is to encourage
and forge consensus. We govern a complex society with consensus, not
with ramrodding partisan ideas through one body or the other. We have a
body for that; it is called the House of Representatives. Win it by one
vote--the Rules Committee has two times as many members of the majority
as the minority, and the majority can pass anything they want to pass.
Send it over here, and the tradition has been to slow it down and cool
it off. We take a second look.
The passions of the democracy--what de Touqueville called in his trip
across America in the early 1800s--the great danger he saw to our
country was the tyranny of the majority. He saw that as one of the two
great dangers to the American democracy. And the Senate has been,
through all that period of time, the guardian--the guardian of minority
rights, the guardian against the excesses of the Executive, which in
our country is the President. The Founders didn't want a king, so they
set up this elaborate system of checks and balances, and the Senate is
the key to that.
What is different about the Senate is the opportunity for extended
debate. But, the Majority Leader now brings up a bill--one Senator's
idea--cuts off debate, cuts off amendments, cuts off votes, that is it.
That is not the way to govern our country, particularly on an issue of
how do we put unemployed Americans back to work.
The Senate is losing its capacity to do the things it was created to
do in the following ways: No. 1, less advice and consent. On November
21, the Democratic majority decided 60 votes are no longer needed to
cut off debate on most Presidential nominees. So try asking a nominee:
Will the National Security Agency stop monitoring the Pope? Now there
will be no response, because the majority can ram through nominees.
The Senator from Nevada, the distinguished majority leader, said in
2006--I heard him and he put it in his book--that cutting off--allowing
the majority to cut off debate would be the end of the Senate. The end
of the Senate. Apparently, he changed his mind.
Operating without rules. The distinguished Senator from Michigan,
Senator Levin, said on November 21: ``A Senate in which a majority can
change the rules at any time is a Senate without rules.'' It is as if
the Red Sox, finding themselves behind in the ninth inning in the World
Series, added a couple of innings to make sure they won. When he wrote
the Senate rules, Thomas Jefferson said it is not so important what the
rule is, but that there be a rule.
Ignoring Executive orders. While it ignores its own rules, the Senate
meekly watches as the Obama administration changes the health care law,
suspends immigration laws, and rewrites labor laws.
Tolerating more czars. President Obama has appointed more czars than
the Romanovs did. In both Russia and the United States, czars don't
report to elected representatives.
Not passing appropriations bills. Hopefully, that is going to change.
But the Senate's repeated failure to pass appropriations bills canceled
the Senate's check on the Executive's power to spend.
Illegal recess appointments. That is being debated today in the
Supreme Court. The majority acquiesced when President Obama used his
recess appointment to appoint members to the National Labor Relations
Board when the Senate was not in recess. Fortunately, three appellate
courts disagreed with the President and the Supreme Court will decide.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court agrees with the appellate courts.
Otherwise, the Senate might go out for lunch and return and find that
we have a new Supreme Court Justice.
There is blame to go around, and I am sure any of my friends on the
other side who are listening would be quick to point that out. Baker
and MacNeil pointed that out in their book. There have been abuses of
the filibuster. It is true that some Republicans have unduly delayed
nominations and unduly delayed legislation. And that is not new. I have
seen it in other years. I have pointed out on this floor how Senator
Allen from Alabama, in the 1970s and 1980s, would tie the Senate into
knots with his knowledge of the rules. Senator Metzenbaum from Ohio
would sit right down there on the front row and if a Senator wanted to
pass a bill, that Senator had to go see him, and if the Senator didn't
amend his bill to do what Senator Metzenbaum wanted done, he would use
Senate rules to block it.
So this has never been an easy place to get something done, but it
wasn't ever supposed to be. It was supposed to be a place where every
single Senator is an equal, where every Senator's voice is not his or
her voice but the voice of people that Senator represents. It is
supposed to be a place of extended debate where almost any amendment
can be discussed for almost any length of time, and usually the clock
is all that would cut the debate off. But there has been a procedure by
which a consensus can cut it off, and when we reach that consensus, we
usually reach a result that can even pass unanimously after it has been
massaged and changed and worked through and considered.
I think of the legislation we just passed on compounding pharmacies
and making drugs more safely; making drugs more safe, 4 billion
prescriptions a year. It went through the committee process, through
both Houses, and eventually passed unanimously because we reached a
consensus.
The delays that have occurred on nominations because, so-called, of
the changes in rules on November 21 are hardly a crisis. Nonjudicial
Presidential nominees have almost never
[[Page S272]]
been denied their seats by a filibuster. Before the November rules
change, there were two for President Obama, three for President Bush,
two for President Clinton, and none before that, in history. That is
seven. Only seven nonjudicial Presidential nominees, in the history of
the Senate, had ever been denied their seats by a filibuster. Maybe it
takes a while, but that is so we can ask questions.
The day before the rules were changed, I looked at the Executive
Calendar--this calendar we have on our desks. It includes every single
nomination that can be brought to the floor. If I have my numbers about
right, there were not many people on the calendar. Half of them have
been held up by the Senator from South Carolina who is trying to get
some answers on Benghazi. That has happened many times in this body. If
Senators want an answer, they do that to make the Executive tell them
what is going on. There were only 8 nominees, I believe, who had been
on the calendar for more than 9 weeks and only 16 others who have been
on for more than 3 weeks.
So there were not very many people on the Executive Calendar, and we
had changed the rules to make it easier to confirm them, anyway. There
were 13 district judges, so the majority leader could bring them up on
Thursday--Friday is the intervening day--and Monday there could be 2
hours of debate on each judge, and we could confirm four or five by
doing it over the weekend in that way. But, no, we had to change the
rules in the way that it was done.
The Senate does not need a change of rules; it needs a change in
behavior. The current majority leader, I would respectfully suggest,
could start by following the example of Majority Leaders Robert Byrd, a
Democrat, and Howard Baker, a Republican, during the 1970s and 1980s.
Here is how they would do things, and this is the way the Senate ran
until 5 or 6 years ago. Baker and Byrd would bring legislation to the
floor. Usually they would go to a committee and say to a chairman: We
will put it on the floor if you and your ranking member of the other
party agree. So you would have two Members--a chairman and a Republican
ranking member; not the leaders--standing up there at the two desks.
They would put the bill on the floor that already had gotten a
consensus in the committee. Then, the majority leader would ask for
amendments to the bill, and sometimes he would get 300--300. Then, he
would ask consent to cut off the offering of amendments and to consider
voting on them in an orderly way, all of which was written out in the
unanimous consent agreement. Of course, he would get the unanimous
consent to do that because everybody who wanted to offer an amendment
could.
Then they would go to work. They would start on Mondays, and they
would work into Monday night and on Tuesday and on Wednesday. They
would table many of the amendments. That does not take long: 10 minutes
of debate and table it with 51 votes.
Senator Byrd said in his book that when the Panama Canal Treaty came
up at a time when he was the majority leader and Baker was the
Republican leader, they had 192 amendments and reservations--many of
them killer amendments--but he allowed every one of them, and he
defeated every killer amendment. But he said: If we had not allowed
them, we never would have gotten the ratification of the Panama Canal
Treaty. The Senators had their say on the Panama Canal Treaty.
So after a while, those 300 amendments that might have been offered
on Monday are whittled away. Some are accepted, some are dropped, some
are voted on, some are tabled, and by about Thursday--the majority
leader has said at the beginning of the week: We are going to finish
the bill this week--people are ready to go home. Then they begin to
think more carefully about whether their amendment is really that
important. So they vote Thursday night, and they maybe vote Friday, and
if they have to, they vote Saturday. But most of the time they finish
their work on Friday.
They were not afraid, those majority leaders, to allow amendments.
They were not afraid to defeat amendments. I believe if the majority
leader would allow the Senate to work in this way, he would not have
any problem on this side of the aisle with efforts to keep bills from
coming to the floor. Almost all of the effort to keep bills from coming
to the floor has to do with minority Members not being allowed to have
the say of the people who elected them to serve.
Instead, the majority leader has set records for bringing legislation
to the floor without committee approval, cutting off amendments, and
records for cutting off debate. So there are no votes on reforming
military sexual assaults, completing Yucca Mountain, sanctioning Iran,
and other vital concerns, no votes on unemployment compensation or how
to put unemployed America to work.
The Senate has become a Tuesday-Thursday club run by one Senator and
orchestrated by the White House. One reason this is tolerated is that
43 Senators are in their first term--43 Senators are in their first
term--most of them in the majority. They have never served in the
minority. They have never seen the Senate function properly, the way it
functioned for most of its 200-plus year history.
Most importantly, those Senators in their first term may not have
heard Senator Byrd's final address when, among other things, he said
that any majority leader could run the Senate under the then-existing
rules. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following
my remarks, an article from the Wall Street Journal from last Friday on
this subject.
In an important address last week, Mr. McConnell, the Senator from
Kentucky, the Republican leader, described three ways to restore the
Senate: full committee consideration of bills; bills thoroughly
debated, with robust amendments on the floor; and a decent week's work.
We might work Monday through Friday instead of Tuesday through
Thursday.
The Senate could change overnight. It does not need a change of
rules. The Senator from Kentucky did not say that it has always been
easy to navigate the Senate. The ideal regular order never has and
never will be without exceptions. But what we call the regular order
has become the exception rather than the rule.
I would hope we do not wait until November or the next year to
restore the Senate to its proper place as the authentic piece of genius
in the American government--the unique body, the unique senate in the
world because of the opportunity for extended debate. It could change
overnight by considering bills most of the time that went through
committee, most of the time having a robust amendment process and
debate on those bills, and vote on them. If it took Monday through
Friday to get that work done, then we should do it. Otherwise, the
great issues facing our country--what kind of health care system do we
have? How do we help unemployed Americans go to work? How do we improve
learning opportunities in this new America, where so much is
decentralized and so much is on social media?
These are very exciting times. Daniel Boorstin, the former historian
of the United States and Librarian of Congress, in his wonderful books
on America, used to talk about verges, that when America was at a
verge--and we have been there many times in our history--that we were
more open to innovation, that we were more self-aware of where we were,
that we tended to rely on each other, and that we changed our country
for the better.
That is where we are today. We want better learning opportunities,
better job training, better health care. Washington is in the way of
much of that, and we need to debate how to change that.
So I would hope my friend, the distinguished majority leader, will
listen to what the Republican leader had to say and reflect on the many
years he has served here and realize all we are saying is we would like
to have a say on behalf of the people who elected us on the great
issues facing our country. Bring a bill through committee, bring it to
the floor, let us have debate--defeat our amendments; you should be
able to with a tabling motion--and then let's come to a result.
I think the American people would gain much more confidence in the
Senate because it would deserve more confidence if it conducted issues
in that way. But this diminishing of the Senate is tragic for a country
with large problems to solve and whose system of checks and balances
has been envied around the world.
[[Page S273]]
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 10, 2014]
Harry Reid's Senate Shutdown
(By Kimberley A. Strassel)
The popular judgment that Washington's dysfunction is the
result of ``partisanship'' misses a crucial point. Washington
is currently gridlocked because of the particular
partisanship of one man: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
And Republicans are warming to the power of making that case
to voters.
It's often said the 113th Congress is on track to become
the ``least productive'' in history--but that tagline
obscures crucial details. The Republican House in fact passed
more than 200 bills in 2013. Some were minor, and others drew
only GOP votes. But nearly a dozen were bipartisan pieces of
legislation that drew more than 250 Republicans and Democrats
to tackle pressing issues--jobs bills, protections against
cyberattack, patent reform, prioritizing funding for
pediatric research, and streamlining regulations for
pipelines.
These laws all went to die in Mr. Reid's Senate graveyard.
Not that the Senate was too busy to take them up. It passed
an immigration and a farm bill. Yet beyond those, and a few
items Mr. Reid was pressed to pass--the end-year sequester
accord; Hurricane Sandy relief--the Senate sat silent. It
passed not a single appropriations bill and not a single jobs
bill. Of the 72 (mostly token) bills President Obama signed
in 2013, 56 came from the House; 16 came from the chamber
held by his own party.
This is the norm in Mr. Reid's Senate, and for years he has
been vocally and cleverly blaming the chamber's uselessness
on Republican filibusters. This is a joke, as evidenced by
recent history. Mr. Reid took over the Senate in early 2007,
and it functioned just fine in the last two years of the Bush
administration. It didn't suddenly break overnight.
What did happen is the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof
majority in the first years of the Obama administration--when
Mr. Reid got a taste for unfettered power--and then the GOP
takeover of the House in 2011. That is when the Senate broke,
as it was the point at which Mr. Reid chose to subvert its
entire glorious history to two of his own partisan aims:
Protecting his majority and acting as gatekeeper for the
White House.
Determined to protect his vulnerable members from tough
votes, the majority leader has unilaterally killed the right
to offer amendments. Since July, Republicans have been
allowed to offer . . . four. Determined to shield the
administration from legislation the president opposes, Mr.
Reid has unilaterally killed committee work, since it might
produce bipartisan bills. Similarly, he's refused to take up
bills that have bipartisan support like approving the
Keystone XL Pipeline, repealing ObamaCare's medical-device
tax, and passing new Iran sanctions.
Here's how the Senate ``works'' these days. Mr. Reid writes
the legislation himself, thereby shutting Republicans out of
the committee drafting. Then he outlaws amendments.
So yes, there are filibusters. They have become the GOP's
only means of protesting Mr. Reid's total control over what
is meant to be a democratic body. It isn't that the Senate
can't work; it's that Sen. Reid won't let it.
Pushed over the brink by Mr. Reid's November power play--
scrapping the filibuster for Obama nominees--Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell began 2014 with a rip-roaring Senate-
floor speech. On Wednesday he set the record straight on the
Reid tactics that have created Senate dysfunction. He then
outlined how a GOP majority would restore regular order and
get Washington working. This is a ``debate that should be of
grave importance to us all,'' he said.
It's of growing importance to Republicans, who are taking
up this theme in speeches and media briefings--putting
greater attention on Mr. Reid's singular role in Washington
paralysis. Asked this week whether the GOP would be allowed
to amend an unemployment-benefits bill, Sen. John McCain
quipped: ``you'll have to go ask the dictator.'' Speaker John
Boehner, at a recent news conference, lamented the ``dozens''
of House bills that ``await action in the Senate,'' while
Majority Leader Eric Cantor berated Mr. Reid for sitting on
``bipartisan'' jobs legislation.
This brings to mind Republican Sen. John Thune's 2004
defeat of South Dakota's Tom Daschle, which he did partly by
highlighting Mr. Daschle's obstructionist majority-leader
record. The comparison isn't perfect, since Mr. Daschle was
up for re-election (Mr. Reid is not) and since the
obstructionism was more noticeable at a time when the GOP ran
both the House and White House. Then again, the Reid theme is
the sort that will resonate with the GOP grass roots,
refocusing their efforts on a Senate victory.
In an election that is going to be about ObamaCare,
Republican Senate candidates are already reminding voters
that it was Mr. Reid's Senate abuse that created the law. And
in the wake of the shutdown and endless government-created
``crises,'' more Americans are worried about the state of
Washington institutions, and eager for change.
``Process'' arguments are hard to make to voters, but Mr.
Reid is a face for the process problem. Demoting Harry Reid
won't in itself fix Washington. But it would be a grand
start--and that alone makes it a potentially powerful
campaign theme.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are currently debating yet another
extension to the emergency unemployment compensation program. While
there are differences of opinion in this Chamber about this particular
program, I think we would all agree that the fact we are even having
this debate is unfortunate.
Make no mistake, our Nation continues to face difficulties when it
comes to job growth, labor force participation, and long-term
unemployment, as has been the case throughout the Obama administration.
Under this administration, it has been harder to find a job than at any
other point in our Nation's recent history.
But let's be clear about something. The plight of the long-term
unemployed is not the major problem facing America today. It is,
instead, just a symptom of a much larger problem.
That larger problem is the fact that despite the efforts of many of
us here in Congress, our government has not done enough to promote
economic growth in this country. Far too often, our government has
interfered in ways that have stunted growth and prevented a robust
recovery from taking place.
Five years into his Presidency, it is clear that President Obama does
not have a plan to address these problems. Surely, he has a list of
ways that he would like to expand the government and redistribute
income but nothing resembling a plan to promote private-sector job
growth. Instead, he has a political plan of attack, and this debate
over unemployment insurance is part of that attack plan.
Over the last 5 years we have seen a series of big-government
``solutions'' that have all failed to produce real economic results.
The administration pushed through the supposed temporary stimulus,
which ended up being little more than a laundry list of longtime
Democratic Party policy priorities that had little or nothing to do
with actually stimulating the economy. The administration also decided
to devote its attention to expanding the alphabet soup of financial
regulators, while failing to address factors that were at the heart of
the recent financial crisis.
Lacking ideas of its own, the Obama administration created and turned
to a Jobs Council to try to understand private job creation, only to
later dissolve the council while not having instituted any meaningful
policies to create jobs.
The largest and most intrusive big-government edict we received from
the administration and its allies in Congress is, of course, ObamaCare.
On a daily basis, the American people continue to suffer from the
impact of this very misguided law.
People have lost their jobs or have been moved into part-time work.
People have been forced off their health care plans. People have been
forced, under fear of penalty, to purchase insurance coverage they do
not want or need. People have had their private and financial
information put at risk thanks to the lack of security in the ObamaCare
exchanges, and perhaps worst of all, people have seen the cost of their
health care go up across the board.
ObamaCare is the worst in a series of bad economic policies we have
seen since this President came into office.
The results speak for themselves. At the beginning of a new year, we
see very clearly what the President and his Democratic allies in
Congress plan to do about all of this. The answer is nothing. Instead
of working with us to enact projob and progrowth policies, they are
picking fights with Republicans on issues such as unemployment
insurance. Instead of trying to root out the causes of our economic
problems, they are giving speeches vilifying anyone who might have a
different view on these issues.
As I said, President Obama and the Senate Democrats have no economic
plan, only a political plan of attack. Let's consider this debate on
unemployment compensation insurance for a moment. I think there are
many who would question why we did not have this debate about extending
long-term unemployment benefits sooner. Democrats knew that temporary
Federal unemployment benefits for the long-term
[[Page S274]]
unemployed were scheduled to expire at the end of 2013. Yet they did
nothing to try to extend them before now.
Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side seem to
believe, Republicans do not run the Senate. We do not control the
committees. We do not run things on the floor. As we are seeing in the
current debate over unemployment benefits, we do not even get a chance
to offer amendments to many major pieces of legislation. Why is that?
Why is it that the greatest deliberative body in the world can no
longer offer amendments? It comes down to one thing--the Democratic
leadership. They are afraid we might bring up amendments that are
difficult for Democrats to vote on. Join the crowd. That has always
been the case around here before this current leadership took over.
Every leader has tried to protect their side, but this has gone to
the point of ridiculousness and the denigration of the Senate itself.
The Democrats could have offered an extension of Federal unemployment
benefits at any time before they expired in 2013. We could have debated
the merits of the emergency unemployment compensation program,
discussed alternatives, and perhaps even come up with a bipartisan
compromise to help the long-term unemployed.
We could have even done that through regular order and using the
committee process. But instead, Democrats ignored the program for an
entire year, and in the very last days of the last congressional
session and after we had adjourned for the year, we finally started
hearing about the desperate need to protect the long-term unemployed,
about how it was the highest priority for the President and Democrats
in Congress to extend these benefits, and about those villainous
Republicans standing in the way.
There are only two conclusions to draw from this: Either the
Democrats forgot about unemployment benefits until the end of the year
or they calculated it was better suited for their political attack plan
to let them expire and then debate an extension afterward. I think it
is pretty clear which conclusion is the correct one, especially since
they control the Senate and they control the committees. They could
have done just about anything they wanted.
So here we are debating another extension of the EUC Program, the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program. We may as well be debating
the merits of using a bandaid on a broken arm because, as I said, long-
term unemployment is merely a symptom of the failures of the Obama
economy. However, since the Democrats opted to put off this matter
until we were actually beyond the last minute, we have not enacted or
even debated any serious alternatives to Federal unemployment benefits
and we are left with just another take-it-or-leave-it proposition from
the majority leader.
That is what the majority leader seems to be saying to us. In fact,
that is what he is saying to us in this debate--take it or leave it.
Why would he do that? Apparently, no Republicans, not even the ones who
supported cloture on the motion to proceed, will get an opportunity to
offer amendments. The only amendment we will be voting on is the so-
called compromise amendment the majority leader offered last Thursday.
Of course, the amendment is not a compromise at all. It is nothing of
the sort. Similar to the underlying bill it would add significantly to
the deficit. The supposed pay-fors in the amendment would not even kick
in under the normal 10-year budget window. Indeed, the Democratic whip
in the House was voicing concern about using so-called savings from
extending the sequester outside of the 10-year window asking,
``Frankly, if you adopt that logic, why don't we extend it until 2054
and fund everything we want to do?''
That is a dream some Democrats have. But fortunately there may be
some people on the other side who realize this is a charade. In short,
the amendment we will be voting on this afternoon, if we do, is a
gimmick. It is designed solely to allow the majority to claim they are
willing to pay for extending unemployment benefits, nothing more,
nothing less.
Once again, this is apparently the only amendment we will get a
chance to vote on when it comes to extending the Emergency Unemployment
Insurance Compensation Program, which is par for the course under the
current Senate majority. It is pretty clear what my colleagues in the
majority want to do. Contrary to their claims, passing this legislation
and extending unemployment benefits is not their highest priority.
Their highest priority is to use the long-term unemployed as pawns in
their political attacks on Republicans who support a different
approach; one that is paid for, fairly paid for, honestly paid for, and
understandably paid for.
If I am wrong and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
serious about wanting to extend this program, why would they not allow
votes on Republican amendments or even Democratic amendments? There are
some complaints on the Democratic side--even we the Democrats, they are
saying, do not have the privilege of bringing up amendments.
As we continue, the committees are a waste of time under the way the
Senate is currently being run, because everything is run right out of
the leader's office. Republicans have offered a number of amendments to
the underlying legislation. Why not allow them to come up for a vote?
Are they afraid we might pass some Republican amendments when they have
55 Democrats in the Senate? If, as the majority leader has claimed,
none of our ideas is serious enough to warrant consideration, why not
bring them up and let Democrats who have a majority in the Senate vote
them down? That could have been done.
The problem is they know some of these amendments are worthwhile,
worthy amendments that might pass. It might cause some heartburn to
some on both sides maybe. I am certainly used to heartburn over the
years, I will tell you that.
Republicans have offered a number of amendments to the underlying
legislation. Why not allow them to come up for a vote? If, as the
majority leader has claimed, our ideas are not serious enough to
warrant consideration, why not allow them to be brought up, limit the
time for the debate, and let the Democrats, who once again have a
majority in the Senate, vote them down?
The only conclusion we can draw is that they are afraid, if we held a
vote, some of our amendments might actually pass, which would distract
from the political message they want to send with this debate on the
floor. The minority leader and I have offered such an amendment, one I
believe would actually pass if it were to receive a vote.
It is something that makes a lot more sense than what is going on
here over the last number of days, weeks maybe. I would like to just
take a few minutes to talk about our amendment, the McConnell-Hatch
amendment. The McConnell-Hatch amendment would, if enacted, extend the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program for a full year, taking
unemployment benefits out of the 2014 political equation entirely. I
would think my colleagues on the other side would jump at that kind of
opportunity. In addition to this fix on the unemployment insurance
issue, the McConnell-Hatch amendment would fix the military pension
problems created under the recent budget agreement which has caused so
much angst and heartburn among our military, among those who are
serving our country in that manner.
There is bipartisan support for this endeavor. I believe we can fix
it here and now. Best of all, unlike the underlying bill and the
``compromise'' offered at the end of last week, the McConnell-Hatch
amendment is fully paid for within the normal 10-year budget window. In
fact, it reduces the deficit by more than $1 billion over 10 years and
does it in a fair, honest way.
One way it pays for the extension is to close the loophole in the law
that allows people to claim both unemployment insurance and Social
Security disability insurance. The majority leader claims he wants to
do this. But our amendment does it in a much more efficient way,
something that makes economic sense. However, the primary pay-for in
our amendment, which once again allows us to extend unemployment
benefits for a full year and fix the military pensions issue is a 1-
year delay in the ObamaCare individual mandate--a 1-year delay. That is
it.
I know some of my friends on the other side, including the
distinguished
[[Page S275]]
majority leader, have already deemed this proposal controversial. But
it should not be. The problems with the implementation of ObamaCare
have been fully cataloged at length on the floor and elsewhere. No one
in their right mind would argue that the implementation is going well--
nobody. It is not going well.
This would give them a chance to amend this bill over the next year,
although I do not think we can amend the bill--but at least give them a
chance to. Sooner or later they are going to have to do it anyway. So
what do they give up? Members of both parties have come out in support
of delaying the individual mandate--of both parties, not just
Republicans but Democrats. They know it is a disaster.
Regardless of where you stand on ObamaCare, if you support it or if
you, as I do, want to see it repealed, delaying the mandate is a
bipartisan idea and it makes sense. What are they afraid of? With a law
this unpopular and a rollout going this badly, I would think that many
of my friends on the other side of the aisle would get on board with a
1-year delay. Once again, such a delay would allow us to pay for a
less-politicized extension of Federal unemployment benefits as well as
allow us to fix our military pension problems.
It is a win-win proposition. It is hard for me to understand why they
will not do this. As I said, I know the Senate Democratic leadership
despises this idea. They have already come to the floor and
mischaracterized it on a number of occasions. However, I believe that
if this approach, the 1-year extension of unemployment benefits and the
military pension fix, paid for primarily by a 1-year delay in the
individual mandate, were brought to a vote in the Senate, Members of
both parties would support it.
It would be a bipartisan approach to these things that would be
worthwhile. The same can be said for any number of amendments my
colleagues have offered. I may be wrong about that, but I do not think
I am. If I am wrong, what is the harm in having a vote on the
McConnell-Hatch amendment? What is the harm in having a vote on any of
the amendments Republicans have offered? What are my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle afraid of?
We have been putting up with this now for too long a time. I remember
the Senate when both sides worked together all the time. They battled
even though they differed. They allowed amendments to come up even
though sometimes it caused some heartburn to people on one side or the
other. But we did it because this is a legislative body of freedom,
which it has devolved in a way that there is not freedom. What is the
harm in having a vote on any of the amendments? Let's have a limited
number of amendments, not two, three or four. This is an important
bill. Let's have some amendments that even Republicans can offer.
There are some Democratic amendments too. I suppose they may have
some heartburn for Republicans. So what. What are my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle afraid of? Once again, I do not think the
Senate Democratic leadership is worried that I am wrong about some
Democrats supporting the McConnell-Hatch amendment. They are worried I
might be right. That is why my amendment will not receive a vote.
That is why as of right now, it appears no Republican amendments will
receive votes, unless it happens among the few who were willing to
support the first vote. Even then, I doubt they will have any votes. As
I said, it seems as though Democrats are far more worried about sending
a political message about unemployment insurance than they are with
actually passing an extension. That is unfortunate. It is truly
shameful.
However this debate unfolds, one issue is clear: The approach the
President is taking is not working.
The economic approach the President is taking is not working. The tax
approach the President is taking is not working. The so-called
``Affordable Care Act'' approach the President is taking is fraught
with problems that could be solved if the Senate is allowed to truly
work the way the Senate always has in the past. The approach the
President and the Senate Democratic leadership is taking isn't working.
We are not creating jobs at a time when Americans need them.
Americans need jobs, and we are not generating the type of growth that
will allow for such job creation in the near future.
As far as I can see, we have two choices. We can either have these
same fights over and over or we can work together to fix the real
underlying problems facing our country instead of focusing on the
symptoms and always playing the ridiculous game of politics.
I hope we will choose to work together. But if the tactics we have
seen thus far on unemployment legislation are any indication, I think I
am likely to end up quite disappointed.
I am concerned about the Senate. I am concerned about some of the
very power-striking poses that have been going on around here that do
not allow the Senate to work its will, do not allow for real
bipartisanship, do not allow for bringing us together, and do not allow
for decency on both sides. These are just plain power-seeking
approaches that do not deserve praise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act.
I am pleased a 3-month extension of unemployment insurance for
millions in Minnesota and across the country was able to clear its
first hurdle in the Senate, but our work of course is not finished.
I urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate to pass an extension
to renew these critical benefits so hard-pressed families in Minnesota
and across our Nation can keep their heads above water while they
search for work.
As I have traveled around Minnesota, I have heard from a lot of
Minnesotans who wish to work. On Friday I had a roundtable conference.
There were three women and some workforce professionals. These women
are looking hard and have been looking. They are part of the long-term
unemployed. These are women who were working: one is in her forties
with two kids--one little kid, a 3-year-old child, a single mom; one
was in her fifties; and one was about my age, in her early sixties.
While they are looking for jobs--and we had a professional there who
said one of the hardest jobs is looking for a job. They need the
unemployment insurance to stay in their homes and to put food on the
table for their families.
In the wake of the worst recession since the Great Depression, too
many people had good jobs and worked their entire lives--all of these
women who had worked their entire lives had 20-, 30-, and 40-year
careers and now they are out of work and remain out of work.
Unemployment remains high, and the long-term unemployment rate among
workers who have been looking for work for at least 6 months has
weighed down our economy. Today more then 4 million Americans, 37
percent of the unemployed, have been out of work for 6 months. This is
the worst long-term unemployment since the Great Recession. That is why
we need to extend the emergency unemployment compensation. These
workers, the millions throughout the country, are worried they will
lose their ability to pay for a roof over their heads and put food on
the table for their families, for their children.
For most Americans, State-funded unemployment insurance runs out
after 26 weeks. Yet the average unemployment spell now lasts over 2\1/
2\ months longer. Emergency unemployment benefits provide for up to an
additional 47 weeks of unemployment insurance for those Americans who
need it while they are looking for a job.
When I talk about high long-term employment, these women, every one
of them I talked to, were working very hard every day. One woman
described it as saying: I am looking 24 hours a day. I have my
smartphone, and I am hoping 24 hours a day that I get something, a
response, an interview.
Right now we have three people looking for every job opening, but
that doesn't mean that when someone applies for a job, there are only
two other people looking. These women were telling me every time they
applied for a job there were several hundred people looking. Very often
they will apply for a job that a company announces, and the company
will hire someone from
[[Page S276]]
inside the company, which is great for that person.
But this is not about people waiting for their unemployment to run
out and then look for a job. That is not what it is about.
After Christmas, 1.3 million Americans lost their jobs and who are
looking for work, including 8,500 Minnesotans. They lost this critical
lifeline of unemployment compensation.
Remember, these women I talked about paid in. I am talking about 20
years of working, 30 years of working, 40 years in the workforce. If we
don't renew these benefits over the next year, that lifeline will run
out for another 3.6 million people, including 65,000-plus Minnesotans.
While Minnesota has been fortunate to have a lower unemployment rate
than other States, I believe the 65,000 Minnesotans who will lose
benefits without an extension deserve our support as they are looking
for work.
Congress has never allowed special extended unemployment benefits to
expire when the long-term unemployment rate is as high as it is today.
In fact, at 2.5 percent, the long-term unemployment rate is nearly
double the level when previous emergency benefits were allowed to
expire. The current unemployment rate of 6.7 percent is far above
nearly all previous rates seen at expiration and is 1.1 percent higher
than when President George W. Bush signed the current round of benefits
into law.
As I said, on Friday I met with several unemployed Minnesotans. Two
out of the three were affected by our not extending the emergency
unemployment insurance.
I wish to share a little bit of their stories but also people who
have written in, Minnesotans who have reached out to me about how
failing to extend unemployment insurance will affect them.
John from Cushing, MN, wrote in December:
I am a 58 year old sales and marketing professional that
was laid off due to a force reduction and have been
unemployed for a year. I have not been able to find even part
time work. I have exhausted my severance package and most of
my liquid savings just to cover financial obligations and
essentials such as food and utilities. Additionally, I do not
have any health care coverage as my income has been limited
to unemployment compensation. Now that the Federal Extension
is about to expire, beginning next week I will have zero
income and no job offer pending. I would appreciate your
support in doing what you can to re-instate the Federal
Unemployment Extension in Minnesota as for me personally, it
is of extreme need and I would expect many others around the
country may also be in such dire straits.
Almost half--I believe it is the majority of Americans--sometime in
their lives hit a hard patch and our job is to be there for them.
Debbie from White Bear Lake wrote:
There are many of us out here who will run out of benefits
next year and are still unable to find a decent job. I have
been out of work for over 4 months and am spending at least
5-6 hours a day (EVERY day) looking for a job. While this may
not seem that long, I am already concerned about my state
unemployment running out and having nothing. . . . The people
that actually work are the ones that spend money to help the
economy.
She is right. We know from CBO that if we extend unemployment
insurance these people spend the money and it goes immediately out in
the economy and actually the CBO says this will sustain about 200,000
additional jobs. If we don't do this, we will create 200,000 less jobs
over the next year.
On Friday I met with Ann from Eden Prairie, who wrote:
I have unfortunately been unemployed since being downsized
from a small consulting organization in April, 2013. . . . I
have been extremely active in my job search--
Boy, has she. I will say all of these women were upgrading their
skills. Some of them had gone back to school to upgrade their skills
and are still not being successful in finding work.
She continues:
--but have regrettably not found new unemployment. My
Minnesota Unemployment Insurance ran out last week and I
applied for Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation just
this past week. I understand it's going to expire at the end
of the month.
She wrote to me in December.
I ask you to please ask yourself what you would do to
provide for your family. I have a 9 year old daughter . . .
and a three year old son. I am the sole provider for my
family. I volunteer extensively at the school and elsewhere
in my community. . . .
She is a volunteer. She does that, but she also volunteers looking
for a job. She is networking in her volunteer work. She is volunteering
for her kids' school, for her 9-year-old's school.
She told me the 3-year-old went to preschool 5 days a week, then 4
days, then 3 days, then 2 days, and now 1 day a week--and how hard is
it to look for a job with a 3-year-old.
She continues: ``I am not looking for a handout, nor do I believe
that staying on unemployment insurance is in my best interest.''
But she says it ``will at least allow me to make my mortgage
payment.''
Doug, from Bloomington, wrote that he and his family will lose their
home if we allow benefits to expire.
He says:
I unfortunately lost my job due to the economy last March .
. . each position that I apply for has at least 500
candidates applying for the same position. If the Federal
unemployment extension is not approved, my family and I will
be homeless within a month! I have even tried to apply for
``temporary positions,'' however, they always reply that I am
overly qualified!
We talked about this in the roundtable. We also had professionals
there who are professional workforce people and are counselors. These
people are working it. There was a woman in her fifties who said: They
will not take me at McDonald's because they figure if I get some other
job I will leave and it costs to train them.
It truly troubles me that those who have worked and contributed to
our society the longest, I am saying 20, 30, 40 years, have been
particularly hit hard by long-term unemployment; in other words, older
workers who lose their jobs have experienced longer periods of
unemployment than younger workers. Part of that is age discrimination.
That age discrimination has made it more difficult for older workers to
bounce back when they lose their jobs. According to AARP, 34 percent of
older workers seeking work reported they had experienced, or know
someone who has experienced, age discrimination in the past 4 years.
This was the experience of all three of the women I talked to.
Extending unemployment insurance isn't just the right thing to do to
help our fellow Americans who are out of work and searching for a job,
it is also the smart thing to do for our economy. As I said, in 2011,
the Congressional Budget Office said that aid to the unemployed is
among the policies with ``the largest effects on output and employment
per dollar of budgetary cost.'' CBO estimates that extending benefits
through 2014 will help expand the economy and contribute to the
creation of an additional 200,000 jobs. The Council of Economic
Advisers estimates without a full-year extension, the economy will
generate 240,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2014.
We know unemployment benefits work. The Census Bureau estimates that
unemployment benefits kept 2.5 million people who are trying to stay in
the workforce out of poverty in 2012 alone and have kept over 11
million unemployed workers out of poverty since 2008. Countless local
businesses feel the positive effects when the unemployed are able to
keep buying their basic necessities--food, utilities, gas, so they can
drive to look for a job.
Unemployment insurance isn't the only thing we should be doing to
help the unemployed either. There are lots of things we can and should
be doing. There are more than 3 million jobs in this country that could
be filled today if there were workers who had the right skills. With
too many Americans unemployed, we have to find a way to fill those
jobs, to train those workers. We should be helping workers get the
training they need to fill the high-tech jobs that are growing in
Minnesota and across the country--in Maine, in Alabama, in the State of
every Senator I talk to in this Chamber when I talk about the skills
gap and manufacturing returning to this country--but we don't have the
skilled workers, and this at a time of such high long-term
unemployment. We need to be training a workforce for the 21st century.
Sometimes these jobs are in advanced manufacturing. Sometimes this
training takes 2 years, but we need to do it. We should be helping
connect these people to educational programs that link them with
employers, and that is why I have introduced the Community College to
Career Fund Act. Under this program, businesses and
[[Page S277]]
community colleges would apply for grants based on how many jobs that
partnership would create, the value of the jobs to those hired and to
the community, and how much skin the businesses have in the game.
There is a lot we should be doing to create jobs. We should be
addressing our infrastructure deficit. You know, when you don't repair
our infrastructure, when you don't create new infrastructure, that is a
deficit too, and we need to get people into work that we need to be
doing. But failing to extend emergency unemployment doesn't make sense.
We shouldn't be punishing people such as John and Debbie and Ann and
Doug who are looking for work and can't find jobs. We shouldn't be
pulling the rug out from under them and millions of others who support
the small businesses and local retailers in our cities and our towns.
Extending these benefits is something we should do now to jump-start
and to continue this recovery.
But we shouldn't stop there. I will continue to press this Congress
to work to create jobs through investments in infrastructure, in
innovation and education so that the unemployed can get back to work at
good jobs that sustain long-term economic growth.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this Nation is facing a debt crisis.
That is fully understood by the American people and experts all over.
Our total debt is now in excess of $17 trillion.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was an important step in reining in
some of our spending. It reduced the growth of spending from 2012 to
2022 by $2.1 trillion. That was the agreement. We raised the debt
ceiling by $2.1 trillion, but we promised the American people we would
restrain spending over the next decade by that amount.
The spending baseline for America, as calculated at that time by the
Congressional Budget Office was expected to see spending increase by
$10 trillion over the next 10 years over current levels. The Budget
Control Act, which included the sequester, was to limit that growth to
$8 trillion instead $10 trillion.
I wanted to reduce the growth of spending more than that, but the BCA
levels did provide a cap on spending that was approved by President
Obama, passed by both Houses of Congress, and signed into law by
President Obama.
This year, fiscal year 2014, was the toughest year in terms of being
able to meet the goals of the 10 years under the BCA and, therefore, we
blinked, I would say, and there arose the Murray-Ryan bipartisan
legislation, written not with our Budget Committee members but by these
two leaders. They agreed we would spend $64 billion more than the BCA
allowed.
This was a bitter pill for me, I have to say. I warned this was the
first real violation of the Budget Control Act spending limits, and
when I sought some other alternatives, that didn't happen. The
legislation passed and it spent and agreed to spend more money. But it
had a good point. It reaffirmed this was all that would be spent above
the BCA level. It said: We have a tight time now. If you will just
increase spending for the next 2 years, we will stay fundamentally with
the BCA levels.
That was another promise, wasn't it? We promised in 2011 to limit our
spending, and we come back in December 2013 and we say we can't live
with our promises any longer. Now we are making these alterations, but
we are going to stick with this. We are going to stay with this
promise. If you will just give us this $64 billion extra to spend, we
will not spend any more than that over the next several years.
It also left the BCA caps in place for the next 7 years. Unemployment
compensation is a mandatory entitlement spending program that is before
us now that Congress would like to spend more on than current law
allows.
Of course, it appears that promises made in Washington are made to be
broken. I sometimes think our colleagues on the Democratic side of the
aisle see agreements such as Ryan-Murray as steps to advance their
agenda--just to further the revolution--and not something that should
be honored. Less than 6 months after this act passed, President Obama
proposed a budget that would spend $1 trillion more than was agreed to
in the BCA--a breathtaking violation of the plain law he had signed 6
months earlier. His plan, fortunately, was rejected, but he filed the
same new budget in fiscal year 2013 with $1 trillion more in spending.
All our Senate Democratic colleagues voted for the budget Senator
Murray moved out of committee, and it would spend $1 trillion more than
the BCA limits.
OK. So they said we couldn't live with that. We needed to spend more.
That is how the Ryan-Murray agreement came about. OK, we will spend
some more, and we will use this to pay for it, and we will do all this,
and most of it--too much of it, frankly,--is gimmickry, and it passed--
to spend more. It was to fix the financial pressure we were under. It
was to fix the tight year or two we have here--the toughest year or two
in the budget.
But now, just 4 weeks after that passed, in December--tough
negotiations and secret talks concluded between Murray and Ryan and
with the first bill on the floor in this Congress, we have an
unemployment insurance extension that totally busts those levels. So
now we are told we don't have to abide by those legal caps, just spend
more money now, with no corresponding cuts or reductions anywhere to
pay for it, as required. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously
said once: ``There is no place left to cut.'' Well, there are places
left to cut.
We know we have a lot of people hurting and unemployed today, and
some sort of compensation is legitimate. But this idea we can waltz in
here because there is a need in the country that we believe should be
fulfilled and we can borrow the money and spend for it is not good. It
is why this Nation is $17 trillion in debt.
People are angry with Washington. I would say to my colleagues: Why
shouldn't they be angry? Didn't we promise to stay with the BCA limits?
Didn't we promise after the Ryan-Murray agreement to spend more but we
would stay there? Didn't we agree with that? And here we are, the first
bill of this session, just a few weeks after that passed--Ryan-Murray,
the ink hardly dry--and we are demanding now a huge new deficit
spending program.
Make no mistake, my colleagues, we are in deficit. Any new spending
over the Budget Control Act entails more borrowing. That is the way it
works. Section 111 of H.J. Res. 59, the Ryan-Murray spending agreement,
says this:
Section 111(a)--Fiscal Year 2014. For the purpose of
enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for fiscal
year 2014, and for enforcing, in the Senate, budgetary points
of order . . . the allocations, aggregates, and levels
provided for in subsection (b) shall apply.
What are those levels, you might ask? This is what it says:
Section 111(b)(2).--. . . committee allocations for--(A)
fiscal year 2014; (B) fiscal years 2014 through 2018 . . .;
and (C) fiscal years 2014 through 2023; consistent with the
May 2013 baseline of the Congressional Budget Office . . .
The CBO baseline assumes extended unemployment benefits--that we have
been extending beyond any historical pattern--will expire, as the law
requires, because that is what Congress wrote into law. The ink is
barely dry on the December agreement and we are already being pushed to
violate it. Therefore, if we extend unemployment insurance benefits, it
will cost us, will it not? Ryan-Murray would assume choices would be
made between competing expenditure values and that the net spending
would not increase above the baseline; that out of $3.7 trillion we
spend a year, we can find the $26 billion necessary for Senator Reed's
proposal or other proposals which might be less to fund unemployment
insurance, and we would find that somewhere or we wouldn't do it.
The Reed amendment before us includes a provision that would extend
the Budget Control Act sequester for 1 year, to 2024. So he proposes
that: Well, let's assume it continues, and then we can save money 11
years or 12 years from now, and then we can pay for that spending
program today. Isn't that nice?
I am ashamed to see the Senate's favorite budget gimmick, ``spend now
and pay later,'' devolved into something almost financially sinister:
``Spend now and pay way, way, way later.''
[[Page S278]]
Ten years? We are not honoring the spending limits we agreed to in
December, and now we are promising: If we are just allowed to spend
this money, we will cut spending 11 years from now. There will be 5
different House elections, 5 different Senate elections, 10 different
budgets written, 10 different appropriations bills written between now
and then.
The American people know better. We are not adhering to the
agreements we made while the ink is still wet. We are going to promise
to save money out there? It is outrageous.
This is a legitimate offset. Why don't we do it for 1 year? We can
extend the budget sequester 2 years--2024, 2025--and save enough money
so we could give every Federal employee a raise and it wouldn't cost a
dime. It would all be paid for. Wouldn't it?
Or how about we extend it 3 years, to 2027, and then we can double
the highway bill? We would like to spend more money on highways. I
would. I would like to increase that. We could pretend that we are
going to extend these limits 13 years, 14 years from now, and that will
pay for it.
This kind of gimmickry is how our Nation has gone broke. This is what
we have been doing year after year--violating even our own generous
spending limits and pretending we are cutting spending when we are just
reducing the growth from $10 trillion to $8 trillion. And we think the
country is going to sink into the ocean if we reduce the growth of
spending from $10 trillion to $8 trillion.
One of the most successful parts of the 1996 welfare reform law was
the work requirements for healthy working-age adults without children.
The work requirements encouraged millions of Americans to improve their
lives by working, going to school, or engaging in job training
programs. However, this administration has granted States the ability
to suspend the food stamp work requirements since 2012 as part of the
extension of the emergency unemployment compensation program.
If the emergency unemployment program is extended again even for 1
week, the administration will have the authority to waive the work
requirement for about 40 States for 2015. In other words, the food
stamp work requirement will be suspended. He is going to do that. If
this bill passes, it will give him the power to do that. That is going
to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, too. It is an unexpected,
unappreciated thing in the bill.
After analyzing the Reed amendment and the underlying bill before us,
we have consulted with Senator Murray's staff--the Democratic chair of
the Budget Committee and a very honorable person--and proposed that
this proposal violates the Ryan-Murray law, and that several points of
order apply against the Reed amendment:
It violates the Senate pay-as-you-go requirement. It increases the
deficit by more than $10 billion inside the 10-year budget window
without offsets to pay for the entire cost. It spends way more above
what the Senate Finance Committee has allowed under the spending deal
we enforced. And it violates the Budget Committee's own jurisdiction.
Finally, the amendment isn't paid for inside the budget window as the
Budget Act requires. Instead, it tries to count savings 11 years out.
That is not allowed under the Budget Act.
When I raise these points of order, I would expect that sooner or
later the majority will move to waive all budget points of order
against the amendment, and, perhaps, all budget points of order against
the bill itself. If Senator Leader Reid moves to waive, ignore, spend
above the budget limits, it requires 60 votes.
Let me be clear: Senator Murray and her staff have acknowledged this
does violate the Budget Act, and that a budget point of order--if I or
others raise it--would be well taken, and it would take 60 votes to
break it.
So the question will soon be on us: In the face of a pressing need we
all believe should be addressed, will 60 of us agree that the best way
forward is to turn our backs on the Murray-Ryan spending deal that
Congress passed just 4 weeks ago and President Obama signed just 2
weeks ago?
Or will enough of us agree that the best way forward to help the
unemployed and pay for that assistance is with other savings in the
Federal budget, so we don't have to blow a hole in our budget agreement
and our children and grandchildren will be stuck with paying the price?
Another point: By upholding the new spending arrangement the
government just entered into, by defending it against even more
spending, we can also accomplish one other thing--put aside the gag
rule on amendments enforced by the majority leader.
We have talked a lot about this: We need to be able to offer
amendments and have debate on how to make this bill better. If the
majority makes a successful motion to waive the Budget Act points of
order, it protects the gag rule, the blocking of amendments, the
filling of the tree. Members need to have a chance to offer amendments
to this legislation so improvements can be made, so we can pay for what
is needed to be spent, and an actual bipartisan bill can emerge from
the Senate.
So this is the question before us now: Do we adhere to the spending
limits Congress passed and promised less than 1 month ago? Or do we
break the Ryan-Murray limits like we broke the Budget Control Act
limits? Will we do so in the first bill that comes before Congress this
year?
This is not a vote on unemployment benefits when I am able to make
the budget point of order. And I plan to do so. It is not about
unemployment benefits when we vote on the budget point of order. It is
a vote on whether we uphold the spending limits we agreed to, or
whether we violate those limits in the first spending bill since this
Congress took session this year. This is about the integrity of this
institution.
In 2011, we passed a Budget Control Act and promised to spend a
certain amount of money, and that amount only. But when the spending
discipline proved too tough, Congress backed down and agreed to a new,
looser spending limit under Ryan-Murray. That was a few weeks ago, just
before Christmas.
Now here we are, on the first spending bill of the year, and our
Democratic majority is proposing to bust the Ryan-Murray spending
limits right out of the chute. How could any voter trust the Senate if
this body votes today to break these new limits less than 1 month old?
A vote to uphold budget rules today is simply a vote to say that the
bill should be paid for. Whatever we decide to do, pay for it. There
are many ideas for doing so. Congress could easily offset these funds
if the majority leader here in the Senate would allow us to propose
amendments--which he hasn't done.
So let's uphold the rules of our institution, enforce our budget
rules, and find a way to pay for this legislation--pay for what we
intend to spend above the limit. Let's keep our promises to the
American people.
I hope my colleagues who voted for the Ryan-Murray bill will not
renege now. If they break this agreement today, why should any taxpayer
trust our colleagues' promises in the future?
I hope all of us, no matter our policy disagreements, can agree to
uphold Senate rules. I hope we can abide by the promises we made to the
American people. And I hope we can agree that financial integrity is
more important than partisan interests.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, while my colleague from Alabama is still
here, I want to talk about a certain national championship game which
just occurred.
Before I do, I want to say that a lot of the frustration my colleague
has expressed is frustration which is shared by this Senator--not the
specifics, but the fact that the Senate is not working as it should.
Indeed, the Congress is not working as it should.
But I would remind anyone who is listening to these words the old
adage: It takes two to tango. And if anything is going to get done,
there is going to have to be a meeting of the minds between the
parties, recognizing that you can't have it all one way--your way.
There are legitimate grievances in what has led to the dysfunction of
the U.S. Congress, and we can speak here today with regard to the
Senate.
Authorization committees, which have been so important in the history
of this country and the functioning of
[[Page S279]]
the Congress, at times are irrelevant in that they have not only been
overtaken but the appropriations process has been overtaken as well.
When we cobble together these huge appropriations bills that are
nothing but a continuation of the previous year's appropriations with
some tweaks, where is the input of Members? In the past, it has been
Mount Olympus which has come together at the last minute in an
emergency situation to cobble together something to keep the government
functioning.
That is not rational decisionmaking. It is not what we call around
here regular order. It certainly isn't the authorization of bills. And
it certainly isn't appropriations of the government, according to that
authorization for appropriations.
As we get on down the line, I want to continue to work with my
colleague, whom I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with,
as we have worked on very thorny issues in the past on the Strategic
Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services on national missile defense. The
Senator from Alabama and this Senator have been able to come together
in agreement on those thorny issues years ago.
But times have changed, and this place is not functioning. It is
going to take an extra special effort on both sides of that aisle which
has become too big of a dividing line in our ability to get work done.
I empathize with the Senator's frustration and let him know there is
frustration on this Senator's part as well.
(The further remarks of Mr. Nelson and Mr. Sessions are printed in
today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Haiti Earthquake
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, yesterday marks the fourth anniversary of
the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti on January 12, 2010. The U.S.
Geological Survey said that precisely at 4:53 p.m. local time, the
Caribbean and North American plates moved, resulting in a major
earthquake of a 7.0 magnitude, with aftershocks greater than 5.0 that
continued for months afterward. It has been described as the largest
urban disaster in modern history because in just 30 seconds more than
10 million cubic meters of rubble were created, enough to fill dump
trucks parked bumper to bumper, all the way from Key West, FL, to the
northern tip of the State of the Presiding Officer, Maine, and then
back again. That is how much rubble was created.
We remember today 230,000 victims of the earthquake, one of the
deadliest in history. The earthquake also resulted in over 300,000
injuries and left 1\1/2\ million people homeless.
I went to Haiti immediately after the earthquake. It was a horrifying
aftermath. During the last 4 years the path to recovery for Haiti has
been very slow and arduous, particularly because that poor country has
also faced so many other plagues: Rainstorms, the edges of hurricanes,
a vicious outbreak of cholera, and many other tropical storms. Long-
term reconstruction and rehabilitation is going to take years, but the
Haitian government, with the support of the United States and the
international community, hopefully, is going to keep the country moving
forward.
This past year I visited with President Martelly and his officials.
They are making progress. The international community has stepped up.
But nobody has stepped up like the United States. We have led an
unprecedented recovery effort, $3.5 billion for initial humanitarian
needs and long-term assistance in health, infrastructure, rule of law,
food, and economic security.
In this last visit this past August, I saw many of those
reconstruction efforts already completed and others that are well
underway, and others that are showing notable progress. But there is so
much to be done.
The Haitian people are incredible; they are resilient; they are
resourceful; they are a proud people; and they have utilized the
support they have received from around the world, including the Haitian
Diaspora. A lot of that Diaspora community is in Florida, and they have
utilized that.
We all want Haiti to succeed and to continue to rebuild. So 4 years
after such unbelievable devastation, let's pause to think about Haiti
and reaffirm our commitment to her. We also congratulate the Haitian
people as they celebrate their country's 210th anniversary of
independence that is this year. It is a tough subject. Haiti is the
poorest country in the entire Western Hemisphere. There is a certain
special responsibility that those countries, particularly in the
Western Hemisphere, that are more fortunate--a certain responsibility
that we have to help that little country rebuild.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask, since I just arrived on the
Senate floor, is it appropriate for me to speak on the judicial nominee
we will be voting on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Wilkins Nomination
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are going to vote on the third of
three nominees to the DC Circuit. Today it will be Judge Robert
Wilkins. I will oppose the judge's nomination, just as I did when the
Senate rejected the same nomination in November of last year.
This circuit, of course, is far and away the least busy in the
country. This is one of the reasons why the Democrats blocked nominees
to this very same circuit, based on the very same arguments regarding
caseload, during the Bush administration. There were only two
differences between then and now. Back then the caseload was even
higher, and back then there was a Republican in the White House. Today,
of course, there is a Democrat in the White House, and also a
Democratic majority here in the Senate.
Today, by pushing this nomination for a circuit where there are not
more judges needed based on caseload, I say that the Senate majority--
meaning the Senate Democrats--do not want to play by the same rules
they pioneered or by the same standards they established during the
Bush administration.
Even though the Senate considered and rejected this nomination just a
couple of months ago, today once again we will be voting on Judge
Wilkins' confirmation. We will vote on the judge's nomination today
because, on November 21, last year, the majority leader and the Senate
majority invoked the so-called nuclear option. In one fell swoop, the
majority leader did more damage to the institution than I have
witnessed in more than 3 decades of service here in the Senate. In
fact, when the majority leader broke the rules to change the rules last
November and tossed aside two centuries of Senate history and
precedent, he likely did more damage to this institution than any
leader who preceded him.
It was a power grab. Of course it was a power grab. But it was more
than that. It fundamentally has altered the way the Senate operates. It
stripped the minority of its rights--under the rules, of course--but it
was more than that as well. It cheapens the world's greatest
deliberative body.
About 2 hours ago I spoke on this subject to the Senate based upon
what James Madison said was the function of the Senate--to be a
deliberative body, to bring stability to our political system, not to
do things the same way the House of Representatives does.
As a result of the nuclear option, the Senate design has been forever
altered, and it was done via brute force with zero buy-in from the
minority. The result, as we have seen over the last 2 months, is less
cooperation and more partisanship, something the people of this country
abhor.
That is before you consider the current state of affairs regarding
amendments here on the Senate floor. The majority leader routinely
blocks all Senators from offering amendments by doing what we call
``filling the tree'' with amendments, and then sets aside his ``blocker
amendments'' for only those amendments that the leader considers
appropriate for us to discuss.
When you take into consideration the inability of Senators to offer
amendments of their choosing and combine it with the leader's decision
to strip the minority of their right to extend a debate on nominations,
it becomes clear why today's Senate operates the way it does. There are
two great rights Senators have: the right to debate and the right to
amend. That is what makes us a deliberative body. That is what makes us
so much different from the House of Representatives. By stripping away,
on one hand, the right to extend the debate on nominations, and denying
Senators, on the
[[Page S280]]
other hand, the right to offer amendments, the leader has taken those
two rights and shredded them. It is to a point where some Members of
this body don't even have a full appreciation for the way the
institution used to operate.
Is it any wonder that it is difficult to get things done in today's
Senate? Is it any wonder Senators don't feel compelled to work and
consult together?
Today we will vote on a nomination the Senate rejected a couple of
months ago. Now--perhaps because the other side is having a bit of
buyer's remorse--some of my colleagues have been doing their best to
rewrite history.
Senate Democrats claim that Republican opposition to the DC Circuit
nominees was, in their words, unprecedented, but conveniently failed to
mention that Senate Democrats set the standard during the Bush
administration when they blocked qualified nominees to the DC Circuit
based on caseload, which is the same argument I used, but in those days
the caseload was even heavier than it is today.
As I have said, back then the caseload was higher. You can't say that
too often. The fact is that DC is the most underworked circuit in the
Nation.
I have given previous speeches on this subject, and I have given a
lot of statistics, so I won't go through all those statistics again
today, but with the most recent data released by the nonpartisan
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the numbers still show the DC
Circuit has the fewest number of appeals filed and appeals terminated
among all of the Federal circuit courts.
On a per-active-judge basis, the DC Circuit now has 111 total appeals
filed per active judge. The national average is over three times
higher, at 377. The busiest court, the Eleventh Circuit, comes in at
over seven times higher than the DC Circuit, at 796. In other words, a
Federal appellate judge sitting in Florida has a workload seven times
heavier than the circuit judge sitting here in DC.
I hope people don't fall for the phony argument that cases in the DC
Circuit are more complicated. There are other circuits that handle more
of these so-called complex cases than even DC. The bottom line is the
empirical data has shown, and continues to show, that these judges
could have been better used in other circuits. I have a piece of
legislation that would move these three judges from the DC Circuit to
other circuits where the caseload is greater.
To confirm what the statistics show, early last year I decided to go
straight to the source, the judges who serve in DC on this circuit.
Before these nominations to the DC Circuit were even made, I submitted
a questionnaire to each DC Circuit judge asking them about their
workload. Their responses independently confirmed that the data showed
that the court is severely underworked.
One judge responded: ``If any more judges were added now, there
wouldn't be enough work to go around.'' I hope you understand that the
vacancies that are being filled are going to cost the taxpayers $1
million-plus a year forever as long as these seats are filled.
After looking carefully at the data, and, of course, confirming my
understanding with the judges themselves, I opposed these nominations
based, in part, on the same standards established by the Democrats
during the Bush administration when they blocked nominees to the DC
Circuit. Then, of course, there was a Republican President, and now we
have a Democratic President.
Of course, that wasn't the only reason for opposition to these
nominees. For instance, gun rights supporters are opposed to Judge
Wilkins, not based on caseload but because of the Dearth v. Holder case
where Judge Wilkins held that nonresident U.S. citizens don't have the
Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm.
The last nominee we confirmed to the DC Circuit was about the
farthest thing from a mainstream nominee as you can get. I won't repeat
everything I said about that nominee in previous speeches or what that
nominee has said or written, but I will give one example. Consider
former Professor Pillard's view on religious freedom. She argued that
the Supreme Court case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church,
which challenged the so-called ``ministerial exception'' to employment
discrimination represented--in her words--a ``substantial threat to the
American rule of law.''
The Supreme Court, on appeal, rejected her view 9-0, and the Court
held that ``it is impermissible for the government to contradict a
church's determination of who can act as its ministers.''
Think about that. Former Professor Pillard argued the challenge to
the ministerial exception to employment law represented a ``substantial
threat to the American rule of law.'' Yet the Court rejected the view
9-0, and held ``it is impermissible for the government to contradict a
church's determination of who can act as its ministers.''
Do my colleagues honestly believe it is within the mainstream to
argue churches shouldn't be allowed to choose their own ministers? I
don't believe it is in the mainstream.
We know these judges aren't needed. Far from it. We know these
nominations aren't mainstream. Far from it. Then why did our Senate
Democrats go to such lengths to stack this court? Why go so far as to
change the Senate rules in order to fill these vacancies? Why go so far
as to abuse and violate the Senate rules to change the rules? Well,
because the President and his allies will do whatever it takes to get
their way even if it means breaking Senate rules, silencing debate,
circumventing Congress, or stacking the judicial deck in their favor to
ensure that their executive actions are rubberstamped by the courts.
It is no secret the President has decided to circumvent Congress by
relying heavily on Executive orders and regulatory action to carry out
an unpopular agenda. We all heard the President pledge repeatedly, ``If
Congress won't act, I will.'' What he means, of course, is that he is
going to do it all by executive action. He won't go to Congress. He
won't negotiate. In fact, he will go around Congress. He decided he
doesn't need legislators to make these changes. He will just issue an
Executive order or issue new agency rules.
As I have explained before, in effect, the President is saying: If
the Senate won't confirm who I want, when I want them, then I will
recess-appoint them when the Senate isn't even in session, or at
another time, the President would say: If Congress won't pass cap-and-
trade fee increases, then I will go around the Congress and do the same
thing through administrative action at the Environmental Protection
Agency or, again, if Congress won't pass gun control legislation, then
I will issue a series of Executive orders. Quite simply, that is what
the President means when he says: If Congress won't act, I will.
But remember. Under our system, it is the courts that provide a check
on the President's powers. It is the courts that decide whether the
President is acting unconstitutionally. So the only way the President's
plan works is if he stacks the deck in his favor. The only way the
President can successfully bypass Congress is if he stacks the courts
with ideological allies who will rubberstamp these Executive orders.
That is why it is so important for the President that he and his Senate
allies stack the DC Circuit even though the DC Circuit doesn't have
enough work, and it will be an additional $1 million for each of the
three judges who are now being stacked into this court.
As I have said, in the last few weeks the other side has attempted to
rewrite history in an effort to justify the actions they have taken,
but the other side's effort to rewrite history isn't limited to the
history of the DC Circuit in particular. It extends to the number of
so-called filibusters during the past few years.
Several times last week the Senate majority claimed that the
Republicans filibustered 20 of Obama's district court nominees.
According to their narrative, only 23 nominees have been filibustered
in the history of the Senate, and 20 occurred in the past 5 years. That
is not remotely true, and the majority knows that. As near as I can
tell, this claim is based on the number of times a cloture motion has
been filed on district court nominees. Of course, everyone knows a
cloture motion isn't a filibuster. A filibuster is a failure to end
debate.
Nonetheless, let's look at those 20 nominees. Seventeen nominees were
[[Page S281]]
filed at one time back in March of 2012. That maneuver, of course, was
a transparent effort to manufacture a crisis where no crisis existed.
Every single one of these cloture motions was later withdrawn. As a
result, not 1 of those 17 nominees even had a cloture vote, let alone a
failed cloture vote.
In fact, of these 20 so-called filibusters of district court judges,
the Senate held only 1 cloture vote on a district court judge, and that
cloture vote passed the Senate. Yet the Senate majority still claims we
filibustered 20 district court nominees. That is revisionist history if
I have ever seen it.
Let's review the alleged Republican obstruction of the President's
nominees. Since President Obama took office, the Senate has approved
218 of the President's lower court judicial nominees. That is 99
percent. So we have rejected only two. If the majority leader hadn't
invoked the nuclear option, the number would have, in fact, been 5
instead of 2, but not 20, and not 34, as I have heard some claim. It
would not have even been 10, which was the number the Senate majority
blocked by the fifth year of President Bush's administration. Five
nominees.
At the end of the day, the majority was willing to toss aside two
centuries of Senate practice and tradition over just five judicial
nominees. So I continue to oppose this nominee, just as I did when the
Senate rejected the nomination before the Senate Democrats broke the
rules to change the rules.
This judgeship wasn't warranted before the majority leader and the
Democrats invoked the misguided nuclear option, and it certainly hasn't
suddenly become warranted in the weeks since that time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a vote scheduled for 5:30; is that
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
____________________