[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3429-3430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             OBSTRUCTIONISM

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today I am here to talk about the 
obstructionism across the aisle and how it is hurting our country, 
preventing progress, preventing change at a time when Americans demand 
change. This chart says it all: 73 Republican filibusters and counting.
  The Republican Party, Leader McConnell, and others have pointed out 
that a handful of the filibusters may have been started by Democrats. 
We can look at the circumstances of those. Maybe those were done 
because there was no choice, because somebody else was delaying in 
another way. But let's say there were 10 of these that are Democratic. 
Then we will change this number from 73 to 63. It is still 
overwhelming. It is still the record.
  The point we are making is very simple: This Republican minority, 
unable to put forward its own agenda, unable because they are not in 
sync with America, can only obstruct. If you had a single word to 
describe the tenor of the Republican minority this year and last year, 
this session of Congress thus far, it would be ``obstruct.'' If you 
needed two words, it would be ``obstruct, obstruct.'' If you needed a 
few more words, it would be ``obstruct, obstruct, and then obstruct 
again; get in the way.''
  Admittedly, this body was designed, in the wisdom of the Founding 
Fathers, to be the cooling saucer. This body is supposed to take a 
careful look and slow things down. But there are times when history 
demands change. There are times when the minority has understood that, 
and even though they would modify the way change occurs, they don't 
stand in the way and just say no. This is one of those times.
  Technology has changed our world. It is not the same world it was 
even 10 or 15 years ago.
  Technology has created terrorism. Why? Small groups of bad people 
have been enabled by technology to strike at New York or London or 
Madrid and innocent civilians.
  Technology has created one global labor market in so many different 
areas. It means the kids in the schools of New York or Arkansas or 
Missouri have to compete with the kids at schools in Berlin and Beijing 
and Bangor. It means that jobs are competing. It used to be New York 
State would compete with Connecticut and New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
and Missouri and Arkansas. Now we compete around the globe. That is 
technology, nothing else.
  Technology has allowed us all to live longer. Praise God. The average 
life expectancy goes up and up and up. I have a Dad who is 84. He plays 
golf. Thirty years ago, a man 84 was rare, and when someone was 84, 
they were old and frail. My dad, who led a hard life--so happy he now 
has a nice, happy life--is active. He drives all around, argues with my 
mother about how far he can drive, and all of that.
  We live longer, but that creates new strains on us as well. What 
about health care for our elderly people? The costs go up, and every 
one of us would give our right arm to see our mother or father have 
another good year of health, or husband or wife or child. It means 
pensions and what we do with later-life changes. It also means we live 
longer and things get stretched out. People get married later. They are 
not in a rush to get married and have a family. They find careers 
later. They experiment. In the day when you had to just get a job 
quickly--a lot of people don't do that anymore. So it has changed that.
  Technology has even changed little things. Our parents felt very much 
in control of us. I would get home at 3 o'clock from grade school, and 
I would go out on my street to play. It was baby boom time. There were 
50, 60 kids. We played all kinds of games and ran around. These days, 
more likely, the children stay home. They are on the Internet. Lord 
knows what they are seeing. It is a different world.
  Technology has changed everything, and technology demands that the 
U.S. Government help people adjust to that technology so they can 
continue to have the great American life. That is what America is 
demanding--change. Look at the polls. They are unprecedented. How many 
people think our country, under George Bush's leadership, is moving in 
the right direction? A smaller and smaller percentage. How many people 
think we need significant change? A larger and larger percentage. We 
can argue about what that change should be, but change we must or our 
children and even ourselves in later years will not have the same good 
life we have today.
  We on the Democratic side are seeking to bring about some of that 
change. Some of it is quite large--change the course of the war in 
Iraq, change our health care system, change our energy policy. Some of 
it is smaller but important.
  What do we face from the other side? The word ``no'' and the word 
``no'' again and the word ``no'' again. Using the Senate rules, which 
allow them to require 60 votes on even the smallest measures, they have 
slowed everything down. Again, the exact number is not the point; it is 
that they have set the record. Republican filibusters are rampant. A 
few of these are ours, many are theirs. They will get to 73 soon, I 
assure you.
  Why do they do it? I will tell you why. I try to study history a 
little bit. I am hardly a Ph.D. in history, but I like to read about 
it, think about it. There are times when there is a paradigm shift in 
our politics. The year 1980 was one such time. Most of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle came in in that 1980 Ronald Reagan 
paradigm: strong security, shrink government, family values. Those were 
very attractive. Now the times have changed. The old way doesn't work. 
But their base--20 percent of the electorate but half, maybe more, of 
the Republican base--is stuck in that old world. So they have one foot 
in one camp. They see where the public is, but they can't move. Their 
base and their inability to break with that base have them paralyzed. 
So there is only one choice--obstruct, say no. When you can't say yes 
about anything, say no. That is what they have done--63, 65, 67, 68, 
69. Again, we are busy calculating how many, but it is a whole lot, and 
it is a record.
  Let me talk about one example, the housing crisis. Our economy is 
heading south. The numbers are not good. Unemployment is going up. Job 
creation is meager, anemic almost. The amount of income people have is 
declining, and expenses are going up. Just to continue to buy energy--
oil, gas, heating oil--food, with prices that have gone through the 
roof because of energy in part, eats up all of most average families' 
extra income. So our economy is hurting.
  What is at the bull's-eye of that economic downturn? It is housing, 
all kinds of problems. Again, the old philosophy, Reagan philosophy--
don't regulate these new mortgage brokers--has led to a disaster. The 
banks were pretty regulated. They are not to blame in this crisis by 
and large, the initial banks that made mortgages, the community banker, 
for instance, regulated by the Federal Government. But the mortgage 
brokers who are not affiliated with banks, unregulated, are clearly at 
the nub of this. They were unregulated, and that was the old philosophy 
on that side of the aisle--no regulation, let the buyer beware. Well, 
the buyer got hurt. But as we learned in economics, the person in the 
house next door, who is fully paid on his or her mortgage, got hurt 
because his or her housing values went down.
  Now we even have a credit freeze because people so miscalculated--the 
great financial moguls so miscalculated the value of these mortgages, 
it has now cast into doubt the way we evaluate credit everywhere. The 
Port Authority of New York just paid 17 percent for a short-term bond. 
Everyone knows the Port Authority is going to pay it back--they have a 
great revenue stream--but still, people are worried.
  So the only way we are going to get to turn this economy around is do 
some things with housing. We on the Democratic side proposed a modest 
package of five measures, many of

[[Page 3430]]

which had bipartisan support--raising the mortgage revenue caps was 
proposed by President Bush--and every one of them was designed to be 
focused, not that expensive--some money but not a huge program, 
designed to bring support from the other side.
  Then Senator Reid went to the floor and said: There are good ideas 
from the other side of the aisle. Senator Isakson has a very 
interesting idea about a credit for first-time home buyers for a while 
to encourage people to buy homes and get this housing market going. 
Senator Reid offered Senator McConnell the opportunity--you offer your 
amendments, modify the housing package, and let's move forward.
  Again, what did we get? I don't know what number it was: another 
block, another filibuster, another requirement that we are not going to 
let this go forward. We are either going to delay and delay and delay 
with countless amendments, irrelevant amendments, or we will not let 
you move forward on any of your amendments--either one fitting into 
this category of ``filibuster.''
  Why don't they join us? Here the economy is sinking, and yet we had 
one vote, I believe it was, on the other side of the aisle saying: 
Let's move forward and get a housing package.
  We are willing to entertain your amendments--not amendments that have 
nothing to do with housing: the estate tax--you know, the old saws. 
Let's do that another time. We have done it before. I am sure we will 
do it again, probably on the budget that is coming up next week. But 
let's move forward on housing.
  Senator Reid was extremely generous in his offer. What was the 
answer? No. This chart, in other words, says: No.
  Our country demands change. Housing is in crisis. The housing crisis 
has spread like ripples outward on a pond, hurting--hurting--our 
economy, hurting it as a whole. Here we have a smart, well-designed, 
thoughtful, and not overly broad package of housing reforms, and 
instead of debating, the other side obstructs. Is it because there are 
few on that side of the aisle who say: No Government involvement, and 
they are able to exert their will on the whole Republican minority and 
say: Just stop it? Is it because most of the other side is scared of 
the Republican base that says: No Government involvement, let the 
economy sink?
  We heard that from Herbert Hoover. We heard that from William 
McKinley. We have learned about the economy since those days. We have 
learned that smart government involvement, particularly when there is 
an economic downturn--people are hurting, jobs are not being created--
is the right thing to do.
  Again, we can debate what the right way to do it is. I am sure most 
on the other side would more prefer tax cuts. Some of us prefer some 
money for CDBG or mortgage counselors--some Government spending. But 
let's debate it, and let's come up with a result. And instead: No. 
Filibuster. Again, maybe it is No. 73, maybe it is No. 69, maybe it is 
No. 67. I don't know what number it is. They are busy calculating that 
upstairs. But it is a big two-letter number.
  The only thing I can say, putting on my political hat--I will tell 
you, the public is demanding change. The times, they are a-changing. If 
you do not seek to make that change, you will be called accountable in 
November. I do not want that to happen. I want to see a good, robust 
election. I want to see Democrats pick up seats. But given the choice, 
I would much rather have us join together in constructive legislation 
and each get credit for it.
  But that is not going to happen unless we have a change in attitude, 
unless we go back to the old ways when filibusters were used on issues 
of major import but not used routinely to block every single piece of 
legislation.
  Let us hope the membership on the other side of the aisle will see 
the light. Let us hope they will see that mere obstructionism is not 
what the country wants. Let us hope they understand there is a demand 
for change out there in the country. And let us hope they will join 
with us in seeking that right degree of change with open debate, with 
discussion of relevant amendments, and moving forward to heal some of 
the economic wounds the country is now facing.
  Madam President, 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.

                          ____________________