[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16643-16645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         A GRIDLOCKED CONGRESS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mainstream Americans must march to the polls this 
November to express themselves forcefully to stop extremists financed 
by undisclosed contributors from stifling our democracy. The Congress 
is gridlocked, leaving the Nation's business floundering. Fringe 
candidates with highly questionable competency are winning primary 
elections. Moderates and some conservatives are falling because they 
fail the test of ideological purity.
  In the past 10 years, both parties have taken advantage of procedural 
rules-gimmicks to thwart needed congressional action. During the 
administration of President George W. Bush, Democrats mounted so many 
filibusters against judicial nominations that the Senate was on the 
verge of changing an important rule requiring 60 votes to cut off 
debate. During the Obama administration, Republicans have exceeded the 
prior extremism of Democrats on filibusters. In addition, the leaders 
of both parties have abused procedural rules to stop Senators from 
offering important, germane amendments to pending legislation in a 
Chamber where the tradition had allowed any Senator to offer virtually 
any amendment on any bill to get a vote to focus public attention on 
important national issues.
  The partisanship has reached such a high level and comity such a low 
level that there is not even the pretense of negotiation or compromise 
in almost all situations. Within days of the start of the Obama 
administration, literally before the ink was dry on his oath of office, 
Republicans openly bragged about plans to ``break'' him and to engineer 
his ``Waterloo.'' Announcing that ideological purity was more important 
than obtaining a majority, the prevailing Republican motto was: We 
would rather have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 50 Arlen Specters.
  Moderates and some conservatives, too, have fallen like flies at the 
hands of extremists in both parties. Senator Robert Bennett's 39 
percent conservative rating was insufficient for renomination in Utah. 
Senator Lisa Murkowski was rejected by Alaska's tea party's dominance 
in their Republican primary. In perhaps the most stunning election, an 
opponent whom conservative Republicans characterized as incompetent 
beat Congressman Mike Castle. These elections were presaged by the 
surprising defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman, who was not sufficiently 
liberal to represent Connecticut's Democrats.
  The Senate is a vastly different place than it was when I was elected 
in 1980. In that era, Howard Baker and Lloyd Bentsen worked together. 
Bob Dole and Russell Long could reach an accommodation on tax issues. 
Bill Cohen and ``Scoop'' Jackson found compromises in the Armed 
Services Committee. The Nunn-Lugar initiatives were legendary. Dan 
Inouye and Ted Stevens perfected bipartisanship on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I think it is fair and accurate to say that the Republican Party has 
changed the most ideologically from the days when the steering 
committee, led by Senator Jesse Helms, represented the conservatives 
and the Wednesday moderate luncheon club was almost as big, with Mark 
Hatfield, ``Mac'' Mathias, Lowell Weicker, John Danforth, Charles 
Percy, Bob Stafford, John Heinz, John Chafee, Bob Packwood, Alan 
Simpson, John Warner, Warren Rudman, Slade Gorton, and Arlen Specter, 
in addition to Baker, Dole, Stevens, and Cohen. By the turn of the 
century, the group had shrunk to Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Susan 
Collins, Lincoln Chafee, and me. After the 2008 election, only Snowe, 
Collins, and I remained.
  By the fall of 2008, the economy was in free fall. More than half a 
million jobs were being lost each month, and the unemployment rolls 
were nearing 4 million. President Bush formulated a $750 billion so-
called bailout called TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 
Resistance to the proposal was high. The House of Representatives 
rejected it on September 29 by a vote of 228 to 205. The stock market 
fell 778 points on the Dow Jones average. Nothing could be done 
immediately since many in Congress--myself included--were in synagogues 
across the country celebrating Rosh Hashanah on that evening and the 
next day. The Senate came back into session on October 1 to vote on 
TARP.
  Vice President Cheney met with the Republican caucus to urge 
acceptance of the President's plan. Dick Cheney had an earned 
reputation for being a dry, factual, unemotional speaker, low key, 
direct, here it is, take it or leave it.
  Before the Senate vote, in the Senate Mansfield Room, immediately off 
this Chamber, the Vice President was impassioned. He said if you don't 
pass this legislation, George W. Bush will turn into a modern day 
Herbert Hoover.
  Republicans responded with 34 voting aye and 15 opposed. TARP passed 
the Senate 75 to 24. The House followed suit, and the President signed 
the bill. It wasn't a pretty legislative process. It started out with a 
few pages, mushroomed into a gigantic bill, without appropriate 
hearings, analysis, debate or deliberation. Fast action was mandatory 
if we were to stop the market slide and the economy from crashing. The 
implications were worldwide.
  The situation continued to deteriorate. President Obama immediately 
went to work on a stimulus bill. He came to the Republican Caucus on 
January 27, and made a very strong appeal on the urgency of immediate 
action to save the U.S. economy from a 1929-type depression with a 
domino effect on the world economy. He said it was imperative that the 
bill be passed by February 13, the Friday before Congress began a 
weeklong recess for the Washington/Lincoln birthdays.
  A large group of Senators held a series of meetings attended by about 
15 rotating Democrats with 6 Republicans

[[Page 16644]]

initially in attendance: Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George 
Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, Mel Martinez, and me. The final meetings 
were held on February 6 in Harry Reid's office, attended by Susan 
Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanuel, Reid, and me. Collins 
and I insisted on having a final bill under $800 billion. The Obama 
figure had started out at $600 billion and ballooned to more than a 
trillion dollars. She and I thought it would be tough for the public to 
swallow a stimulus act so we insisted on holding the figure under $800 
billion. When she and I couldn't agree with the Democrats, we took a 
break and went to my hideaway office to confer. There we formulated our 
last best proposal, which was accepted.
  The stimulus package, like TARP, was put together too fast without 
appropriate hearings, analysis, debate, and deliberation. Had the 
Republican leadership participated, there would have been critical 
staff assistance on formulating what the money should have been spent 
for to stimulate the economy immediately and create jobs, but the 
Republican leadership refused to participate. The Republican game plan 
was already in effect to ``break'' Obama and cause his ``Waterloo.''
  There were many Republicans in the caucus who would have liked to 
have voted for the stimulus. The U.S. and world economies were closer 
to the precipice of depression than when 34 Senators had voted for 
TARP. But the pressure to vote the party line was tremendous--the 
strongest I had seen in my 29-year tenure. The risk of retribution was 
enormous.
  After making my floor speech supporting the President's plan, I 
walked back into the Republican cloakroom where a senior colleague 
said: ``Arlen, I'm proud of you.'' When I then asked him: ``Will you 
join with me?'' he replied: ``No, I couldn't do that. Might cost me a 
primary.'' While there has been much justified criticism that the 
stimulus legislation could have been better, most would agree that it 
did prevent a 1929-style depression.
  Not interested in governance, after the stimulus vote, Republicans 
turned to obstructionism--a virtual scorched-earth policy to carry out 
the plan to defeat the President. In 2009 and 2010 to date, 112 cloture 
motions have been filed and voted on 67 times. That the filibusters 
were frivolous, dilatory, and obstructionistic is evidenced by the fact 
that some judges were confirmed by overwhelming majorities, some 99 to 
0, after cloture was invoked. Each time cloture was invoked, the Senate 
could not take up any other business for 30 hours, leaving little time 
to take up other vital legislation.
  On some occasions, relatively rare, the filibusters were justified 
where the majority leader filled the so-called tree, precluding 
minority amendments. That sometimes led to half-hearted negotiations 
over how many and what amendments the minority could offer, resulting 
in reciprocal recriminations of unfairness. Often the recriminations 
were meritorious with both parties being to blame. Each side maneuvered 
to avoid voting on amendments which posed political risks to their 
side. Notwithstanding the fact that Senators are sent to Washington to 
vote, enormous energy is expended to avoid votes. This issue did not 
apply to judicial confirmations where no amendments were in order. In 
2008, I proposed a rule change to establish a timetable for confirming 
judges precluding filibusters. In 2009, I proposed a rule change to 
prohibit filling the so-called tree to prevent other Senators from 
offering amendments.
  The exodus of Senate Republican moderates has resulted from the shift 
of the party to the right causing many moderates to reregister as 
Independents or Democrats, significant expenditures by the Club for 
Growth, the activism of the tea party, and, more recently, the infusion 
of enormous sums of money from secret contributors. Extreme right-wing 
candidates have benefited from enormous campaign expenditures by 
outside groups. The New York Times recently reported that ``outside 
groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races . . . 
have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television 
. . .'' Bloomberg News reports that, in September alone, groups 
supporting Republican candidates spent $17 million while groups 
supporting Democratic candidates spent only $2.6 million.
  The Club for Growth's backing of Lincoln Chafee's primary opponent in 
Rhode Island in 2006 was especially costly causing his defeat in the 
general by draining his financing and pushing him to the right. It cost 
Republicans control of the Senate in 2007 and 2008. When the Club for 
Growth defeated moderates in the primaries, Pete Domenici's seat was 
lost in 2008, as were the House seats of Joe Schwartz in Michigan in 
2006 and Wayne Gilchrist in Maryland in 2008.
  It is understandable that moderates are responding to caucus 
pressure, seeing what is happening to colleagues who are seen as 
ideologically impure and insufficiently conservative. Bob Bennett had a 
93 percent conservative rating. Only two objections were raised against 
him: he sponsored health care reform legislation which was cosponsored 
by many other Republicans, and he voted for TARP. As noted, TARP was 
President Bush's legislation, enthusiastically advocated by Vice 
President Cheney. It was a significant success, stabilizing the banking 
industry and enabling GM and Chrysler to stay in business. Most of the 
government funds have been repaid.
  South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, who was defeated earlier this 
year by a conservative primary challenger, said today's political 
climate would make it ``a tough time for Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp.'' 
Florida Governor Charlie Crist was driven out of the Republican Party 
to an Independent candidacy because his State accepted stimulus money. 
He was pictured embracing President Obama and he was thought to be too 
liberal. Considering what has happened to Bennett, Murkowski, Castle, 
and Crist, is no wonder that Republican Senate moderates and some 
conservatives are hewing the party line as they watch right wingers 
plan for their primary defeats years away.
  Republican Senators who previously actively supported campaign 
finance reform were unwilling to cast a single vote with 59 Democrats 
to proceed to consider legislation requiring the disclosure of 
corporate contributions permitted by the Supreme Court decision in 
Citizen's United. Notwithstanding the broad latitude given to campaign 
contributions under the first amendment, the Supreme Court rulings 
leave Congress the authority to require disclosure. It is hard to 
understand how any objective view would oppose disclosure when secret 
contributions pose such a threat to our democracy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has now used his 
additional 15 minutes of time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 
additional minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I have been waiting now to speak on 
Ted Stevens, which was, I thought, the time allotted here. I am happy 
to give the Senator another 2 minutes on top of the extra 15 if that is 
necessary, but we have several Members wishing to speak on Senator 
Stevens. If he would hold it to another 2 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, I asked for the time when no one was here. I do 
ask for the additional 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
shall not, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Specter, I be 
recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Hutchison be recognized for 5 
minutes, Senator Collins for 10 minutes, Senator Alexander for 5 
minutes, and Senator Isakson for 5 minutes, thus locking in the time we 
understood we were going to get.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, both requests 
are granted.
  Mr. SPECTER. To continue the chain of thought, like the issue on 
campaign contributions, the DOD authorization

[[Page 16645]]

bill was stymied on the excuse of ``procedural'' considerations 
involving ``don't ask, don't tell,' when many Republicans had voted to 
repeal it on prior occasions.
  This country is still governed by ``we the people,'' but the only 
people who count are the ones who vote. If mainstream Republicans had 
been as active tea party Republicans in the Utah, Alaska, and Delaware 
primaries, I believe Bennett, Murkowski, and Castle would have won. 
That would have given heart to other Republican Senators that their 
records would be judged by a sufficiently large base to give them a 
fighting chance to survive.
  Politics is routinely described as the art of the possible or the art 
of compromise. The viability of the two-party system is predicated on 
advocacy of differing approaches to governance which ultimately seeks 
middle ground or compromise. That is virtually always indispensible to 
reach a supermajority of 60. When one party insists on ideological 
purity, compromise is thwarted and the two-party system fails to 
function.
  People with grievances are the most anxious to shake up the system. 
The Congress needs to deal with issues such as the deficit, the 
national debt, and the intrusiveness of government. The tea party 
people who attended townhall meetings in August of 2009, like mine in 
Lebanon, were not Astro Turf, but citizens making important points. But 
they did not represent all of America or, in my opinion, even a 
majority of Republicans. Pundits are saying this November our Nation 
will be at the crossroads. I believe it is more like a clover leaf. If 
activated and motivated to vote, mainstream voters can steer America to 
sensible centrism.
  Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________