[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Page 9298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              SENATE RULES

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, day after day I have been coming to the 
Senate floor to remind the majority leader of the commitments he made 
to the American people in 2011 and again just a few months ago that he 
would not break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of 
the Senate; that he would preserve the rights of the minority in this 
body; that he would not try to remake the Senate in the image of the 
House, something that could change our democracy in a very fundamental 
way.
  So the question remains: Will he keep his word?
  Here is what he said on January 27, 2011:

       I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next--

  The one we are in now--

     to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular 
     order.

  And here is what he said this year, after I asked him to confirm that 
the Senate would not consider any rules changes that did not go through 
the regular order process:

       That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate 
     procedure would be subject to a regular order process 
     including consideration by the Rules Committee.

  Now, look, Mr. President, a Senator's word--especially the word of 
the majority leader--is the currency of the realm in this Chamber--the 
currency of the realm in this Chamber. As the majority leader himself 
said:

       Your word is your bond . . . if you tell [a Republican 
     Senator or a Democratic Senator] you are going to do 
     something, that is the way it is.

  He is entirely correct. Senators keeping their word, well, that is 
just vital to a well-functioning Senate. But it is only part of the 
equation. We also need well-established rules that are clear, fair, and 
preserve the rights of all Senators--including those in the minority--
to represent the views of their States and of their constituents. That 
is the other reason why I have been pressing the majority leader on 
this issue.
  As a matter of principle, holding a Senator to his or her word is 
important, but so is preserving a Senate that works the way it is 
supposed to. And we cannot be assured of that until the majority leader 
affirmatively states that he will stay true to the commitments he has 
made.
  I understand my friend the majority leader is under a lot of 
pressure. I have known him for a long time, and deep down I know he 
understands the far-reaching consequences of ``going nuclear.'' I think 
he actually realizes how terrible an idea that would be because once 
the Senate definitively breaks the rules to change the rules, the 
pressure to respond in kind will be irresistible to future majorities. 
The precedent will have been firmly and dramatically set.
  Some Washington Democrats say: Oh, they just want to limit the rules 
change to nominations; they just want to make a little adjustment on 
nominations, which is why they have been hurtling the Senate toward a 
manufactured fight over a couple of the President's most controversial 
nominees. But Republicans have been treating the President's nominees 
more than fairly.
  At this point in President Bush's second term he had a total of 10 
judicial confirmations; and, by the way, the Republicans were in the 
majority in the Senate. President Bush, at this point in his second 
term, with a Republican majority in the Senate, had 10 judicial 
confirmations. So far in his second term, President Obama has had 26 
judges confirmed--26, 26 to 10. Apples to apples: at this point in 
President Bush's term, with a Republican Senate; at this point in 
President Obama's term, with a Democratic Senate.
  I would note that just yesterday the Senate approved two more 
judicial nominees. That leaves just five--just five--available to the 
full Senate to be confirmed. There are only five around here. Think 
about that. Of the 77 Federal judicial vacancies, the President has not 
nominated anyone for most of them, and only 5 remain on the Senate's 
Executive Calendar. Moreover, only one of those nominees has been 
waiting more than a month to be considered.
  So it is hard to see this as anything other than a manufactured 
crisis. There is no factual basis for it--a manufactured crisis. So the 
question is, a crisis to what end? Where does this lead us?
  Well, one of the reasons the majority leader has refrained from 
changing the rules thus far is this: He fully understands--he fully 
understands--that majorities are fleeting, but changes to the rules are 
not, and breaking the rules to change the rules would fundamentally 
change the Senate.
  Future majorities would be looking to this precedent. I do not know 
what the future holds, but 2 years from now I could be setting the 
agenda around here. Once deployed, the nuclear option may have fallout 
in future Congresses, actually forever altering the deliberative nature 
of the Senate, which has made it the institution where enduring 
compromises between the parties have been forged.
  So it is time for sober consideration of the direction in which the 
Senate is being taken.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________