[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9478-9479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              SENATE RULES

  Mr. McCONNELL. It has been over 140 days now since we settled here in 
the Senate the issue of the Senate's rules. We settled it conclusively 
not only this January but actually January 2 years before that. What 
happened this January is we had an extensive bipartisan discussion 
about what rules or standing orders we might change. In the wake of 
that discussion, we passed two rules changes and two standing orders.
  The majority leader said--well, this is what he said 2 years ago:

       I agree that the proper way to change the Senate rules is 
     through the procedures established in those rules, and I will 
     oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the 
     Senates rules other than through the regular order.

  That was in January of 2011. What he said back in 2011--and the 
reason I put that up even though that was a previous Congress--he said 
either this Congress or the next Congress, the Congress we are in now.
  This January, I said to the majority leader:

       I would confirm with the majority leader that the Senate 
     would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing 
     order or rules this Congress unless they went through the 
     regular order process?

  That was this January, just a few months ago, a little over 140 days.
  The majority leader said:

       That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate 
     procedure would be subject

[[Page 9479]]

     to a regular order process, including consideration by the 
     Rules Committee.

  Now, that is not ambiguous. That is not ambiguous at all.
  So the reason I and my colleagues have been talking about this 
repeatedly is that this is a huge institutional issue. The naive notion 
that somehow you can break the rules of the Senate to change the rules 
of the Senate for nominations only was laid out by Senator Alexander 
yesterday in which he suggested a hypothetical series of measures that, 
if I were in the job the majority leader is currently in a year and a 
half from now, would be a very appealing agenda to my side, things like 
repealing ObamaCare, things like national right to work, things like 
opening ANWR.
  Now, I would say to my friends on the other side, that is not 
something they would be very excited about, but in American politics 
things change. There is a tendency, when you are in the majority, to be 
kind of arrogant about it and to think the rules of the Senate are 
unnecessarily inconvenient to what you are trying to achieve.
  Well, the Senate was designed from the very beginning--George 
Washington was actually asked during the Constitutional Convention: 
What do you think the Senate is going to be like?
  He said: I think it is going to be like the saucer under the tea cup. 
The tea is going to slosh out of the cup, down to the saucer, and cool 
off.
  In other words, they anticipated that the Senate would not be a place 
where things happen rapidly.
  Written right into the Constitution is advise and consent. Advise and 
consent. The Senate has a role to play, for example, on nominations--
which seem to be the fixation of the majority at the moment even though 
there is no evidence whatsoever that this administration has been 
treated poorly with regard to either executive branch or judicial 
nominations, no evidence at all. This is a manufactured crisis. 
Nevertheless, they seem to be focused on nominations. What do my 
friends in the majority think ``advise and consent'' means? Apparently 
they think it means ``sit down and shut up. Do what I say when I tell 
you to.'' I do not think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
  So there are a number of reasons we should not go down this road:
  No. 1, the majority leader gave his word. Your word is the currency 
of the realm in the Senate. That ought to end it right there.
  No. 2, do not assume you could just sort of surgically break the 
rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate for nominations 
only.
  No. 3, I think it would be appropriate, since the American people 
change their minds from time to time about whom they would like to be 
in the majority of the Congress, to think about the consequences when 
the shoe is on the other foot.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________