[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11444-11453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  Mr. REID. If there are quorum calls during this time, I ask unanimous 
consent that they be equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and the renomination of Rich Cordray to 
serve as its Director.
  Several years ago I began working on the idea for a consumer finance 
agency because our consumer credit system was badly broken. The laws 
were inconsistent, they were often arbitrary, and the basic rules 
changed for the same kind of product, such as a mortgage, depending on 
what kind of company sold it. People got cheated. And, as we know, in 
2008, reckless and dangerous mortgage lenders and Wall Street traders 
who made money off those mortgages nearly brought our entire economy to 
its knees.
  In 2010 Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act. The consumer protection part of that was the 
new consumer agency--the CFPB--which was designed as a watchdog to keep 
credit card issuers, mortgage lenders, and student loan marketers from 
cheating people.
  Now, there was a lot of negotiation over the structure of this new 
agency. Hearing after hearing, markup after markup, floor vote after 
floor vote. But now the same big bank lobbyists are fighting the same 
fight and using the same tired old talking points about the consumer 
agency they were using years ago. You know, you really have to wonder 
just how much money they are making fighting this fight over and over. 
But now let's go ahead one more time and talk about the facts.
  Congress built in many features to the consumer agency so that it 
would have strong oversight. Let me share just a few examples.
  The CFPB is the only agency in government that is subject to a veto 
from other agencies over its rules--the only one. The CFPB is the only 
banking regulator that is subject to a statutory cap on its funding--
the only one. The CFPB Director is legally obligated to produce regular 
reports to Congress, to testify before Congress regularly, and to 
comply with audits. The CFPB also has now testified more than 30 times 
before Congress--30 times. In addition, the CFPB is subject to all the 
regular constraints in our system of government that constrain every 
agency--the Administrative Procedures Act, judicial review, and so on. 
And, of course, there is the ultimate oversight: Congress can overrule 
any CFPB regulation.
  Since the agency became law in 2010, there have been two major 
developments. The first is that Director Cordray has done an excellent 
job. He has won praise from consumer and industry groups and from 
Republicans

[[Page 11445]]

and Democrats for his balanced rulemaking and his measured approach. 
Small institutions such as community banks and credit unions--the ones 
that didn't cause this crisis--think he has been fair and effective. 
Other institutions that want a fair marketplace, those that don't want 
to make a profit by cheating their customers, like Rich too.
  The agency is working. It has already forced credit card companies to 
refund nearly $\1/2\ billion they tricked consumers out of, and the 
complaint center is giving tens of thousands of people a chance to 
fight back when they are cheated. The agency has helped out military 
families, seniors, and students. It has helped a lot of people.
  The agency has become the watchdog so many of us fought for, and Rich 
has surpassed even the high expectations I had for him 2 years ago when 
I stood next to him in the Rose Garden as the President nominated him 
for the first time to the CFPB.
  There has been a second development since.
  The need for certainty has been intensified. It has been nearly 5 
years since the crisis and 3 years since the passage of Dodd-Frank. The 
banks need to know for sure who is in charge and what rules apply. They 
need to know that everyone will be playing by the same rules and 
exactly what those rules will be.
  Here is an example. Both lenders and consumer groups have praised the 
CFPB's new mortgage rules. Now it is time for everyone to know that 
these rules--not the unpopular default rule in Dodd-Frank that the new 
rules replaced--are the law. That helps everyone.
  The American people deserve a government that will hammer out good 
rules, that will enforce those rules, and then will get out of the way 
so the markets can work. They do not deserve endless relitigation of 
stale political disputes and the uncertainty caused by repeated 
filibusters of qualified and proven nominees.
  I am new to the Senate, but I don't understand why this body accepts 
a system where this kind of political stalemate will not end in more 
government or less government but just in bad government--government 
that lacks the consistency, clarity, and predictability that honest 
businesses and hard-working families need to plan for the future.
  I don't understand why we would let an honorable public servant such 
as Rich Cordray get stuck in this nonsense. I don't understand why, 
when everyone says Rich is terrific, we can't just vote on his 
appointment.
  I know some Republicans and some lobbyists think if they filibuster 
Rich's appointment they are somehow going to be able to shut down the 
agency and protect the big banks from any meaningful consumer 
protection rules. They can use all the slogans they want and talk about 
things such as accountability, but outside the Halls of this Congress 
and the fancy lobbyist offices around Washington no one wants more fine 
print and more tricks and traps. No one thinks it is OK to cheat 
regular people and cut special deals for giant banks. No one wants to 
take cops off the beat so big banks can break the rules without being 
held accountable.
  So let me be clear to those who think this filibuster will shut down 
the work of the new agency. Let me be crystal clear. The Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau is the law, and it is here to stay. Do your 
dirtiest with obstructing the confirmation of the new Director, but the 
agency will keep on doing what it does best: fighting for the American 
people.
  We fought to get this consumer agency. We fought big banks and their 
army of lobbyists. We fought hard and we won. Now we have a strong and 
independent watchdog to stop the banks from cheating families. We are 
not giving up now.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have some comments and statements to 
make regarding filibuster reform and nominees. I ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to take the floor to talk about 
these critical nominations the Senate is currently considering. In all 
of the talk about these nominations, about the politics of recess 
appointments and everything, one thing that has been missing is a real 
consideration of who these people are. Let's bring it down to the 
personal. Who are these people? What have they done? What can they do 
to serve our country?
  We seem to have forgotten, in all this chaff that is out there and 
all the arguments going on, what we are supposed to be doing to fulfill 
our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to Presidential 
nominations. As I understand it, we are supposed to look at the 
qualifications of the candidates, determine if they are fit to serve, 
and beyond that, that is it. The answer with all of the nominees before 
us is an unqualified yes. They are qualified, they are fit to serve, 
and the President should be allowed to put together his team. That 
should be the end of our task. We should confirm them all today--or 
tomorrow, I guess, when they come up--and move on to the many other 
important issues facing this body.
  I am going to talk in a little bit about the whole filibuster issue 
itself, but first I would like to talk a little bit about one of the 
first of the nominees who is up, and that is the President's choice to 
be our Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. Without question, Tom Perez has 
the knowledge and experience needed to guide the Department of Labor--
one of our key Cabinet posts.
  Through his professional experiences, especially his work as 
secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and 
Regulation--yes, he was basically the secretary of labor for the State 
of Maryland, and he developed a very strong policy expertise about the 
many issues that confront American workers and businesses. He 
spearheaded major initiatives on potentially controversial issues, such 
as unemployment insurance reform and worker misclassification, while 
finding common ground between workers and employers to build sensible, 
commonsense solutions. It won him the support of the business community 
and worker advocates alike.
  To quote from the endorsement letter of the Maryland Chamber of 
Commerce:

       Mr. Perez proved himself to be a pragmatic public official 
     who was willing to bring differing voices together. The 
     Maryland Chamber had the opportunity to work with Mr. Perez 
     on an array of issues of importance to employers in Maryland, 
     from unemployment and workforce development to the housing 
     and foreclosure crisis. Despite differences of opinion, Mr. 
     Perez was always willing to allow all parties to be heard and 
     we found him to be fair and collaborative. I believe that our 
     experiences with him here in Maryland bode well for the 
     nation.

  That is from the Maryland Chamber of Commerce.
  Tom Perez has dedicated his professional life to making sure that 
every American has a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream. 
Most recently, as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at 
the Department of Justice, he has been a voice for the most vulnerable, 
and he has reinvigorated the enforcement of some of our most critical 
civil rights laws. He has helped more Americans achieve the dream of 
home ownership through his unprecedented efforts to prevent residential 
lending discrimination. He has stepped up the Department of Justice 
efforts to protect the employment rights of service members so that our 
men and women in uniform can return to their jobs and support their 
families after serving their country.
  As the Senate author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I am 
particularly pleased with Mr. Perez's long

[[Page 11446]]

history of leadership on disability rights issues. While at the 
Department of Justice, he helped ensure that people with disabilities 
have the choice to live in their own homes and communities rather than 
only in institutional settings and to receive the support and services 
to make this independent living possible.
  Like any leader whose career has involved passionate and visionary 
work for justice, Tom Perez's career has been one of making difficult 
decisions and management challenges. He has been the target of a lot of 
accusations and mudslinging and misperceptions. But we have looked--I 
have looked carefully into his background and record of service, and I 
can assure my colleagues that Tom Perez has the strongest possible 
record of professional integrity. Any allegations to the contrary are 
totally unfounded.
  Again, Mr. Perez appeared before our committee. He was willing to 
answer any and all questions. To those who were at the committee, those 
who submitted letters--he has answered more than 200 written questions. 
He made himself available to any Senator who wanted to meet with him. 
He has been most accommodating, and I can say that the administration 
has provided all the access people have wanted to his personal e-mails. 
In fact, this administration, I can say from my experience in the last 
29 years, has gone further in providing access to even the personal 
materials of Tom Perez than any President has ever done before, any 
administration has ever done before.
  Again, he has been thoroughly vetted. He has the character, 
integrity, and expertise to lead this Cabinet, and the Senate should 
vote on it. When I say the Senate should vote on it, we should vote on 
it with a majority vote, but, no, Mr. Perez has been filibustered and 
held up to a 60-vote threshold. We know Mr. Perez has well over 50 
votes--the majority--but because my friends on the Republican side are 
stonewalling this, he may not have 60 votes. But why should it take 60 
votes, I ask? Why shouldn't it be a majority vote, up or down?
  The same is true for our nominees to the National Labor Relations 
Board. Again, these are three exceptionally well qualified candidates.
  Mark Pearce has been a board member since 2010 and Chairman since 
2011. He was previously a union-side attorney in private practice. 
Before that he was a career attorney at the National Labor Relations 
Board. Richard Griffin, Jr., is former general counsel of the Operating 
Engineers Union and, again, a former career attorney at the NLRB. 
Sharon Block served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor and before that was staff on 
our HELP Committee. She was the senior counsel for Chairman Kennedy 
when Senator Kennedy was chairman of our committee, and she is a 10-
year veteran of the NLRB.
  Again, I have yet to hear one Senator question their qualifications. 
Indeed, even the ranking member on the HELP Committee conceded at the 
hearing that these candidates are exceptionally well qualified and that 
he admired their qualifications and their distinguished backgrounds.
  They have been thoroughly vetted. They met with any Senator who 
asked. They have each answered more than 100 written questions. They 
have come before our committee in a public hearing, which is not 
typical for all NLRB nominees. They produced every document requested 
and answered every question they have been asked.
  Again, if we concede that they are all exceptionally well qualified 
and well vetted, why can't we vote for them with an up-or-down majority 
vote? Some time ago my friend Senator Graham when speaking about the 
Senate's role and the nomination process said:

       Our job, as I see it, is not to say what we would do if we 
     were President. Our job, as the Constitution lays out for us, 
     is to advise and consent by a majority vote to make sure the 
     President . . . is not sending over their brother-in-law or 
     sister-in-law or unqualified people.

  So no one on this list is anyone's brother-in-law or sister-in-law, 
and everyone is exceptionally well qualified.
  Again, if we are doing our constitutional duty, we would confirm all 
of these nominees tomorrow and move on to our legislative work.
  Why aren't we doing that? Because my friends on the Republican side 
are hijacking these nominations and this nomination process to try to 
make changes to laws they know they could not change through regular 
order. Many times a single Senator or a handful of Senators might hold 
up a nominee not because the nominee is not qualified but because they 
want some changes made someplace else that they don't feel they can get 
through the regular order of business in the Congress.
  For example, my friends on the Republican side don't like the 
National Labor Relations Board. So what do they do? They can't repeal 
it, so they make it inoperable. They make it inoperable by not letting 
us confirm nominees. In fact, one of my Republican colleagues announced 
his intention to filibuster the NLRB nominees 6 days before their 
nominations were announced.
  In fact, he went on to say that an inoperable NLRB would be good for 
the country. If that is the way they feel, offer amendments to defund 
it, do away with it, and repeal the law. But to hold up qualified 
nominees from carrying out the law--the National Labor Relations Act is 
the law of the land. The National Labor Relations Board is constituted 
under that law to carry out its functions. So to hold up qualified 
nominees because they want to change the law, again, is to try to get 
something done that they couldn't otherwise do through the regular 
order.
  This level of obstructionism is unprecedented in the nomination 
process. Repealing laws by fiat is not and was never intended to be a 
part of the Senate's advise and consent function. A Senator's dislike 
for a particular law or a particular agency certainly was not intended 
to prevent qualified and dedicated people from answering the 
President's call to serve their country.
  Again, it is not only the nominees but the American people suffer 
from these unprecedented abuses of the process. The laws that these 
boards and agencies and departments enforce are important laws designed 
to protect people. When the system breaks down--or in this case, 
intentionally undermined--real people are hurt.
  Let's take the example of the National Labor Relations Board. They 
have to have a quorum of three members to act. If there are fewer than 
three members at any time, the Board cannot issue decisions and must 
essentially shut down. The Board currently has three members, but 
Chairman Pearce's term expires in August--next month. At that point the 
National Labor Relations Board would be unable to function unless we 
confirm additional members.
  Keeping the Board open is vital to employees, employers, and our 
economy. Without the Board workers cannot seek justice if they are 
discharged or discriminated against for, say, talking with colleagues 
to improve their working conditions or for joining or assisting a labor 
union or for organizing a labor union. The only avenue available to 
these employees to file a grievance and have their grievance heard and 
adjudicated is to file a charge with the National Labor Relations 
Board. Without it, they have no options at all.
  If the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, cannot function, 
workers effectively don't have no rights. Yet my Republican colleagues 
said an inoperable NLRB would be good for the country. Imagine leaving 
workers without any forum or recourse to have their grievances heard.
  I could also say the same is true for the Consumer Financial 
Protection Board. As we know it was created as part of the Dodd-Frank 
Act with a simple idea in mind: Consumers deserve to have a watchdog 
looking out for their best interests when using financial products and 
services from mortgages to credit cards, to student loans, to payday 
loans. Without the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, consumers don't have that cop on the beat looking out for their 
well-being.
  Mr. Cordray, who has been chosen by the President to head this 
agency, has

[[Page 11447]]

carried out his mission admirably. If Republicans have their way, he 
will never be confirmed. Not only will they lose his leadership but the 
ability to adequately oversee these financial services and financial 
products in order to protect the American consumer.
  By refusing to confirm Mr. Cordray--and if I am not mistaken, I 
believe his nomination has been pending for over 500 days. His 
nomination has been held up for 500-some days. By refusing to confirm 
him, the Republicans are using this nomination process to thwart the 
intent of the Dodd-Frank law, and that brings us to the crux of what is 
going on around here. It has been in the press so much lately. We are 
going to have an unprecedented caucus of the Democratic Senators and 
Republican Senators out here in the old Senate Chamber at 6 p.m. 
tonight to air these grievances.
  As we know, last Thursday the majority leader laid down a number of 
these nominees and filed cloture on them. We will bring them up 
tomorrow. If the Republicans continue to filibuster, the majority 
leader has made clear his intention to change the rules of the Senate 
by using 51 votes to provide that nominations for executive branch 
positions are not subject to the filibuster rule.
  So what we are talking about is the nullification of laws which are 
already on the books through the abuse of the Senate's power to advise 
and consent to nominations--nullification. Read your history books 
about nullification. It is one of the issues we fought the Civil War 
over: Could States nullify, on their own, Federal laws?
  What we are seeing are the Republicans saying we can nullify the 
essence of laws or what boards are supposed to do by abusing the advise 
and consent clause of the Constitution. It is appalling and something 
has to change.
  I first took to the floor on this issue in 1995. This is the 
Congressional Record, and it is dated January 4, 1995. It was an 
interesting time. The Democrats had lost control of the Senate and the 
Republicans were in charge. I--along with Senator Lieberman, Senator 
Pell, and Senator Robb, from the great State of Virginia--proposed a 
change in the rules that wouldn't end the filibuster but would keep the 
filibuster as it was kind of intended, a method whereby the minority 
could ensure that they could amend or offer amendments on legislation.
  The right of the minority should be the ability to offer--not to have 
them adopted--thoroughly debate and vote on amendments. Secondly, to 
make sure the filibuster could be used to slow things down but not to 
be used to stop something. That is why I proposed on January 4, 1995, I 
said: It is getting worse. I also said: I believe in the long run it 
will harm the Senate and our Nation if this pattern continues. I went 
on to talk about the rising tide of the filibusters. I said: Clearly, 
this is a process that is out of control. We need to change the rules. 
We need to change the rules, however, without harming the longstanding 
Senate tradition of extended debate and deliberation and slowing things 
down.
  When I laid down the proposed rule, I went on to discuss about how 
dysfunctional this place was becoming. If you thought it was bad in 
1995, you should see what it is like now. Never in my wildest dreams 
did I think in 1995 that 18 years later the Senate would come to this 
point where we simply can't do anything unless we have 60 votes.
  We now have a system whereby 41 Senators decide what we do. 
Essentially, that is what they do, and through the use of the 
filibuster, a handful of Senators can truly thwart the will of the 
Senate.
  There has been a lot said about different nominees and what is going 
on here. There has been this accusation and that accusation. We have to 
cut through all that fog and all that haze. I referred to it in 1995 as 
sort of like the fog of war. It is sort of like the fog of war; we have 
to cut through it.
  There is only one question we and the American public need to ask 
ourselves: Should a person selected by the President, any President, 
Democratic or Republican President, to be a part of his or her team--
after being thoroughly vetted, after having a thorough committee 
hearing, and after making sure there is nothing terribly wrong with 
this person and they meet the qualifications--have an up-or-down vote 
by the Senate with a majority vote or is it going to require 60 votes?
  Again, the Constitution of the United States very clearly points out 
that there are only five times when the Senate needs a supermajority to 
act, such as impeaching the President, expelling a Member, adopting a 
treaty, joining a treaty, approving a treaty, and things such as that. 
For all other things, the Constitution envisions a simple majority 
vote. That is the real question. There is no other real question before 
us.
  Before I yield the floor, I just wish to address an issue that has 
come up regarding the National Labor Relations Board nominees. I wish 
to set the Record straight. I have taken the time to put this in the 
Record. There have been accusations made on the Senate floor--I 
shouldn't say accusations. There have been comments made that two of 
these Board members are serving illegally and were illegally put on the 
board by President Obama. I am talking about Sharon Block and Richard 
Griffin.
  Let's look at a little history. They were appointed by the President 
in January of 2012 as a recess appointment because the Republicans had 
already announced they would not let us have an up or down vote on 
them. Since we needed a National Labor Relations Board to function, the 
President gave these two people a recess appointment in January of 
2012. They have been serving since that time.
  They were taken to court to decide if the President had the authority 
to appoint them as recess appointees. The DC Circuit Court issued an 
opinion. The reasoning they used was contrary to any other court 
reasoning in the past about recess appointments. The DC Circuit said, 
No, the President could not make those appointments and, furthermore, 
the President can only make a recess appointment during the intervening 
times from one Congress to another for vacancies that arise between 
sessions. No other court has ever held that. There was another court 
that agreed the President couldn't make these recess appointments, but 
it didn't go quite that far; it just said that the appointment had to 
be made between sessions. Other courts, including the Second, Ninth, 
and Eleventh Circuit Courts, have all decided these things differently 
in the past.
  What we have here is a decision by one court--the DC Circuit--taking 
a position that has never been taken before by any court. We have 
another court--the Third Circuit--that also narrowly defined the 
President's power. Then we have other circuit courts that have defined 
the President's power more broadly.
  So what happens now? This case goes to the Supreme Court and the 
Supreme Court will decide this during the 2013-2014 term.
  Sharon Block and Richard Griffin are on the NLRB. They took an oath 
of office to carry out their responsibilities. Some of my Republican 
friends are saying they should resign; they should get off the board 
because they are serving illegally. They are not serving illegally 
until the Supreme Court has made a final decision. I have said before, 
the contention of some of my friends on the Republican side is like 
Alice in Wonderland: First the verdict, and then we have the trial. I 
don't know what the Supreme Court will decide. We don't know. We have 
had precedents in the past. There is a longstanding NLRB precedent when 
the agency faces a split in circuit court opinions. When the DC Circuit 
Court ruled in Laurel Baye v. NLRB that the NLRB needed three members 
to have a lawful quorum to act--again, this was contrary to the 
decision of other circuits--the two-member board, consisting of 
Republican Peter Schaumber and Democrat Wilma Liebman, continued to 
issue decisions until the legal issue was finally resolved in the 
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, No, they need more than two. 
They have to have at least three people to make decisions.

[[Page 11448]]

  The two-member board, during that interim time, issued decisions in 
hundreds of cases after the DC Circuit's adverse ruling, yet not one 
Republican Senator called on either member to resign. So what happened? 
After the Supreme Court issued its decision and the board now had more 
than three members, they went back and looked at these decisions, and 
if there were still open contentions they reviewed them and they issued 
another decision.
  Some of the decisions were accepted by both sides and people moved 
on. Those that weren't were redecided by the board, including the two 
people who had served on that board during that interim period of time.
  Again, we have a recent precedent--and this was just within the last 
5 years, if I am not mistaken. So we have a recent precedent that 
demonstrates that both Block and Griffin are acting appropriately by 
remaining in place and that the NLRB is acting appropriately by 
continuing to issue decisions pending the resolution of this issue by 
the Supreme Court. They cannot and they should not resign because they 
took an oath of office to fulfill their duties, and they must fulfill 
that oath. After President Obama made these appointments, each new 
board member took an oath of office promising to fulfill their duties 
as a member of the NLRB.
  I wanted to clear that up. They are not illegal. We await the Supreme 
Court's decision. I have no idea how they are going to decide because 
there has been a split of the circuits. As I have shown, this issue has 
come up before where we had a case split in circuits. Two board members 
continued to issue decisions. No one here asked them to resign, and 
this was in the last 5 years. No one asked them to resign. But now, for 
some reason, my friends on the Republican side want to deny the 
President his choice of people to serve on the NLRB. Two of those 
people, Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin--let's say the Supreme Court says the 
President couldn't appoint people during that recess. Well, OK. We are 
not talking about that now; we are talking about an appointment that is 
going to take place right now, and he should be allowed to have who he 
wants, as long as they are thoroughly vetted and qualified.
  As I said, no one has questioned their qualifications. The President 
should have the right to have his NLRB board put in place now, and the 
question of whether the decisions made in the last year and 5 or 6 
months--those decisions, just as the ones before in the case of the two 
member Board--went back and were revisited and the court issued its 
decisions. The same thing can happen here. So we shouldn't let anyone 
tell us these nominees are illegal. That is absolutely not true. People 
may think it is true, but it is not true.
  I keep hearing: Well, now there are overtures from the Republican 
side to make some deals--to make a deal on not having the vote tomorrow 
on doing away with the filibuster rule on nominations. Oh, I have heard 
all kinds of things floating around: This deal here, that deal there, 
and we have a little deal here. Since I took the floor in 1995 as a 
Member of the minority, I might add, to propose a change in the 
filibuster rules, this issue has come up several times. It has come up 
several times since 1995. Every time there is always a deal. There is 
always some little deal made so we don't fix what is wrong with the 
Senate. We sort of paper it over and move on. I hope that doesn't 
happen again. Every time a deal was made and it was papered over, 
things got worse--every single time they got worse. They might have 
been OK for a little bit, but then we go right back to our old ways 
again. The old ways won't work any longer around here. They just won't 
work.
  I hope the only deal that is struck is the Republicans agree--we all 
agree--that any President should have his or her right to put their 
team in place by a majority vote of the advise and consent of the 
Senate. They first should be thoroughly vetted with committee hearings 
and answering questions, but they are entitled to an up-or-down vote, 
with a majority vote in the Senate. That is the only deal that will get 
us out of this trap in which we find ourselves. I think it is the only 
thing that will reassure the American people that, once again, the 
Senate is going to function; it is going to do its job; it is not going 
to be thwarted by a handful of people--one or two or three or four 
people--and that we can actually move this country forward and let this 
President and the next President, who may be a Republican, have his 
team. I said that in 1995 when I was in the minority, I have said it in 
the majority, I have said it in the minority, and I say it once again 
as a Member of the majority.
  I hope tomorrow we finally put an end to this nonsense of the 
filibuster on nominations, at a bare minimum. I would like to see the 
filibuster changed even more than that, but at a minimum get rid of the 
filibuster on nominations to the executive branch.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I speak today recognizing that I have only 
been a Member of this body for about 6 months and a couple of days. I 
am hardly an expert on Senate rules, procedures, or precedent. But this 
much I do know: The rule change being considered this week is more far-
reaching and more significant than has been advertised.
  This rule change was described this afternoon by the majority leader 
as a ``minor change, no big deal.'' It is a big deal. It has the 
potential to change this institution in ways that are both hazardous 
and unforeseen.
  We will discuss these changes later today in the Old Senate Chamber. 
I think it is appropriate we should meet there. The Old Senate Chamber 
hasn't been used for official Senate business in over 150 years. It 
gives some perspective to the gravity of what is being considered.
  The majority leader noted today that Senate rules have been changed 
18 times in the past 36 years by a simple majority vote. There needs to 
be a qualifier here--a very big qualifier. This rule change will allow, 
for the first time in Senate history, majority-imposed cloture. That is 
not minor; that is a big deal.
  It is said by the advocates that it will only affect the President's 
executive branch nominees. That may be true initially, but once a 
simple majority has been used to impose cloture for executive branch 
nominees, why can't it be used for judicial nominees who have a 
lifetime tenure? Why not use it for everyday legislation? But even in 
the unlikely event this rule change remains confined to the President's 
executive branch nominees, it would not be a minor change or one that 
can be described as ``no big deal.''
  Let me give one example, and I hope it gives some of my colleagues 
pause as they consider this rule change.
  Currently under consideration by this body is the President's nominee 
to head the Environmental Protection Agency. This agency has broad 
reach across the country. Its regulatory authority extends to power 
generation and air quality. A heavyhanded approach on these issues in 
particular has a potential to put a stranglehold on Arizona's economy. 
With only 15 percent of Arizona's land privately owned, EPA's influence 
is magnified by a considerable footprint the Federal Government already 
has in the State. So the President's choice to head the EPA is an 
important choice and the Senate's advise-and-consent role is vital.
  After reading some of the media reporting on the President's pick for 
this position, I initially had some heartburn. However, after meeting 
in my office with the President's nominee, discussing some of the 
issues unique to Arizona, and receiving assurances that we could, where 
appropriate, work collaboratively on these issues, I felt comfortable 
with the President's choice. On the whole this has been my experience 
with the President's nominees. If this rule we are to consider were in 
place, would I have received a visit from the President's nominee? No. 
I served in the House of Representatives for 12 years. Not once did I 
receive a visit from the President's nominees during the nomination 
process. Why is that? It is not because they didn't like

[[Page 11449]]

me, and it wasn't because I served in the other body or they have some 
aversion to the other Chamber. No. It is because the House has no role 
in advice and consent. This is precisely the position that nearly half 
of the Senate will be in in perpetuity with regard to executive branch 
nominees by the end of this week if this change occurs. Let me repeat 
that. Senators will be in the same position that House Members are in 
if you happen to be in the minority here with regard to executive 
branch nominees.
  The House has no role in advice and consent. If a bare majority could 
be used to invoke cloture on an executive branch nominee, there is no 
reason for them to come see you in your office, to talk about what they 
are doing, to talk about what their philosophy is. Like I say, in most 
cases you feel comfortable after that, and after assurances that you 
can work collaboratively on the issues, then you move on and vote for 
the nominee, in most cases. But that will not happen if this rule 
change occurs.
  In my maiden Senate speech just a few months ago, I said the 
following: The Senate is a body governed largely by consensus. The 
party holding the gavel is on a short leash. Bringing even the most 
noncontroversial resolutions to the Senate floor requires the agreement 
or at least the acquiescence of the minority. Over the past decade both 
parties wielding the gavel have chafed under this arrangement. Both 
parties have at times considered changing the rules. Both parties have 
wisely reconsidered. The House has rules appropriate for the House. The 
rules of the Senate, however frustrating to the party that happens to 
be wielding the gavel, are appropriate for the Senate.
  It is my sincere hope that this body can realize its potential and 
that whatever behavioral changes need to be made are made within the 
longstanding rules of the Senate, rules that have served this 
institution and the country very well for more than 200 years.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, today we are here debating 
the issue of rules. I have listened to this debate about the Senate 
rules, and the word ``broken'' gets tossed around a lot--broken 
agreements, breaking the rules to change the rules. Those are the 
sideline comments and they miss the real point, because what is broken 
is the Senate itself.
  I have said for a long time the Senate is a graveyard for good ideas, 
and the shovel is unprecedented abuse of filibusters, of delay and 
obstruction. It all adds up to one thing: broken.
  We called for changes in the Senate rules at the beginning of this 
Congress. We should have put in place a talking filibuster and other 
changes, but we didn't. So we have this tyranny of the minority, where 
the minority governs--just the situation our Founding Fathers feared.
  Too often the Senate is still a graveyard for good ideas, and the 
bodies keep piling up, especially with executive branch nominees.
  In January, the two leaders agreed to--

       . . . work together to schedule votes on nominees in a 
     timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary 
     circumstances.

  The minority leader said,

       On the subject of nominations, Senate Republicans will 
     continue to work with the majority to process nominations, 
     consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate.

  That was the agreement, and it has not been kept. The only 
extraordinary circumstance has been continual obstruction, and it all 
began very early on.
  For openers, we saw the filibuster of Chuck Hagel's nomination--the 
first time a Secretary of Defense was filibustered. But this is part 
and parcel for President Obama's Cabinet secretaries.
  By way of comparison, looking at other Presidents, not one of 
President Carter's Cabinet nominees was filibustered; President George 
H.W. Bush, zero; President Reagan, one; President George W. Bush, one; 
President Obama, four and still counting.
  I am old enough to remember the era when my father was Secretary of 
Interior in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. When I joined the 
Senate, I told my dad when I went home one weekend, We can't get 
executive nominees in place. The President and Cabinet secretaries 
don't have their teams in place. He said, Tom, I had virtually my whole 
team in place in the first 2 weeks. Imagine that. Imagine if the whole 
team for the Department of the Interior--or any other Department, for 
that matter--was confirmed in the first 2 weeks. Agencies could 
function, our government could do its work.
  Instead, the President's nominations are ambushed by filibusters. 
Confirmation now almost always requires 60 votes, contrary to the 
historical practice of the Senate and, more importantly, contrary to 
the explicit simple majority requirement in the Constitution. These are 
not the traditions and norms the Republicans committed to. It is 
anything but. Still, that is what we have seen, one nominee after 
another blocked and key leadership posts left unfilled.
  Americans thought they spoke with a clear voice last November. No 
doubt they now wonder. And why wouldn't they? The will of the majority 
is drowned out by a small minority. People in my home State of New 
Mexico want to know--Americans want to know--who is minding the store? 
The answer, in too many cases, is no one. We still don't have a 
Secretary of Labor. The National Labor Relations Board is an empty 
shell. The Senate has failed to confirm a full five-member board and 
general counsel. Two of these nominees are Republicans. Even they 
couldn't get through. This has real impact for 80 million Americans who 
rely on workplace protections, for the rights of workers, and the 
integrity of the collective bargaining process.
  Some believe it is a good thing that we toss out the enforcement of 
labor law in this country. I don't share that view. But it isn't just 
workers who are left hanging. Leadership positions at other vital 
agencies remain unfilled: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, the Federal Election Commission. These are important jobs--
important work--for the American people, affecting the environment, 
consumers, health care, and even our elections.
  Earlier this year we debated gun safety legislation. Republicans 
argued that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the 
existing laws. Unfortunately, the agency responsible for enforcing many 
of those laws--the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives--has not had a Senate-confirmed Director in 7 years. Why? 
Because Republicans do not want the ATF to function.
  Many of these highly qualified Americans get tired of having their 
lives put on hold because of partisan obstruction. Rather than continue 
to languish in a dysfunctional system, they withdraw from 
consideration.
  One such example was Dawn Johnson, nominated to head the Justice 
Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson was a respected law 
professor and former top assistant in the Office of Legal Counsel in 
the Clinton administration. But Republicans blocked her nomination. In 
2010, after her nomination was stalled in the Senate over a year, she 
withdrew.
  Another example is Peter Diamond. In 2011, he withdrew as President 
Obama's nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. Diamond's nomination was 
blocked because a small minority of Senators questioned whether he was 
qualified. I tend to believe he was, as he won the Nobel Prize in 
economics the year before.
  It makes you wonder why anyone would subject themselves to a Senate 
confirmation, people who want to serve their country, often at a 
significant pay cut from their private sector careers, who know they 
will be subjected

[[Page 11450]]

to a partisan fight that may have nothing to do with their 
qualifications. So months and years go by, work is left undone, with no 
one at the helm of major government agencies.
  That is why the Senate is in crisis. That is why we are here today. 
The American people deserve better. We need a government that does its 
job. That is not possible without leadership. Congress's approval 
ratings remain in the cellar. Why? Because of a failure to get things 
done, even things as basic as allowing the President to select his own 
team. Find 60 votes or find someone else or leave the position empty--
this is the status quo, and it must change.
  It is time for us to act. It is time to restore the confirmation 
process--restore it to how it has worked for over 200 years. Doing so 
is not breaking the rules to change the rules. They have been changed 
before and it is often done by a simple majority--when the minority is 
abusing Senate procedure. As Senator Merkley pointed out last week, it 
has been done at least 18 times since 1977.
  Contrary to the Republicans' dire warnings, making these changes has 
never led to the death of the Senate. In fact, the Republicans 
themselves made a strong argument for such changes back in 2005. They 
were up in arms. Why? Because 10 judicial nominations had been blocked. 
That number seems quaint now, but it was enough for the Republicans, 
and they were very clear about it. That is what the Republican Policy 
Committee said in 2005:

       This breakdown in Senate norms is profound. There is now a 
     risk that the Senate is creating a new, 60-vote confirmation 
     standard. The Constitution plainly requires no more than a 
     majority vote to confirm any executive nomination, but some 
     Senators have shown that they are determined to override this 
     constitutional standard. . . . Exercising the constitutional 
     option in response to judicial nomination filibusters would 
     restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices 
     governing judicial nominations, and guarantee that a minority 
     does not transform the fundamental nature of the Senate's 
     advice and consent responsibility. This approach, therefore, 
     would be both reactive and restorative.

  ``Restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices.'' It 
would be difficult to state the case more clearly.
  This isn't just about the rules; it is about the traditions and norms 
of the Senate and their collapse under the weight of filibusters. I 
know the winds can change, positions can change. Neither side is 100-
percent pure. Both sides have had their moments of obstruction and, no 
doubt, their reasons at the time. But I don't think the American people 
care much about that. They don't want a history lesson. They don't want 
a primer on parliamentary procedure. They want a government that works, 
that gets things done, period.
  I came to the Senate in 2009. My position has not changed since then: 
The Senate needs to do its job, and it is missing in action.
  When we proposed to change the rules at the beginning of the 
Congress, we were very clear: We called for a talking filibuster. If 
you want to hold up legislation, you should have to stand here in this 
Chamber, on the floor, and make your case. We did not intend to trample 
on the legitimate rights of the minority, and we were willing to live 
with these rules, no matter if we were in the majority or the minority.
  I do not believe the Constitution gives me the right to block a 
qualified nominee no matter who is in the White House. I say that 
today, and I will say it if I am in the minority tomorrow. A Republican 
President may have nominees I disagree with--most likely so. But the 
people elect a President, we only have one President at a time, and 
they give him or her the right to select a team to govern.
  If those nominees are qualified, a minority in the Senate should not 
be able to block them--on either side of the aisle. Oversight, yes; 
review, yes, but not block because you don't like their policy or their 
program or the law they are committed to enforce. This is not advice 
and consent, this is obstruction and delay.
  New Mexicans want a government that works, the American people want a 
government that works, and they are tired of waiting.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and 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. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              remembering lieutenant general richard seitz

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, there is no group of individuals I hold 
in higher regard than our Nation's veterans who have dedicated their 
lives to serving our country.
  Among our veterans I have special admiration for the members of the 
greatest generation who served during some of our Nation's darkest 
hours and liberated the world from the forces of tyranny.
  Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, more than 16 million Americans 
answered the call to serve our country and more than 400,000 husbands, 
fathers, brothers, mothers, and daughters never returned home.
  More than 200,000 Kansans served during the war, including GEN Dwight 
D. Eisenhower, future U.S. Senator Bob Dole, and my own father.
  During the dedication of the World War II Memorial here in 
Washington, Senator Dole described the greatest generation this way:

       On distant fields and fathomless oceans, the skies over 
     half the planet and in 10,000 communities on the home front, 
     we did far more than avenge Pearl Harbor. The citizen 
     soldiers who answered liberty's call fought not for 
     territory, but for justice, not for plunder, but to liberate 
     enslaved peoples around the world.

  Among those citizen soldiers was a young Kansan named Richard Seitz. 
When WWII began, Dick was attending classes at K-State University, but 
by the end of the war he had successfully led his battalion through 
some of the fiercest fighting of the war in the Battle of the Bulge. 
Our country lost a great man, a dedicated soldier and an American hero 
when LTG Dick Seitz recently passed away.
  Dick was born in 1918 in Leavenworth, KS. At an early age he showed 
great interest in serving his country through the Armed Forces. In high 
school he was the cadet commander of his school's ROTC unit and 
received the American Legion Cup as an outstanding cadet.
  As a young man Dick attended Kansas State University and while a 
student, he accepted a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. 
Army. While spending a year away from K-State to earn enough money to 
finish his degree, Dick was called into active duty in 1940.
  During an infantry course at Ft. Benning, Dick witnessed the original 
parachute test platoon and volunteered to become a paratrooper. He was 
part of the sixth jump school class ever held by the Army and became 
one of its first paratroopers.
  Dick rose rapidly through the ranks until at the age of only 25, as a 
major, he was given command of the 2nd Battalion of the 517th Parachute 
Infantry Regimental Combat Team.
  Showing great potential at a young age, Dick was soon promoted to 
Lieutenant Colonel. As the Army's youngest battalion commander, he led 
his men throughout many historic combat operations in Europe.
  During the Battle of the Bulge, Dick's battalion and a Regiment of 
the 7th Armored Division formed what became known as Task Force Seitz. 
Their mission was to plug the gaps on the north slope of the Bulge 
every time the Germans tried to make a breakout. During the battle, 
some of the bloodiest fighting in WWII, Dick's battalion went from 691 
men to 380.
  Years later when asked about the worst day in this life, Dick quickly 
identified it as Jan. 3, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, when his 
unit came under heavy artillery fire and 21 of his men were killed.
  Before shipping out to Europe and while still a student at K-State, 
Dick began dating his first wife, the former Bettie Merrill. When Dick 
was called up for active duty, Bettie continued her studies at K-State, 
graduated in 1942 and joined the Red Cross.

[[Page 11451]]

  In 1945 she was stationed in Holland when she read that Dick's 
battalion was heavily engaged in the fighting around St. Vith. 
Determined to see him, she drove by herself from Holland to the front 
in Belgium and managed to find his battalion.
  She wasn't allowed to go to the very front lines where Dick was, but 
her trip put them back in touch and 6 months later they were married in 
France, with one Red Cross bridesmaid and 1,800 paratroopers in 
attendance.
  Dick spent the next 33 years by Bettie's side before her passing in 
1978. Together they raised one son and three daughters and traveled the 
world as Dick continued to serve his country.
  Among his many command posts were the 2nd Airborne Battle Group, 
503rd Infantry Regiment and the 82nd Airborne Division, which he led 
into Detroit and Washington, DC, in 1967 to quell the riots.
  An airborne historian, Dr. John Duvall, said Dick was:

       . . . an airborne pioneer and one of the fellows who set 
     the standards for what the airborne was all about. That 
     standard continues to be the standard the paratrooper follows 
     today. They have bigger airplanes and more complex weapons 
     today, but standards were set by them. We have lost a great 
     soldier in Dick Seitz.

  During his Army career which included nearly 37 years of active duty, 
Dick received numerous awards. Because of his great courage and heroism 
during WWII, Dick was awarded with the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars 
and the Purple Heart.
  Despite his many accomplishments in the military, one friend said he:

       . . . remained humble and sincere. Often embarrassed by any 
     fuss made over him. He was the kind of person you wanted to 
     be. He was always concerned for others above himself.

  As a soldier and commander, Dick's philosophy was always to take care 
of his troops. Throughout his career, he served as a mentor to many 
other soldiers and leaders in the Army.
  Retired Brigadier General and former senior commander of Ft. Riley, 
Don MacWillie said:

       LTG Seitz showed to me and the entire 1st Infantry Division 
     what it is to be a soldier, a statesman, and a gentleman. 
     Very few men come along who can live as all three--Dick Seitz 
     certainly did. I will miss him not only because of our 
     friendship but because other soldiers will not have the 
     opportunity to learn as I did. Our Army, community and nation 
     has lost a treasure.

  In 1975, Dick returned to Kansas upon his military retirement and 3 
years later, his wife Bettie passed away. In 1980, he married Virginia 
Crane and together they spent the next 26 years actively involved in 
the local community until her passing in 2006.
  Dick was a mentor, a friend, and someone I greatly respected. He not 
only served our country but also his state and community.
  Dick settled in Junction City following his retirement, but he never 
truly retired from serving. He frequently visited Ft. Riley to greet 
deploying and returning units from Iraq and Afghanistan--no matter the 
hour, day or night.
  He was also involved with the Coronado Council of the Boy Scouts, 
served on the Board of the Eisenhower Presidential Library, and was 
named an outstanding citizen of Kansas.
  Most recently, the General Richard J. Seitz Elementary School at Ft. 
Riley was named in his honor in 2012.
  Dick was well known to the students and staff because he regularly 
visited the school. During his visits, he would talk with the students 
about what it meant to be a ``proud and great American.'' And his 
message was always to ``respect the teachers and be a learner.''
  His family and friends have described him as a gentleman, 
compassionate, respected, full of integrity, gracious and giving. He 
was truly a remarkable individual.
  His daughter Patricia said this about her father:

       He was my role model. An individual who had great wisdom, 
     great sense of humor, always interested in others, always 
     looking for ways to help others succeed.

  Dick lived each day to its fullest and his commitment to his fellow 
man serves as an inspiration to us all.
  In closing, I'd like to share with you what Senator Dole once said 
about his comrades in arms:

       We were just ordinary Americans who were called on to meet 
     the greatest of challenges. . . . No one knows better than 
     the soldier the futility of war, in many respects the 
     ultimate failure of mankind. Yet there are principles worth 
     fighting for, and evils worth fighting against. The defense 
     of those principles summons the greatest qualities of which 
     human beings are capable: courage beyond measure, loyalty 
     beyond words, sacrifice and ingenuity and endurance beyond 
     imagining.

  I would say that is a fitting description of my friend, LTG Richard 
Seitz.
  I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his three daughters, Patricia, 
Catherine and Victoria; and to his son Rick and the entire Seitz 
family. I know they loved him dearly and will miss him very much.
  I ask my colleagues and all Kansans to remember the Seitz family in 
your thoughts and prayers in the days ahead.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk about one 
of the aspects of the debate that is occurring and which has taken 
place over a long period of time but especially today, when it comes to 
Senate rules and what is happening on nominations and confirmations.
  One major aspect of that debate relates to the National Labor 
Relations Act passed in the 1930s. I wish to start by highlighting one 
of the findings that undergirds one of the foundations of that act.
  In the mid-1930s, because of labor strife and because of the 
conflicts between management and labor, people in both parties came 
together and said we had to put in place legislation to deal with that 
or we couldn't have the kind of growing economy we would hope to have. 
One of the findings--it is the third finding in the 1935 act--says as 
follows:

       Experience has proved that protection by law of the right 
     of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards 
     commerce-- Safeguards commerce, I repeat those words--
     safeguards commerce from the injury, impairment, or 
     interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing 
     certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, 
     by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly 
     adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences 
     as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by 
     restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and 
     employees.

  So says one of the main findings of the 1935 act. There is an 
additional finding that speaks to it from the employer's vantage 
point--how it is important to the free flow of commerce to have 
disputes settled.
  That is where we started in the 1930s. From that date forward--
decades now of work and practice--we have had labor-management disputes 
settled and determined by use of the procedures in the National Labor 
Relations Act. Obviously, fundamental to that was the National Labor 
Relations Board--NLRB, the acronym. But here we are and we will not 
have, in just a number of weeks from now, in August we will not have a 
functioning board because of the conflict in the Senate about this 
issue and because of the debate between intrasession appointments and 
intersession--meaning appointments within a session of the Senate as 
opposed to appointments outside, from one session to the other. I will 
speak about that in a moment, but first I wanted to highlight one of 
the real-world consequences of this.
  Sometimes we have debates around here and they tend to be a little 
theoretical, a little removed from the reality of life. Here is a real-
life story about how these appointments matter. Marcus Hedger was 
illegally fired in 2010 from his pressman's job at an Illinois printing 
company for his union activities. Last September, a unanimous National 
Labor Relations Board--two

[[Page 11452]]

Democrats, one Republican at that time--ruled that he should get his 
job back with backpay. There aren't many disputes settled here that are 
unanimous. That has not happened yet. That was in 2010. The NLRB 
decision in the Hedger case has been vacated because of the decision of 
the court of appeals regarding, as I mentioned before, these recess 
appointments. Hedger has lost his house in the meantime.
  This is what Marcus Hedger said, and I think we should all listen and 
act upon these words:

       So, almost three years later, I still don't have my job 
     back, even though the NLRB unanimously ruled I should get my 
     job back. I am asking the United States Senate to do what is 
     right for the people who gave you the power to represent 
     them, and to confirm the bipartisan package of nominees to 
     the NLRB so that other workers can have their rights 
     protected, just like the NLRB tried to protect my rights.

  ``My rights'' meaning the rights of Mr. Hedger. That is what he is 
telling us to do--to do our jobs.
  I don't have time today because of the limitations of time we have, 
but there are stories as well that speak to this from the employer's 
side. Listen to this one headline involving Walmart. The headline is 
from earlier this year, a Reuters headline, dated January 31, 2013: 
``Walmart Protestors Will Stop Picketing After Reaching Deal With 
NLRB.''
  So we have a board which for decades has functioned, helping to 
resolve disputes, sometimes to the betterment or to the advantage of 
one side versus the other, but settling those disputes nonetheless.
  There is a lot of attention paid to what I would call kind of the 
inside baseball of this. It is about the difference between 
intrasession and intersession. But here is the record, despite what 
some in Washington have asserted. Here is the record going back over 
many Presidencies, just to give four Presidencies by way of example, 
and this idea that an appointment cannot be made during an 
intrasession--within the session of the Senate:
  President Carter made one intrasession appointment to the National 
Labor Relations Board. President Reagan made four. President Clinton 
made two. President George W. Bush made four intrasession appointments 
to the National Labor Relations Board. Since President Reagan's first 
term--more than a generation ago--in addition to the members of the 
NLRB, hundreds of other recess appointments have been made 
intrasession.
  So the idea that this is somehow a new development does not bear the 
scrutiny of the record.
  I know we are out of time, but I rise to remind us what this Board 
has meant to this country. I read that first section principally to 
highlight the fact that the flow of commerce is mentioned twice--the 
flow of commerce. This isn't an act that says this act is to promote 
one side versus the other; it is all about the flow of commerce, the 
movement of goods, economic activity, so we can keep the country 
moving. Obviously, in the past, when there was unprecedented strife, we 
would have whole lines of production or whole sectors of our economy 
shut down because we didn't have a National Labor Relations Act and 
because we didn't have a National Labor Relations Board.
  I end with the words of Marcus Hedger, who has suffered mightily--
first, he is discriminated against; that is adverse to his life and his 
family. Then, when a decision is made in 2010, the decision is 
meaningless so far to him because he hasn't been granted the remedy and 
he lost his house in the meantime.
  Here is what he said, and I will end with these words:

       Companies shouldn't be able to get away with firing someone 
     just because they stood up for their rights. That's un-
     American. We need a functioning NLRB to protect us and our 
     rights.

  That is what Marcus Hedger said. We should bear in mind those words. 
We should get the job done and get five people who are before the 
Senate voted on and confirmed so we can have that free flow of commerce 
and provide a remedy for people such as Marcus Hedger.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            In Memory of the McManus and Antonakos Families

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of nine 
South Carolinians lost last week.
  The McManus and Antonakos families, both of Greenville, were 
vacationing together in Alaska when the small plane they were flying in 
crashed on takeoff.
  Melet and Kim Antonakos raised three beautiful children: Olivia, 
Mills, and Ana. They were close friends with Dr. Chris and Stacy 
McManus and their wonderful children: Meghan and Connor.
  The loss of these two families has left the Upstate grieving, 
including the congregation at Christ Church Episcopal, where more than 
1,200 people attended a memorial service last Friday.
  When you talk to folks in Greenville about the McManus and Antonakos 
families, a few words come up over and over: faith, character, 
kindness.
  Despite the heartbreak we feel, the Greenville community can 
hopefully take solace that these nine friends--nine neighbors, nine 
brothers and sisters in Christ--are now in a better place.
  We remember them not for the tragic way they died but for the joy and 
compassion with which they lived.
  I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Honoring Maine Volunteer Firefighters

  Mr. KING. Madam President:

     Who is in charge of the clattering train?
     The axles creak and the couplings strain,
     And the pace is hot and the points are near,
     And sleep hath deadened the driver's ear,
     And the signals flash through the night in vain,
     For death is in charge of the clattering train.

  That is a poem from the 1930s that was quoted by Winston Churchill in 
his book ``The Gathering Storm.''
  I rise today in the wake of a terrible tragedy, of a clattering 
train, where death was in charge--one that left more than 60 people 
missing, 20 confirmed dead, and has devastated a community. But despite 
the magnitude of this amazing loss, it is also a story of human heroism 
at its highest level.
  I am referring to a horrific accident that occurred early last 
Saturday morning when a 72-car train carrying crude oil derailed in 
Lac-Megantic, Quebec, near the border of western Maine. As the train 
erupted into all-engulfing flames, it came crashing into the town 
demolishing everything in its path. Cars and buildings were instantly 
incinerated, pavement on the roads literally melted away, and sidewalks 
crumbled from the intense heat and pressure. As a result, nearly a full 
six city blocks were completely leveled, forcing almost 2,000 residents 
to flee their homes--a third of Lac-Megantic's total population.
  And while local Canadian firefighters battled the flames valiantly--
and I mean valiantly--it became clear they desperately needed support. 
So after receiving a call at 4 a.m., 30 firefighters from Rangeley, 
Farmington, Phillips, Strong, New Vineyard, and Chesterville--all 
wonderful small Maine towns--as well as the town of Eustis, arose from 
their sleep, rushed to their engines, and drove 83 miles nonstop--
arriving at 6 a.m.--to help extinguish this horrendous blaze. It is 
worth noting that, except for the chief, every firefighter who made 
this journey and put their life at risk, every single one that morning, 
was a volunteer--serving and risking their lives of their own choice 
and volition.
  Upon arrival, their efforts had immediate impact. They quickly 
realized

[[Page 11453]]

there was a desperate need for water, and because the town lacked a 
hydrant system, they swiftly turned their attention to a lake 3,000 
feet away and began to pump water using an extraction skill that Maine 
firefighters are specifically taught and trained to use. They continued 
to pump water from that lake for 21 straight hours.
  Let's put that in perspective for a moment: For almost the entire 
next day those brave men and women, driven by an incredible spirit of 
perseverance and self-sacrifice, worked tirelessly to extinguish the 
blaze and gain control of the burning train cars.
  Fire Chief Timothy Pellerin of the Rangeley station said everyone was 
hugging and cheering to celebrate their miraculous success when the 
fire was brought under control. It was ``like a ball team after a 
win,'' he said. The Canadians, overwhelmed by the selflessness and 
courageousness of those volunteer Americans, thanked them for their 
steadfast determination to see the crisis through.
  Residents of Lac-Megantic and local firemen were coming up to one of 
the Rangeley firetrucks asking to have their picture taken with the 
American flag attached to the safety bar and pausing to touch it as a 
sign of their respect and gratitude. After returning home late Sunday 
afternoon, Chief Pellerin said he has ``never been more proud'' to be 
from Maine and from America and to be a firefighter.
  We still do not know the full scope of the devastation wracked by 
this gruesome event. The cleanup and recovery costs will undoubtedly be 
astronomical, as well as the traumatic impact on the community upon 
which no dollar estimate can be placed. Initial reports indicated that 
at least up to 1.2 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the 
streets, basements of houses, storm drains, and contaminated that 
nearby lake. Currently, over 200 criminal investigators are sifting 
through the charred remains of what might be North America's worst 
railway disaster, and I sincerely hope that through their efforts we 
will be able to better understand the causes of this horrible tragedy 
and perhaps, more importantly, how it can be prevented in the future.
  However, my real reason for rising today is to honor those volunteer 
firefighters from Maine--true American heroes who embody the best this 
country has to offer. They were called into action by their unwavering 
sense of civic duty, and throughout the night they overcame tremendous 
odds, including a language barrier and a lack of resources, to finally 
help extinguish the fire early Sunday morning. These brave Mainers 
showed true strength of character--strength of character that enabled 
them to overcome fear in pursuit of the greater good. It is without a 
doubt that their actions saved countless lives. We owe these American 
heroes our enduring gratitude.
  My thoughts and prayers remain today with those who are impacted by 
this tragic event.
  To go back to the words Churchill quoted so long ago:

     Who is in charge of the clattering train?
     The axles creak and the couplings strain,
     And the pace is hot and the points are near,
     And sleep hath deadened the driver's ear,
     And the signals flash through the night in vain,
     For death is in charge of the clattering train.

  Death was in charge of the clattering train that dark night. The 
perseverance, skill, and courage of those firefighters from Maine and 
their brave Canadian counterparts could not prevent a tragedy but at 
least contained and controlled it.
  Madam President, this is the best of America.
  I yield the floor.


                              Quorum Call

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll, and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                              Quorum No. 2

     Ayotte
     Begich
     Cowan
     Enzi
     Hirono
     Reid
     Udall, (NM)
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  The clerk will call the names of absent Senators.
  The assistant legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll, and the 
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                             [Quorum No. 2]

     Alexander
     Begich
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Inhofe
     Manchin
     Moran
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the attendance of absent Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Menendez
     Rubio
     Shaheen
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the addition of Senators voting who did 
not answer the quorum call a quorum is now present.

                          ____________________