Workforce Investment Act of 2003
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
IRAN SANCTIONS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of our Iran sanction regime and believe that the current sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table.
I believe we must do everything possible to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons capability, which would threaten Israel and the national security of our great country.
The Obama administration is in the midst of negotiations with the Iranians that are designed to end their nuclear weapons program. We all strongly support those negotiations and hope they will succeed, and we want them to produce the strongest possible agreement.
However, we are also aware of the possibility that the Iranians could keep the negotiations from succeeding. I hope that won't happen, but the Senate must be prepared to move forward with a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill when the Senate returns after the Thanksgiving recess. I am committed to do just that.
A number of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, have offered their own amendments on Iran, and they have offered a couple of the amendments in the Defense authorization bill. I know other Senators also have their own sanctions bills they would like to move forward on.
I will support a bill that would broaden the scope of our current petroleum sanctions, place limitations on trade with strategic sectors of the Iranian economy that support its nuclear ambitions, as well as pursue those that divert goods to Iran.
While I support the administration's diplomatic efforts, I believe we need to leave our legislative options open to act on a new bipartisan sanctions bill in December, shortly after we return.
Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right.
During this Congress--the 113th Congress--the United States has wasted an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction. As a result the work of this country goes undone.
Congress should be passing legislation that strengthens our economy and protects American families. Instead, we are burning wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters. I could say, instead, we are burning wasted days and wasted weeks between filibusters.
Even one of the Senate's most basic duties--confirmation of presidential nominees--has become completely unworkable. There has been unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction. For the first time in the history of our Republic, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing his executive team or confirming judges. It is truly a troubling trend that Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees, even when they have no objection to the qualifications of the nominee. Instead, they block qualified executive branch nominees to circumvent the legislative process. They block qualified executive branch nominations to force wholesale changes to laws. They block qualified executive branch nominees to restructure entire executive branch departments, and they block qualified judicial nominees because they don't want President Obama to appoint any judges to certain courts.
The need for change is so very obvious. It is clearly visible. It is manifest we have to do something to change things.
In the history of our country--some 230-plus years--there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama administration--so 230-plus years, 50 percent; 4 1/2 years, 50 percent. Is there anything fair about that?
These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote--yes or no--but Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote--any vote--and deny the President his team.
Gridlock has consequences, and they are terrible. It is not only bad for President Obama and bad for this body, the Senate, it is bad for our country, it is bad for our national security, and it is bad for our economic security.
That is why it is time to get the Senate working again--not for the good of the current Democratic majority or some future Republican majority, but for the good of the United States of America. It is time to change. It is time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.
At the beginning of this Congress, the Republican leader pledged that, ``This Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress.''
We are told in the Scriptures--let's take, for example, the Old Testament, the Book of Numbers, that promises, pledges, a vow--one must not break his word.
In January, Republicans promised to work with the majority to process nominations in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances. Exactly three weeks later, Republicans mounted a first-in-history filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense.
Despite being a former Republican Senator and a decorated war hero, having saved his brother's life in Vietnam, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's nomination was pending in the Senate for a record 34 days--more than three times the previous average for a Secretary of Defense. Remember, our country was at war.
Republicans have blocked executive nominees such as Secretary Hagel not because they object to the qualifications of the nominee but simply because they seek to undermine the very government in which they were elected to serve.
Take the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There was no doubt about his ability to do the job. But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, went for more than 2 years without a leader because Republicans refused to accept the law of the land, because they wanted to roll back the law that protects consumers from the greed of Wall Street.
I say to my Republican colleagues: You don't have to like the laws of the land, but you do have to respect those laws and acknowledge them and abide by them.
Similar obstruction continued unabated for 7 more months, until Democrats threatened to change Senate rules to allow up-or-down votes on executive nominations. In July, after obstructing dozens of executive nominees for months--and some for years--Republicans once again promised they would end the unprecedented obstruction.
One look at the Senate's Executive Calendar shows that nothing has changed since July. Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no agreement had ever been reached. Again, Republicans have continued their record of obstruction as if no agreement had been reached.
There are currently 75 executive branch nominations ready to be confirmed by the Senate. They have been waiting an average of 140 days for confirmation.
One executive nominee to the agency that safeguards the water my children and my grandchildren drink and the air they breathe has waited almost 900 days for confirmation.
We agreed in July that the Senate should be confirming nominees to ensure the proper functioning of government.
Consistent and unprecedented obstruction by the Republican Caucus has turned ``advise and consent'' into ``deny and obstruct.''
In addition to filibustering a nominee for Secretary of Defense for the first time in history, Senate Republicans also blocked a sitting Member of Congress from an administration position for the first time since 1843.
As a senior Member of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Mel Watt's understanding of the mistakes that led to the housing crisis made him uniquely qualified to serve as Administrator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Senate Republicans simply do not like the consumer protections Congressman Watt was nominated to develop and implement, so they denied a fellow Member of Congress and a graduate of the Yale School of Law even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.
In the last 3 weeks alone, Republicans have blocked up-or-down votes on three highly qualified nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This does not take into consideration they twice turned down one of the most qualified people in my 30 years in the Senate who I have ever seen come before this body: Caitlin Halligan. So we have three more to add to that list.
The DC Circuit is considered by many to be the second highest court in the land, and some think maybe the most important. It deals with these complex cases that come from Federal agencies and other things within their jurisdiction.
Republicans have blocked four of President Obama's five nominees to the DC Circuit, whereas the Democrats approved four of President Bush's six nominations to this important court.
Today the DC Circuit Court--at least the second most important court in the land--has more than 25 percent in vacancies. There is not a single legitimate objection to the qualifications of any of these nominees to the DC Circuit that President Obama has put forward. Republicans have refused to give them an up-or-down vote--a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. Republicans simply do not want President Obama to make any appointments at all to this vital court--none, zero.
Further, only 23 district court nominations have been filibustered in the entire history of our country--23. And you know what. Twenty of them have been in the last 4 1/2 years. Two hundred thirty-plus years: 3; the last 4 1/2 years: 20. That is not fair. With one out of every 10 Federal judgeships vacant, millions of Americans who rely on courts that are overworked and understaffed are being denied the justice they rightly deserve.
More than half of the Nation's population lives in parts of the country that have been declared a ``judicial emergency.'' No one has worked harder than
[Page: S8415]
the President pro tempore to move judges. The President pro tempore is the chairman also of the Judiciary Committee. No one knows the problem more than the President pro tempore.
The American people are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--are fed up with this gridlock, this obstruction. The American people want Washington to work for American families once again.
I am on their side, which is why I propose an important change to the rules of the U.S. Senate. The present Republican leader himself said--and this is a direct quote--``The Senate has repeatedly changed its rules as circumstances dictate.''
He is right. In fact, the Senate has changed its rules 18 times, by sustaining or overturning the ruling of the Presiding Officer, in the last 36 years--during the tenures of both Republican and Democratic majorities.
The change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations an up-or-down vote on confirmation--yes, no. The rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court a majority threshold vote--yes or no.
The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change, as it has over the history of this great country. To the average American, adapting the rules to make the Senate work again is just common sense.
This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work--regardless of who is in the White House or who controls the Senate.
To remain relevant and effective as an institution, the Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of this modern era.
I have no doubt my Republican colleagues will argue the fault is ours, it is the Democrats' fault. I can say from experience that no one's hands are entirely clean on this issue. But today the important distinction is not between Democrats and Republicans. It is between those who are willing to help break the gridlock in Washington and those who defend the status quo.
Is the Senate working now? Can anyone say the Senate is working now? I do not think so.
Today Democrats and Independents are saying enough is enough. This change to the rules regarding Presidential nominees will apply equally to both parties. When Republicans are in power, these changes will apply to them as well. That is simple fairness, and it is something that both sides should be willing to live with to make Washington work again. That is simple fairness.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source