Workforce Investment Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, the American people have been witness to one of the most breathtaking--breathtaking--indictments of big-government liberalism in memory. And I am not just talking about a Web site. I am talking about the way in which ObamaCare was forced on the public by an administration and a Democratic-led Congress that we now know was willing to do and say anything--anything--to pass the law.

The President and his Democratic allies were so determined to force their vision of health care on the public that they assured them up and down that they would not lose the plans they had, that they would save money instead of losing it, and that they would be able to use the doctors and hospitals they were already using.

But, of course, we know that that rhetoric does not match reality. The stories we are hearing on a nearly daily basis now range from heartbreaking to comical. Just yesterday I saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying his dog--his dog--had qualified for insurance under ObamaCare. So, yeah, I would probably be running for the exits too if I had supported this law. I would be looking to change the subject--change the subject--just as Senate Democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations. If I were a Senator from Oregon, for example, which has not enrolled a single person--a single person--for the ObamaCare exchange, I would probably want to talk about something else too.

But here is the problem with this latest distraction: It does not distract people from ObamaCare. It reminds them of ObamaCare. It reminds them of all the broken promises. It reminds them of the power grab. It reminds them of the way Democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else--one set of rules for them and another for everybody else.

Actually, this is all basically the same debate, and rather than distract people from ObamaCare, it only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way--willing to do or say just about anything to get its way. Because that is just what they are doing all over again.

Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate--break the rules of the Senate--in order to change the rules of the Senate. And over what? Over what? Over a court that does not even have enough work to do?

Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law Washington Democrats forced upon them, and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges--a fake fight over judges--who are not even needed.

Look, I get it. As I indicated, I would want to be talking about something else too if I had to defend dogs getting insurance while millions of Americans lost theirs. But it will not work. The parallels between this latest skirmish and the original ObamaCare push are just too obvious to ignore.

Think about it. Just think about it. The majority leader promised--he promised--over and over that he would not break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. This was not an ancient promise. On July 14 on ``Meet the Press'' he said: ``We're not touching judges.'' This year, on July 14, on ``Meet the Press'': ``We're not touching judges.''

Then there are the double standards.

When Democrats were in the minority, they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without; namely, the right to extended debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them--to them--and another set to everybody else. He may just as well have said: ``If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them.'' ``If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them''--just the way so many Democrats in the administration and Congress now believe that ObamaCare is good enough for their constituents, but that when it comes to them, their political allies, their staffs, well, of course, that is different.

Let's not forget about the raw power--the raw power--at play here. On this point, the similarities between the ObamaCare debate and the Democratic threat to go nuclear on nominations are inescapable--inescapable. They muscled through ObamaCare on a party-line vote and did not care about the views of the minority--did not care one whit about the views of the minority. And that is just about what they are going to do here.

The American people decided not to give the Democrats the House or to restore the filibuster-proof majority they had in the Senate back in 2009, and our Democratic colleagues do not like that one bit. They just do not like it. The American people are getting in the way of what they would like to do. So they are trying to change the rules of the game to get their way anyway. They said so themselves. Earlier this year, the senior Senator from New York said they want to ``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another''--``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another.''

The reason is clear. As one liberal activist put it earlier this year, President Obama's agenda ``runs through the DC Circuit.'' You cannot get what you want through the Congress because the American people, in November 2010, said they had had enough--they issued a national restraining order, after watching 2 years of this administration unrestrained--so now their agenda runs through the bureaucracy and through the DC Circuit.

As I said, in short, unlike the first 2 years of the Obama administration, there is now a legislative check on the President. The administration does not much like checks and balances, so it wants to circumvent the people's representatives with an aggressive regulatory agenda, and our Democratic colleagues want to facilitate that by filling up a court that will rule on his agenda--a court that does not even have enough work to do, especially if it means changing the subject from ObamaCare for a few days.

And get this: They think they can change the rules of the Senate in a way that benefits only them. They want to do it in such a way that President Obama's agenda gets enacted but that a future Republican President could not get his or her picks for the Supreme Court confirmed by a Republican Senate using the same precedent our Democratic friends want to set. They want to have it both ways.

But this sort of gerrymandered vision of the nuclear option is wishful thinking. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Senator Grassley pointed out yesterday: If the majority leader changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court, as Senator Grassley pointed out yesterday.

Look, I realize this sort of wishful thinking might appeal to the uninitiated newcomers in the Democratic Conference who have served exactly zero days in the minority. But the rest of you guys in the conference should know better. Those of you who have been in the minority before should know better.

Let's remember how we got here. Let's remember that it was Senate Democrats who pioneered, who literally pioneered the practice of filibustering circuit court nominees, and who have been its biggest proponents in the very recent past. After President Bush was elected, they even held a retreat in which they discussed the need to change the ground rules by which lifetime appointments are considered. The senior Senator from New York put on a seminar, invited Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein. In the past the practice had been neither side had filibustered circuit court nominees. In fact, I can remember at Senator Lott's gagging several times and voting for cloture on circuit judges for the Ninth Circuit, knowing full well that once cloture was invoked, they would be confirmed.

So this business of filibustering circuit court judges was entirely an invention of the guys over here on the other side, the ones you are looking at right over here. They made it up. They started it. This is where we ended up.

After President Bush was elected, they held this retreat that I was just talking about and made a big deal about it. It was all a prelude to what followed, the serial filibustering of several of President Bush's circuit court nominees, including Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the DC Circuit was filibustered by Senate Democrats a record seven times--seven times. Now they want to blow up the rules because Republicans are following a precedent they themselves set.

I might add, we are following that precedent in a much more modest way than Democrats did.

So how about this for a suggestion? How about instead of picking a fight with Senate Republicans by jamming through nominees to a court that does not even have enough work to do, how about taking yes for an answer and working with us on filling judicial emergencies that actually exist?

Yet rather than learn from past precedent on judicial nominations that they themselves set, Democrats now want to set another one. I have no doubt if they do, they will come to regret that one as well. Our colleagues evidently would rather live for the moment, satisfy the moment, live for the moment, and try to establish a story line that Republicans are intent on obstructing President Obama's judicial nominees. That story line is patently ridiculous in light of the facts. That is an utterly absurd suggestion in light of the facts.

Before this current Democratic gambit to fill up the DC Circuit one way or the other, the Senate had confirmed 215--215--of the President's judicial nominees and rejected 2. That is a 99-percent confirmation rate. There were 215 confirmed and 2 rejected--99 percent.

Look, if advice and consent is to mean anything at all, occasionally consent is not given. But by any objective standards, Senate Republicans have been very fair to this President. We have been willing to confirm his nominees. In fact, speaking of the DC Circuit, we just confirmed one a few months ago 97 to 0 to the DC Circuit.

So I suggest our colleagues take a timeout, stop trying to jam us, work with us instead to confirm vacancies that actually need to be filled, which we have been doing. This rules change charade has gone from being a biannual threat, to an annual threat, now to a quarterly threat. How many times have we been threatened, my colleagues? Do what I say or we will break the rules to change the rules. Confirm everybody, 100 percent. Anything less than that is obstructionism. That is what they are saying to us.

Let me say we are not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer. If you think this is in the best interests of the Senate and the American people to make advice and consent, in effect, mean nothing--obviously you can break the rules to change the rules to achieve that. But some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.

This strategy of distract, distract, distract is getting old. I do not think the American people are fooled about this. If our colleagues want to work with us to fill judicial vacancies, as we have been doing all year--99 percent of judges confirmed--obviously we are willing to do that. If you want to play games, set yet another precedent that you will no doubt come to regret--I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you will regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

Let me be clear. The Democratic playbook of broken promises, double standards, and raw power, the same playbook that got us ObamaCare, has to end. It may take the American people to end it, but it has to end. That is why Republicans are going to keep their focus where it belongs, on the concerns of the American people. It means we are going to keep pushing to get back to the drawing board on health care, to replace ObamaCare with real reforms, to not punish the middle class, and we will leave the political games to our friends on the other side of the aisle.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one other parliamentary inquiry. When the Senate's rules were amended and a new standing order on consideration of nominations was established earlier this year, the majority leader and I engaged in a colloquy to announce that no further rules changes would be considered unless under the regular order and through the action of the Senate Rules Committee.

Would the Chair confirm that currently the rules of the Senate provide that a proposal to change the Senate rules would be fully debatable unless two-thirds of the Senators present and voting voted to invoke cloture, which would mean 67 Senators voting in the affirmative if all 100 voted?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I make a point of order that nominations are fully debatable under the rules of the Senate unless three-fifths of the Senators chosen and sworn have voted to bring debate to a close. Under the precedent just set by the Senate, cloture is invoked at a majority. Therefore, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source