Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague and friend and roommate from Illinois--we are going to miss our landlord deeply--for his articulate enunciation of where we are here. We have always extended unemployment benefits, and we have done it, in most instances, in a bipartisan way and not paid for it. Under George Bush, 2007, unemployment was only 5.6 percent. Now it hovers around 7 percent. He moved it forward. It had bipartisan support.

Things have evolved. I guess we do not have that bipartisan support. As Senator Durbin outlined, a lot of the amendments to try to pay for this sort of rob Peter to pay Paul. I have heard a lot of my Republican colleagues say let's talk about how we deal with poverty. These amendments that we have heard talked about are kind of punitive and do not really deal with the issue.

I would like to address another issue, and that is how we come to an agreement here and get this place working again. On both sides of the aisle, there is a great deal of consternation that we are not legislating. We have had this problem for a while. Thursday it came to a head. There were some harsh words that were issued by some. The question is how do we get things working again.

First, I remind my colleagues there are instances when this place, the Senate in particular, is still working. We had a farm bill, an immigration bill, the WRDA bill. They all had one thing in common and that is the chairman and ranking member agreed on a proposal. When the chairman and the ranking member agree on a proposal,
or a large group of Democrats and Republicans agree on a bipartisan proposal--in immigration we had great help from the chairman, but Senator McCain and I--neither chairman nor ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--came to an agreement with the help of Senators Menendez, Durbin, Bennet, Graham, Flake and Rubio. But we can get something done, and we can shepherd even the most controversial and difficult legislation through the floor.

But there are many instances--these days more than ever because the parties are further apart than they used to be and there is less overlap--there are instances where the chair and ranking member can't or there does not seem to be a bipartisan agreement. What do we do in those instances?

I have discussed this with many on the other side of the aisle. There is a tradition here. I am here sort of a middle level amount of time, about 14 years. The general theory has been whichever party is in the majority, whichever is in the minority, that the majority gets to set the agenda and the minority gets to offer amendments. There is a lot of discussion as to why that is not happening anymore, and there are different explanations on each side of the aisle. There will be a discussion in our caucus, and I think in the Republican caucus, at this lunch, as to how to try to break that logjam. That is a good thing.

I will just make one point here that has been largely forgotten and that is this. There are two parts to this sort of agreement, deal, arrangement. The first part is the ability to offer amendments. Should it be unlimited amendments? Should it be all nongermane amendments? That has to be discussed and worked out. But certainly the minority should get to offer amendments. There is a general theoretical agreement among everybody about that.

But the other side is that the majority should be able, once the amendments are disposed of, to get an up-or-down vote on the final passage of the bill--that the bill not be filibustered--not just the motion to proceed, but once we go through the amendatory process, the bill itself.

If friends on the other side of the aisle say I want to offer my amendment but unless it passes I am going to vote to block the bill from coming up for an up-or-down vote, that does not seem right. My purpose for a brief few moments, coming to the floor, is to remind both sides of the aisle, but particularly my Republican colleagues, that to get this place moving again requires two things. One, an ability to offer amendments. But second, an ability to vote on final passage, have an up-or-down vote on final passage once those amendments are disposed of one way or the other.

We know that our colleagues will offer tough amendments sometimes. That is the nature of things. Many times the amendments are just offered with an idea to improve the bill or have a different idea. Sometimes they are amendments that just make it very difficult to vote against, but so be it. That is how this place has always been run. I think most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are willing to accept that. But at the same time, we do not want to go through an amendatory process and then, because we are 55, not 60, never be able to get an up-or-down vote on final passage of the legislation.

There are two sides to this story. There are two sides to an agreement to get the floor of the Senate working again--particularly when the majority and minority cannot agree on an overall bill. One side is an ability to offer amendments; the other side an ability for an up-or-down vote once those amendments are disposed of. I don't think you can have one without the other.

Just as we could not ask our Republican colleagues for an up-or-down vote, if they were not able to offer amendments, I don't think it is fair for our Republican colleagues to ask us to go through the amendatory process, some of which will be difficult, and then not get an up-or-down vote on final passage.

That is the little piece I wanted to say here. I hope it will help bring us together because the greatest fun I have had in this place and the greatest effectiveness I have had in this place is when I worked in a bipartisan way on bill after bill. It happens less frequently now. Although, as I said, the immigration bill is an exception to that, and other bills are an exception to that. But maybe we can get back to working together if each side tries to understand the grievances and the gravamen of the position of the other.

I hope we can do that on this bill and on many other bills in the future.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source