[Pages S5675-S5684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

[[Page S5676]]

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 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

[[Page S5677]]

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 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

[[Page S5678]]

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 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

[[Page S5679]]

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.
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

[[Page S5680]]

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 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

[[Page S5681]]

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 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

[[Page S5682]]

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.
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 Sen. 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 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

[[Page S5683]]

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 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.

[[Page S5684]]

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:

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.

____________________