OPENING THE 112TH CONGRESS; Congressional Record Vol. 157, No. 1
(Senate - January 05, 2011)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S16-S18]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       OPENING THE 112TH CONGRESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, I would like to take a moment to 
welcome back all of my colleagues and particularly the 13 new 
Republican Senators whom we officially swore in just a few moments ago.
  Americans are looking for creative, principled leaders. I am 
confident this impressive class of new Republicans will not disappoint.
  I would also like to welcome my good friend, the majority leader. At 
a time when some people think the two parties in Washington cannot even 
agree on the weather, I will note that Senator Reid and I get along 
just fine. I expect it will stay that way, and I look forward to 
working with him again throughout this Congress.
  The biggest changes today are, of course, happening across the dome, 
and I would like to welcome the many new Republican Members of Congress 
who have come to Washington to change the way things are done around 
here. In this, they will be led by a very talented and determined 
Ohioan, whom I now have the great honor of referring to as Speaker 
Boehner. I congratulate Speaker Boehner and the new Republican majority 
in the House, and I wish them great success in achieving the kinds of 
reforms and policies the last election was all about.
  Americans want lawmakers to cut Washington spending, tackle the debt, 
rein in the government, and to help create the right conditions for 
private sector job growth. They also want us to reform the way laws are 
made. They are looking to Republicans to provide an alternative to the 
kind of lawmaking we have seen too much of around here in the past few 
years--a vision that disregards the views of the public in favor of an 
elite few, a vision that tells people they can look at legislation 
after it is passed, that Washington knows best. In short, Americans are 
looking for an entirely different approach.

[[Page S17]]

  The new Republican majority in the House has shown every sign that 
they have heard the public on all of this, and Senate Republicans join 
them in their efforts, conscious of the limitations and the 
opportunities that our minority status and the President's veto pen 
involve. We will press the majority to do the things the American 
people clearly want us to do, and we will insist in every possible way 
that the voices of our constituents are heard, realizing at the same 
time that the best solutions are forged through consensus not through 
confrontation.
  Fortunately, the Senate was designed as a place where consensus could 
and would be reached. Look through modern history. The Social Security 
Act of 1935 was approved by all but six Members of the Senate. The 
Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21. And all 
but eight Senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act 21 
years ago this year.
  The lesson is clear: Americans believe on issues of this importance, 
one party should not be allowed to force its will on anyone else. 
Thanks to the Senate, it rarely has.
  That is why a recent proposal to change the Senate's rules by some on 
the other side is such a bad idea. For 2 years, Americans have been 
telling us they are tired of being shut out of the legislative process. 
They want to be heard. The response they are now getting from some on 
the other side instead is a proposal to change the Senate rules so they 
can continue to do exactly what they want with fewer Members than 
before. Instead of changing their behavior in response to the last 
election, they want to change the rules.

  Well, I would suggest this is precisely the kind of approach a 
supermajority standard is meant to prevent. It exists--it exists--to 
preserve the Senate's role as the one place where the voices of all of 
the people will, in the end, be heard. As a result, it has helped 
ensure that most major agreements enjoy the broad support of the public 
and the stability that comes with it.
  Regrettably, the current majority has too often lost sight of this 
important truth. Since assuming control of the Senate in 2007, it has 
sought to erode the traditional rights of the minority, and, by 
extension, the rights of our constituents. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service has looked into the way the current 
majority has run the Senate. Its conclusions are revealing.
  Here are just a few: The current majority has denied the minority the 
right to amend legislation a record 44 times or more often than the 
last six majorities combined. It has moved to shut down debate the same 
day measures are considered nearly three times more often, on average, 
than the previous six majorities. And its unprecedented denial of the 
rights of the minority to debate and amend on the floor is compounded 
by its practice of regularly bypassing Senate committees. All too often 
the majority has chosen to write bills behind closed doors, depriving 
Americans of yet another opportunity to have a say in the legislative 
process. The current majority has set the record here as well, 
bypassing committees 43 times or double the previous average.
  Now, the goal of all of this, of course, is to pass the most partisan 
legislation possible while at the same time avoiding difficult votes. 
To listen to the leaders of the Democratic Party over the past several 
months, they have had some success at it. The President, the former 
Speaker, and the majority leader have all described the past Congress 
as the most successful in memory. Yet the most vocal elements of their 
party remain frustrated. They say the Senate is broken, even though the 
same people are describing it as the most successful in memory.
  Why? Their primary complaints appear to be these: The stimulus 
passed, but it was not big enough; the health care bill passed, but it 
did not include the government plan; the Senate extended unemployment 
benefits and cut payroll taxes but was blocked from raising taxes on 
small business owners in the process.
  In other words, the majority may have been able to achieve most of 
what it wanted, but because it did not achieve everything it wanted 
some are not happy. They are not happy that those Americans who have a 
different view of things actually had a say in how some of the 
legislation they have passed over the past 2 years turned out.
  The impulse to change the rules is, in some ways, understandable. No 
one likes to take difficult votes, but that is nothing new. As the 
majority whip often says: ``If you don't like fighting fires, then 
don't become a fireman.'' If you don't like casting votes, don't come 
to the Senate.
  Some have also suggested that one's view of the filibuster depends on 
where one sits. It is true that when I was in the majority, I opposed 
filibustering judicial nominees. But I opposed doing so when I was in 
the minority as well. I opposed doing so regardless of who was in the 
White House. In short, I was against expanding the use of the 
filibuster into an area in which it traditionally had not been used, 
period.
  One can agree with that view or not, but it is one thing to disagree 
with expanding the use of the filibuster into nontraditional areas, 
regardless of who is President and who is in the minority, it is 
another thing altogether to be in favor of expanding it when one is in 
the minority, and then turn around and urge its elimination when one is 
in the majority.
  When it comes to preserving the right to extended debate on 
legislation, Republicans have been entirely consistent. What is being 
considered is unprecedented. No Senate majority has ever--I am going to 
say this twice--no Senate majority has ever changed the rules except by 
following those rules; that is, with the participation and the 
agreement of the minority.
  I am going to say it one more time. No Senate majority has ever 
changed the rules except by following those rules; that is, with the 
participation and the agreement of the minority. But it also promises 
to frustrate those who would approve it.
  First, it is stating the obvious, that anything that passes in the 
Senate with a narrower majority than 60 is going nowhere--absolutely 
nowhere--in the newly Republican House. So any short-term gain ends 
halfway across the dome. Second, a change in the rules aimed at 
benefitting the Democrats today could just as easily be used to benefit 
Republicans tomorrow. Do our friends across the aisle want to create a 
situation where 2 or 4 or 6 years from now they suddenly find 
themselves completely powerless to prevent Republicans from overturning 
legislation they themselves have worked so hard to enact, particularly 
over the last 2 years?
  But the larger point is this: The Founders crafted the Senate to be 
different. They crafted it to be a deliberate, thoughtful place. 
Changing the rules in the way that has been proposed would unalterably 
change the Senate itself. It will no longer be the place where the 
whole country is heard and has the ability to have its say, a place 
that encourages consensus and broad agreement. In short, it would make 
this place even less like the place Americans want it to be.
  So it is my hope that our friends on the other side will put aside 
their plans, respect the rules of the Senate and, more importantly, the 
voice of the people those rules are meant to protect. Then we can get 
about the business the people sent us here to do.
  Today is a day to renew our purpose and our commitment to 
bipartisanship, not to double down on a partisan approach that has too 
often marred lawmaking in Washington over the past 2 years. It is a day 
to look ahead to what we can achieve together, prompted by the urgings 
of an electorate that has made its views very clear, and united by a 
love for this institution and this Nation. The problems we face are 
enormous--once-in-a-generation challenges that will require vision, 
hard work, and a commitment to work together to reach consensus, and 
the Senate is the place for that. At its best, it is a workshop where 
the Nation's most difficult challenges are faced squarely and addressed 
with civility and goodwill. At a time like our own, when 1 in 10 
working Americans is looking for a job and can't find one, when the 
national debt threatens the American dream itself, when the solvency of 
the social safety net is threatened, we must come together. We must 
find a way to forget the petty skirmishes of the past and forge a new, 
more hopeful path. We must be motivated by a determination to seek 
solutions, not mere partisan advantage.

[[Page S18]]

  Americans are looking for Republicans to address the problems we 
face, but Republicans cannot solve them alone. The problems are too 
big, too demanding for one party, and we will never succeed in solving 
them if we retreat to our corners until another election comes around. 
If our predecessors had done that, they would have never solved 
anything at all, and this institution would have lost its relevance a 
long time ago. But they didn't, and neither can we.
  The men who established this place have left us the right tools for 
the job. It is my hope that in the weeks and months ahead, we will use 
them to renew the promise that inspired them and that continues to 
inspire Americans even in difficult times. That promise is the American 
dream. It is what unites everyone in this Chamber. Preserving it must 
be our common task.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________