The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SENATE RULES CHANGE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S1763-S1766 on Feb. 8, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SENATE RULES CHANGE
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I turn to the subject of submitting a resolution which I spoke about yesterday, and I do formally submit the resolution at this time. This resolution will eliminate the practice of filling the tree, which means there is a procedure to eliminate the opportunity of a Senator to offer an amendment.
This is a particularly problemsome week for the Senate. We are on Thursday, and twice this week action has been taken in the Senate, on two separate matters, to foreclose Senators from offering amendments. I spoke on Monday and again yesterday on the subject of U.S. policy in Iraq, and we have a bill which has been offered by Senator Levin, and the majority leader was expected to fill the tree, if given an opportunity to do so. No denial has been made of that practice, which was anticipated by the majority leader.
A motion to proceed is a debatable motion under Senate rules. When you have a matter as important as the Iraq war, there ought to be very careful consideration given by the Senate--reputed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Immediately upon taking up the bill, the majority leader filed a cloture motion. It was kind of odd, even for people not versed in Senate procedure, to bring up a bill which is debatable and immediately to file a motion to cut off debate, but that was what was done.
On the Republican side, there was an interest in having alternative resolutions, ideas considered--by Senator McCain, to support the surge with benchmarks; by Senator Warner, to express opposition to a surge of 21,500; and by Senator Gregg, to have a resolution which would deal with the prohibition against funding for the troops--which obviously nobody wants to do. The troops are in harm's way. We are not going to cut off funding.
But behind the scenes what was happening was negotiations between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell--the agreement could not be reached giving the Republicans a fair opportunity to offer alternative resolutions, so almost all Republicans joined together to reject the cloture motion and keep the debate going.
It is not understood in America what is happening because it is arcane, it is esoteric, it is unintelligible--they can't figure it out. But the popular view, the public perception was the Republicans were trying to protect the President, to cut off debate on the Iraq policy and not to have a vote. That, simply stated, was not true.
I have been on the record for some time, expressing my skepticism about the surge position. There is no doubt that Senator Warner opposes the President's position because he is the author of the resolution to express disapproval on the surge position. He voted against cloture. No doubt, Senator Hagel was against the President's proposal. He has been the most severe critic of the President's proposal. Senator Hagel also voted against cloture, as did almost all Republicans. But the perception was the Republicans were trying to block debate in the consideration of the resolution of disapproval.
After I announced my intention to introduce this rule change, I went to the third floor, to the press gallery, to sit down with the reporters to explain and to answer questions, to try to get a public discussion on what was happening. One of the reporters from the wire services commented that no story was written about it because it couldn't be explained to anybody beyond the beltway. It could not be explained.
Two of the newspapers on Capitol Hill carried brief stories about it, but the matter has been dropped. Republicans have lost the public relations battle. The issue will be taken up in the House. Maybe it will be reconsidered in the Senate. But this procedure of allowing the majority leader to stop alternative considerations is inappropriate and unfair.
There are some pretty good authorities for the proposition that this procedure is inappropriate. I wish to cite three very distinguished Senators: Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader; Senator Richard Durbin, the assistant majority leader; and Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut. As I said yesterday, this business about filling the tree has been practiced by both parties. The Congressional Research Service did a study that showed that going back to Senator Dole in the 1985-1986 Congress, every majority leader has used this procedure--
Senator Dole, Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, and now Senator Reid, twice in 1 week. In the fifth week of the new session, it is twice already being used. So that Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault. If people want to know whom to blame in Washington, it is a pretty good conclusion it is equally divided, that the bickering is the responsibility of both parties--a plague on both houses.
But when we Republicans controlled the Senate and we had the PATRIOT Act, Senator Reid had this to say on February 28 of last year. He was speaking in defense of a fellow Democrat's ability to offer amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. This is what Senator Reid said:
Of course, even a good bill can be improved. That is why we have an amendment process in the Senate . . . I am disappointed that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as ``filling the amendment tree.''
This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Rule XXII establishes a process for cutting off debate and amendments, but Rule XXII should rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered.
That is what Senator Reid said less than a year ago. I couldn't say it better. In fact, I couldn't say it as well.
Then, a few days later on March 2, Senator Reid said this:
Don't fill the tree. This is a bad way, in my opinion, to run the Senate.
Then Senator Durbin spoke on May 11 of 2006 on the tax increase prevention and reconciliation act. Speaking about that conference report, this is what Senator Durbin had to say:
The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files cloture, which stops debate. So we cannot have this conversation. We cannot offer amendments.
Well, that is exactly the plan for the Iraq issue, and that is what is being done now on the continuing resolution which has been filed.
Senator Dole had this to say, speaking about health care legislation:
I want to point out to our colleagues why I am terribly disappointed with the procedures we have been confronted with this evening dealing with this legislation . . . This is the Senate. This Chamber historically is the place where debate occurs. To have a process here this evening . . . to basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body
. . . If you believe the Senate ought to be heard on a variety of issues relating to the subject matter--when the amendment tree has been entirely filled, then obviously we are dealing with a process that ought not to be . . . the Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments, have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to closure on the subject matter.
Well, Arlen Specter doesn't have to say anything more on the subject because Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, and Senator Dodd are much more eloquent than I. So I offer this resolution to correct this problem for the future. It is very hard to change a Senate rule, but nobody has proposed it in the past, to my knowledge, and today we will start on it.
Beyond the procedure used by the majority leader, the leader of the Democrats, to shut off debate and consideration of alternative proposals on the Iraq policy, the majority leader has utilized the procedure again on the continuing resolution.
Now the continuing resolution characteristically is a brief document, usually about a page, which says the Government will continue to operate under existing appropriations, since there has not been time to consider a new appropriations package. But what we have in H.J. Res. 20 is an omnibus bill running 137 pages. I want to have an opportunity to amend it. Other Senators want to have an opportunity to amend it. Some have spoken on the floor of the Senate here today. But we are foreclosed from doing so.
When the announcement was made that we were going to go to this kind of a procedure, in my capacity as chairman last year, now ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I wrote a letter to Senator Reid asking that we follow regular order and consider the appropriation bills sequentially. I sent identical letters to Speaker Pelosi, the Republican leader, Boehner, in the House, Senator McConnell, Senator Byrd, Representative Obey, Representative Lewis, and Senator Cochran, the leaders of both bodies and the chairmen and ranking members of both Appropriations Committees. Because if we had the will; we had the time; we had the way, to get it all done. But the leadership has chosen not to follow that path, and now we have a continuing resolution which does not allow for any amendments. That is not in the public interest.
After having been in the Senate for 26 years and being on the Appropriations Committee for 26 years, I have turned into a rubberstamp. That is what the Senators are here, those who did not have a say in the preparation of this continuing resolution. We are all rubberstamps: Take it or leave it. Now we would employ the procedure used on the Iraqi issue to avoid cutting off debate, but the Treasury will run out of money at midnight on February 15--that is Thursday night--so we have the option of closing down the Government if we don't approve this rubberstamp procedure, and we are not going to do that. We had experience with the closing down of the Government back in December of 1995, and it was a very bitter experience; great political peril in closing down the Government.
Here we have a very important measure. For a few minutes I want to point out what has happened to the subcommittee which funds health care, which is our No. 1 capital asset; you can't do anything if you don't have good health, and I can testify to that personally from my own experience in the last 2 years. Secondly, education. If you are not trained, you can't do anything, even with good health. The Department of Labor on job training and worker safety. The level of the budget for fiscal year 2005 was $143.4 billion. The President has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2008 of $141.5 billion. If you take a look at the cuts in the budget for Health, Education and Labor and you add in the inflationary factors, the committee is being asked to operate at a level of $14.7 billion less than the fiscal year 2005 budget. That simply is inadequate to take care of the National Institutes of Health, offering the greatest chance through medical research to find cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and cancer and heart disease; funding for Head Start, funding for Title I, funding for education programs, funding for job training. It simply is totally insufficient.
Those are the kinds of matters we ought to address on this continuing resolution. That is what we ought to be talking about, instead of having our last vote before noon on a Thursday as part of our 5-day workweek. We have yet to see that; we have yet to take the time we need to consider these matters. Had we taken up these appropriations bills in regular order, as I asked the leadership back on January 10, we would have had adequate time to do so.
It is my hope that one day, and hopefully sooner rather than later, the Senate will change its rules so the majority leader will not be able to create a procedural morass to stop Senators from introducing amendments. It is my hope Senator Reid's admonitions when the shoe was on the other foot back last year, that filling the tree is a bad practice, it runs against the basic nature of the Senate, the hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate, and similar comments by Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd, that we will be able to have a process so when an issue such as Iraq comes before the Senate, we can function as a deliberative body and we can have debate; we can consider alternative matters, and we can decide what U.S. policy should be. Because the President is not the sole decider. It is a shared responsibility; that when we have a budget and a resolution to fund the U.S. Government, we are not shut out from offering amendments.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. Res. ___
Resolved, That (a) rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
``6. Notwithstanding action on a first degree amendment, it shall not be in order for a Senator to offer a second degree amendment to his or her own first degree amendment.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect at the beginning of the 111th Congress.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the statements of Senators Reid, Durbin, and Dodd be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Sen. Reid (NV)--talking to a new Senator in the chair,
``she should have seen when the Republicans were in the majority. We didn't have amendments. They filled every tree.'' 2/6/07 (Tues.) Iraq debate
Sen. Reid (NV)--Speaking in defense of a fellow Democrat's ability to offer amendments to the Patriot Act reauthorization: ``Of course even a good bill can be improved. That is why we have an amendment process in the Senate . . . I am disappointed that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as `filling the amendment tree.' This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Rule [twenty-two] XXII establishes a process for cutting off debate and amendments, but Rule XXII should rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered . . . I will vote against cloture to register my objection to this flawed process.'' 2/28/06 Patriot Act Reauthorization
Sen. Reid (NV)--``Don't fill the tree . . . That is a bad way, in my opinion, to run this Senate.'' 3/2/06 Patriot Act
Sen. Durbin--Speaking about the 2005 Tax Reconciliation conference report: ``The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files cloture, which stops debate. So we cannot have this conversation. We cannot offer other amendments.'' 5/11/06 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 Conf. Rept.
Sen. Dodd--Speaking about healthcare legislation: ``I want to point out to our colleagues why I am terribly disappointed with the procedures we have been confronted with this evening dealing with this legislation . . . This is the Senate. This Chamber historically is the place where debate occurs. To have a process here this evening . . . to basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body . . . if you believe the Senate ought to be heard on a variety of issues relating to the subject matter--when the amendment tree has been entirely filled, then obviously we are dealing with a process that ought not to be . . . .the Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments, have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to closure on the subject matter.'' 05/11/06 Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2006
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter of January 10 to Senator Reid, which notes identical records to the other leaders in the House and Senate, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 10, 2007.Hon. Harry Reid,Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Harry: In light of the significant problems caused to so many entities funded by the federal government to operate under a continuing resolution, I urge the leaders of both Houses and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Appropriations Committees of both Houses to bring the unfinished Appropriation bills for fiscal year 2007 to the floors of the House and Senate as early this year as possible.
The extraordinary problems caused for so many entities are typified by a letter which I received yesterday from Chief Judge Paul Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. With this letter, I am enclosing a copy of Judge Michel's letter. I am also enclosing a copy of a memorandum prepared by my Staff Director on Appropriations, Bettilou Taylor, itemizing some of the major problems faced by federally-funded entities.
Last year, I tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to have my Subcommittee's bill on Labor, Health & Human Services and Education brought to the Senate floor for action. My House counterpart, Chairman Ralph Regula, and I were prepared to conclude our bill and wrap it up in a conference report. We could still do so on short order. As an alternative to considering the bills individually, there could obviously be an omnibus bill excluding earmarks which could be taken up in relatively short order.
I know there is other pressing business to be taken up by both Houses on many matters, but we could find time to complete action on key items from last year's appropriation process if we have a sense of urgency to do so.
I appreciate your consideration of this request.
I am sending identical letters to Speaker Pelosi, Representative Boehner, Senator McConnell, Chairman Byrd, Chairman Obey, Representative Lewis and Senator Cochran.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Judge Paul Michel to me, dated December 18, about the problems caused to the Federal judiciary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which was referenced in my letter to Senator Reid and others, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit,
Washington, DC, December 18, 2006.Hon. Arlen Specter,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
Dear Arlen: With the new Congressional leadership suggesting a Continuing Resolution at the 2006 appropriated level, the Judiciary is threatened with degradation of essential functions because of increased costs mandated by law. Thus, the funding level of 2006 applied in 2007 has the effect of nearly a ten percent reduction.
Although the Judiciary can and should improve efficiency and do its share of belt-tightening, the funding reduction suggested would impede critical operations to a material degree.
As your own proposals on habeas corpus, NSA wire taps, immigration and other priorities illustrate, federal courts are becoming not less but more important to the welfare of the country and to its security.
I imagine the new leaders are so focused on eliminating earmarks that they are unaware of the operational impact of the cuts being discussed. In addition to the Appropriations Committee and subcommittees, surely the Judiciary Committee has a crucial role here. As a member of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, I would welcome the opportunity to brief you and Senator Leahy on this urgent subject.
Best,
Paul R. Michel,
Chief Judge.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart showing the fiscal impact on the budgetary process from the fiscal year 2005 to the President's recommended budget of 2008 be printed in the Record, demonstrating the problems we have on adequately funding health, education, job training, and worker safety.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Fiscal Years 05 Through 07
Dollars in billions
FY'05 Enacted....................................................$143.4
FY'06 Enacted.....................................................141.5
FY'07 President's Budget..........................................137.4
FY'07 Budget Resolution--Specter/Harkin amendment passed (73-27)
Assumed an additional $7 billion.....................................
FY'07 302(b) allocation for Labor-HHS over the FY'07 budget........+5.0
__________
FY'07 Senate reported bill........................................142.4
FY'07 Continuing Resolution thru Feb 15, 2007.....................142.1
FY'07 H.J. Res 20 plus additional subcommittee allocation..........+2.3
__________
Total Labor-HHS in H.J. Res 20..................................144.4
Total over FY'07 President's budget..............................+7.0
Fiscal Year 08
Dollars in billions
FY'05 Enacted....................................................$143.4
Inflation as measured by the price index for the GDP:
To restore to the FY'05 level plus FY'06 inflation--3.1...........3.5
To restore to the second year (FY'07) inflation--2.5%.............2.9
To restore to the FY'08 inflation--2.4%...........................2.9
NIH:
To restore NIH plus FY'06 biomedical inflation--4.5%..............1.3
To restore NIH plus FY'07 biomedical inflation--3.7%..............1.1
To restore NIH plus FY'08 biomedical inflation--3.7%..............1.1
FY'08 with inflation only.........................................156.2
FY'08 President's budget..........................................141.5
__________
Shortfall..........................................................14.7
Based on the updated inflationary costs--the FY'08 President's budget would require an additional $14.7 billion or 10.4% more to fund programs at the FY'05 inflation adjusted level.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service as to the use of the procedure to fill the tree since the 99th Congress be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
TABLE 1.--INSTANCES WHERE A SENATE MAJORITY LEADER OR DESIGNEE FILLED THE AMENDMENT TREE: 1985-2006 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of times
floor leader/ Measures/subjects on
Congress Senate Majority Leader designee filled which tree was filled
the tree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99th (1985-1986)...................... Robert Dole (R-KS)....... 5 Congressional Budget
Resolution
Public Debt Limit
Legislation
National Defense
Authorization Act
100th (1987-1988)..................... Robert C. Byrd (D-WV).... 3 Parental and Medical
Leave Act
Campaign Finance Reform
Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of
1987
101st (1989-1990)..................... George J. Mitchell (D-ME) 0 .........................
102nd (1991-1992)..................... George J. Mitchell (D-ME) 1 Balanced Budget Amendment
103rd (1993-1994)..................... George J. Mitchell (D-ME) 9 Economic Stimulus
Legislation
Gays in the Military
Senate Whitewater
Investigation
104th (1995-1996)..................... Robert Dole (R-KS)....... 5 Minimum Wage Increase
Trent Lott (R-MS) (As of White House Travel Office
06/12/96). Investigation
Constitutional Amendment
on Congressional Term
Limits
Immigration Control and
Financial Responsibility
Act
105th (1997-1998)..................... Trent Lott (R-MS)........ 3 Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act
ISTEA/Transportation
Funding
106th (1999-2000)..................... Trent Lott (R-MS)........ 9 Education (Ed-Flex)
Social Security Lockbox
Year 2000 (Y2K)
Legislation
Africa Growth Act
H1-B Visa Immigration
Labor-HHS/Ergonomics
107th (2001-2002)..................... Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD). 1 Homeland Security Act of
01/03/01--01/20/01 and 2002
also.
06/06/02--01/07/03.......
Trent Lott (R-MS)........
01/20/01--06/06/02.......
108th (2003-2004)..................... William H. Frist (R-TN).. 3 Energy Policy Act of 2003
Class Action Fairness Act
Jumpstart our Business
Strength Act.
109th (2005-2006)..................... William H. Frist (R-TN).. 5 Lawful Commerce in Arms
Act
Tax Relief Extension
Reconciliation
USA Patriotic Act
Amendments
Health Insurance
Marketplace
Modernization Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of September, 2006. Preliminary draft, subject to additional review and revision.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I know my colleagues are waiting to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
____________________
