Summary

INT BROLL SENATOR HARRY REID REMARKS AT CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND EVENT Monday, July 15, 2013 Senator Harry Reid remarks at Center for American Progress Action Fund DC Slug: 1205 REID CAPAF RS15 75 AR: 16x9 Disc #429 SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): Thank you all very much for being here this morning I know it's always appropriate to start your presentation by saying something funny And I am about the most unfunny person you've ever known But I thought I would tell you something that happened to my family not long ago 12:08:58 As you know, I have five children My youngest boy has five little -- oh, I'm sorry -- four little girls And they are beautiful little children He was a gifted athlete He was our entertainment till he was 22 years old, played on three national championship teams and -- at University of Virginia And he was so looking forward to coaching his boys so they'd be just like him, but he's got four girls So he's coaching them They are all very athletic 12:09:28 But his lovely wife and he decided it would be a good things if their kids, those four little girls, had some responsibilities around the house And so they sat down with all four of them and said, OK, we're going to give you this much money every week, but you're doing to have to do -- you know, outlined what they had to do: help with the dishes, pick up toys, help with the beds, make up the beds; just do a list of things that kids are always required to do 12:09:57 And it went just fine for three or four months But Ella, the next -- the oldest, for a while just wouldn't do anything So her mom talked to my son, and she said, when you get home, you're going to sit down and have a little talk with her She won't do anything It's been that way for weeks 12:10:18 So my son sat down and -- just the two of them alone, and started with -- he thought would be this long conversation with little Ella And he said, your sisters are doing everything they're asked to do You are basically not carrying your load Why? What's the matter? She said, Dad, I don't need the money (Laughter) Well, at least a few laughed, anyway (Laughter) 12:10:46 Well, I appreciate very much for -- having the opportunity to visit with each of you on something I've worked on for some time now John, I appreciate very much the work of having this organization for 10 years Neera, you're doing a great job filling in for John 12:11:04 Congress is extremely unpopular, for a couple of main reasons Any poll you look at indicates that they're unpopular, for two reasons: one, gridlock, gridlock, gridlock; two, not getting things done And that's really true We -- when I came to Congress -- well, actually the first time I ran for the Senate, we were above 45 percent, approaching 50 percent, the Congress Not that way anymore Last Gallup number had us at 10 percent and not going up, going down So why is that? 12:11:49 Of course, we all know we need to pass legislation that does good things for our country, especially the middle class Flip on C-Span, as I know some of you do, and what do you see there the vast majority of the time? Nothing Blank screen Quorum calls So we're wasting time hour after hour, day after day 12:12:19 To kind of give you a picture where we're coming from, me and my caucus, Lyndon Johnson was majority leader for six years During that period of time, he had to overcome one filibuster I've been leader about the same time as he has I don't know the exact number, but it's around 420 filibusters So things change; yes, they sure have changed Now, everyone knows that under the Constitution we have a responsibility to give advice and consent to the president on his nominations, but all we have from the Republicans is not advise and consent; we have obstruct and delay And that's really the truth Now, remember my conservative friends always talk about the Constitution, so let's use that as a frame for my presentation to you here today The Constitution is very, very specific as to what requires a supermajority Vetoes, impeachments, treaties And that same paragraph where the founding fathers talked about supermajority, they mentioned presidential nominations; majority Majority 12:13:49 The founding fathers want an up-or-down vote, and that's basically what we've been crying for now for years And I believe this whether it's one of the new Bushes to be president, maybe Jeb or maybe a new Clinton, maybe Hillary or maybe even the daughter But whoever is -- whoever is president, they should have the ability to pick their team There is -- I feel very strongly about that 12:14:26 Many here follow the Washington Nationals Great we have a team here I've had a number of opportunities to visit with Davey Johnson He's one of the great baseball's heroes of all time, played on three or four national champion teams, second baseman of Baltimore Orioles, won a pennant, won a World Series He's now here Been -- he had been selected as manager of the year many times Let's assume that this year, Davey Johnson has his team together And he gets a call from Major League Baseball And they say, Davey, I know you've worked hard to put this team together I'm glad to see that Zimmerman's back, he's had the surgery, we hope he can throw better, we know he's been a golden glover, we know he's been a silver slugger And you can have him, but not until sometime the first part of June And that contract you signed very recently, for LaRoche to get him for a year, first base, you can have him, but it's going to be after the all-star break What -- how would that be for his team? Well, multiply that a hundred times, and you find out what's going on here in Washington 12:15:46 We have a situation where Republicans have created gridlock, gridlock, gridlock And it has consequences It's not only bad for President Obama; it's bad for the country The status quo won't work 12:16:07 Now, during the time we've been a country -- during the time we've been a country, until Barack Obama became president, 20 executive nominees were filibustered During the four years that President Obama has been president, he's already had -- I'm sorry, he's already had 16 of his nominees filibustered Think about that What they have done is just really unbelievable And my Republican colleague Senator McConnell, on Meet the Press yesterday, they ask him the logical question They said, what are you going to do with Napolitano's replacement? And rather than say, we'll move forward on that, have some questions, but we'll move forward on it, he refused to tell David Gregory whether or not they would -- he would allow an up- or-down vote Think about that (Chuckles) 12:17:07 What they have done is really untoward American people need to feel that we as a Senate are responsive to their challenges They've carried this to the extreme 12:17:22 I don't do committee work anymore, but I've sat for hours during committees And during those committee hearings for a nominee, what we do is you ask questions Sometimes it goes for a day or two, three days sometimes But it's been traditional, after those questions have been asked -- there may be -- one senator say, you know, could I -- could I send you a couple questions in writing? Sure And you'll get the answers back as soon as you can? Yes Well, that has been carried to the extreme Perez wants to be secretary of labor, put his way through school as a garbage man, hauling garbage They submitted to him about 300 questions in writing He had to respond back in writing But the champion of this -- Gina McCarthy Long hearing on this She had to respond to 1,100 questions -- 1,100 questions 12:18:30 Now, my friend the Republican leader and others come to floor and say, yeah, but everything's going great; we approved this person 97 to nothing, one person 98 to nothing, another a hundred to nothing But that's the whole point They don't have anything -- there's nothing wrong with these people There's nothing wrong with their qualifications They simply want to stall what goes on Those people that they voted 97 to nothing -- some of them, we've waited months The NLRB folks we talked -- Neera talked about today -- they've been waiting for more than two years I -- the 15 that are on the calendar today -- their average waiting time has been nine months Do they have an objection against Richard Cordray, his qualification? Of course not Cordray was a clerk for Judge Bork Cordray was a clerk for Justice Kennedy He was attorney general for the state of Ohio They have nothing wrong with his qualifications They just don't like his job They don't like someone whose job, based on legislation that we've passed and is signed into law, who takes a look for the consumer against the greed that happens on occasion in Wall Street Do they have anything personally against the two NLRB nominees? No One of them was Senator Kennedy's counsel The other was the attorney for the Operating Engineers These are good people They don't challenge their qualifications, they challenge their jobs NLRB has been in existence since the Great Depression It works It protects workers Not union workers; workers 12:20:18 Isn't it interesting the focal point has been the last few months on all these people, on the secretary of labor and two NLRB folks? Do you think there's something in that message to the American people? We're going to do everything we can to make sure business is OK, but we're not going to make sure that everything is OK with American workers Now, there have been hues and cries that what I and my caucus are trying to do is going to really hurt the Senate In the last 18 years -- I'm sorry, the last 36 years, we've changed the rules by a simple majority 18 times I've done it We always do it, simple majority, when things don't work If you look at what those changes were, people just trying to be vexatious and create problems We did this just a little over a year ago What had happened is, after cloture had been evoked -- invoked on one of those rare occasions to stop filibuster, some of the Republican senators came up with this big, great idea: Cloture is over with, and they would file motions to set aside the rules Well, it took a two-thirds majority They knew none of them would pass But they wanted my folks to have to vote on amendments that had nothing to do with the bill that cloture had been evoked (sic) on Now I put up with this for a while They had two or three of them Finally -- I don't remember the exact number; they had 15 or so they filed -- takes huge amounts of time and was a waste of Senate's time So we changed the rules We said you can't do that anymore That was done by a simple majority And that's all we're doing here We're -- this does not affect lifetime appointments It doesn't affect substantive legislation It allows the president to have his team -- this president and those in the future And that's the way it should be 12:22:29 My friend Senator McConnell -- and this is not -- this is not McConnell versus Reid; this is -- my caucus is concerned about where this country is headed But Mitch has said -- said; I'm not making this up -- he is the proud guardian of gridlock Those are his words So I took action last week to force Republicans to either allow these people to go through that and stop the filibuster, or we're going to have to change the rule 12:23:07 There is -- there isn't, as I've indicated, a single objection to the qualifications of any one of these people And we need to move forward We need to stop blocking this president and the future presidents from having a qualified team that he thinks is what he needs This is in the Constitution This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans It's about making Washington work, regardless of who's in the White House I also think that it's clear that we should all understand that the Senate is a unique institution It was created that way by the Founding Fathers 12:23:47 Its traditions are important, but also, it's an evolving institution It's always been that way That's why the -- that's why we changed the rules 18 times for the last three decades Among those traditions is protection for the minority, and that's the way it should be The power of an extreme minority now threatens our integrity of this institution As we know, Frank Lautenberg passed away very recently He was a fine man He loved the Senate Gina McCarthy, after her 1,100 questions were answered, Republicans refused to have a single Republican attend So the only way to overcome that is all Democratic senators of the committee had to be there Frank Lautenberg was dying I called Bonnie, I said, we have to have him here And he literally on his deathbed came down here, unhooked the stuff that is keeping him alive, came down here from New Jersey and walked in to make a caucus out Everybody was there for the Democrats in the EPA committee And we shouldn't be doing stuff like that That isn't what it's all about You can't reward bad behavior over and over and over again For the first time in the history of the country, they filibustered the secretary of defense, this wild-eyed liberal from Nebraska, a war hero, literally a war hero who was commended for his heroism, who among other things on the battlefield saved his brother's life I went to his office when he was here as a senator He has a picture there of he and his brother on an armored personnel carrier in Vietnam And not only that, one of the senators questioned his loyalty to our country In a public hearing, they did that John Brennan -- filibustered the director of the CIA 12:26:19 So my efforts are directed to save the Senate from becoming obsolete, to remain relevant and effective as an institution And to do that, the Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of modern-day America This is really a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change -- minor change, no big deal Remember, all we want to do is what the Constitution says we should do Filibusters are not part of the Constitution That's something that senators developed on their own to get legislation to pass Now it's being used not only to get legislation to stop from passing but to stop nominees It's in a totally different place than where it should be There's a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change It's time for course correction that compels the two parties to work with each other instead of against each other The gravity of the challenges facing our country demands that we do what's necessary to save this storied institution, the United States Senate I love the Senate But right now the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed I have a vision of a Senate that works again, a Senate that's once again a responsive and effective advocate for middle-class families 12:27:46 It really troubles me when my Republican colleagues stand and say, but we passed the farm bill; we passed an immigration bill Keep going Keep going Not much else Those are not things we should be saying, oh, we were able to do that I mean, I am really proud of the eight Democrats and Republicans who worked together to help us find a pathway to do immigration But that's what we used to do all the time That's what we do Compromise is what we're all about Legislation is the art of compromise That's what it's all about So I want the Senate to work again With your support, I'm prepared to take whatever action is necessary to make that happen Thank you very much (Applause) NEERA TANDEN (president, Center for American Progress Action Fund): So I am just going to ask a few questions, and then we'll turn it over to the audience So you referenced, Senator Reid, the issue -- the fact that what's tying a lot of these blocked nominees together, from the Consumer Financial Protection Board to the National Labor Relations Board to the Environmental Protection Agency, Labor, is that these are agencies that protect consumers, and they face great opposition There's also the issue, which is -- which is sort of new with the Consumer Financial Protection Board, which is that, you know, over 40 senators basically said they would not confirm -- they were opposed to basically any confirmation So do you think in some sense what we're facing is a new issue in which the Senate minority is using the power of the filibuster to basically nullify the effect of laws themselves, because with the National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Financial Protection Board, it's hard to actually get them to operate properly when they don't have nominees or they don't have commissioners or directors? 12:30:11 SEN REID: There are a lot of things that have happened since I've been here that have been pushed forward by Republican presidents, Republican Congresses, that I didn't like But we have not the ability -- we shouldn't have, at least -- that just because we don't like a law, we don't fill the positions to see if it will work Dodd-Frank, Republicans, not a one of them voted for it, hated the bill But we did it because Wall Street had ruined -- temporarily -- thank goodness we're making our way back, but not as much as I'd like -- Las Vegas, Nevada They don't like this Elizabeth Warren came up with the idea that we need someone to protect the consumer That's not an outrageous idea, but they don't like it because the consumer, I believe, needs protection against Wall Street And that's what this would do, and they don't like it and they've done everything they can to stop it I got a letter from -- I can't remember, 44, I think, senators -- Republican senators And it's the same -- you know, we're having the same issue with health care, with many other -- and, you know, the Cordray issue is really we solved a big problem, because it's so important we protect the consumer It is -- we don't have to appropriate the money for that That also drives them crazy That happens automatically Federal Reserve MS TANDEN: And so do you -- obviously, a lot of progressive groups have been pushing for filibuster reform for a long time, and broadly speaking Why focus on nominees, and why now, essentially? 12:32:00 SEN REID: Because that's now where the big plug is I mean, you can look at many different pieces of legislation and look at how the 60-vote threshold, whether 60 is -- could be changed to a lower number; that's something when could deal with later But right now the 60 protects progressive groups and conservative groups And look at the gun thing as an example The gun legislation I so believe in for background checks to stop people who have serious mental problems and are criminals from buying a gun, I believe in that very strongly But I didn't believe in the fact that because they have some -- trying to be as nice as I can about this -- some crazy, absurd rule in Idaho and Utah that basically, you can carry a gun anyplace you want, I don't think that would be good to have somebody fly into Las Vegas armed to the hilt because of some law that they have in Idaho or flying into St -- I mean, so it protect (also ?) women who are very concerned about protecting their rights with a simple majority So I'm not anxious to change that On judges, I'm comfortable with our doing what we're doing We have -- we'll see what happens, but I am very comfortable with where we are now, and I'm not trying to spread this to other places MS TANDEN: All right So let's -- I think that we have a few minutes for questions I think we'll start with the press And if you could just identify yourself and your organization, that would be great Q: Chuck Babington, with the AP Senator Reid, as you know, Republicans have raised the specter of possibly using a simple majority vote when they have the majority, which, as you know, could come fairly soon, to open up Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste Is that something that you're willing to accept or -- 12:33:58 SEN REID: How silly, but I'll answer it I mean, how silly They are not about to have a 50-vote majority if they're in power, anybody else is in power That is just a -- that bothered me about as much as the color of your tie today -- (laughter) -- which doesn't bother me at all, OK? (Laughter) So Yucca Mountain's not -- Q: To be clear, you're saying that even if they had a majority, that they could not come up with 51 votes for that issue -- SEN REID: But that's not the issue If they get in -- if they want to change the rules by simple majority, more power to them I think they would be -- they would rue the day they did it They're not -- they're not going to do that We're not going to do that It's all -- you know, the sky is falling As they asked Barbara Mikulski, who is as quick-witted as anybody I've ever know -- they asked ask her last week -- they said, this is a slippery slope, and she said that's why they call them slopes MS TANDEN: (Inaudible) -- and then (Chris ?) 12:35:09 Q: Hi, Senator Reid Jeff Zeleny with ABC News In 2005 you said that changing these rules would be a black chapter in the history of the country, it would ruin our country, and that you should not be able to willy-nilly change the rules of the Senate Isn't this being a little hypocritical by changing the rules now? 12:35:22 SEN REID: No, what it is, is you don't understand the right question Q: No -- SEN REID: I wasn't talking about changing the rules for nominees I was talking about changing the rules for judges, OK? It's a new era I mean, we have now, since then, as I've indicated, 400 and -- approximately 420 we've been filibustered We have a situation where we have people who have been waiting -- 15 on the calendar -- for nine months The two nominees for the NLRB have been waiting for two years Cordray's been waiting for two years So it's a totally different world we live in, and I don't -- I -- of course, I wasn't the leader at that time, but anyway, that's what I said Here's how I feel now Different situation MS TANDEN: Chris Q: Senator Reid, Chris Frates, National Journal I wanted to ask, are you concerned at all if -- by putting these in place, that when the next president comes that you'll be able to create a situation where there's no need for any kind of bipartisan Cabinets, where the FEC could be stacked with Republicans who are -- you know, who are pro-campaign finance reform if you're a Democrat or Democrats who are anti-campaign finance reform if you're a Republican, basically making it difficult for of the government to function? 12:36:45 SEN REID: Why don't you look at what's going on today rather than have some hypothetical in the future? The problem today is the president of the United States cannot get the people to work for him that he wants That's what we should focus on I mean, when it's gone so far that you -- for the first time in the history of the country, you filibuster a secretary of defense, you -- instead of submitting, as used to happen, six or seven questions, you now do 1,100 -- Jack Lew is one -- he's secretary of Treasury We're -- we had to file cloture on him so he could be part of the International Monetary Fund Let's talk about the problems today, not some hypothetical in the future And if people really have concern about that, let them go change the Constitution That's what the Constitution says, that for a presidential nominee, it should be a simple majority It's worked for a long, long time And that's why during the time from George Washington to Barack Obama, you only had 20 filibusters of presidential nominations MS TANDEN: A few more questions over here -- over here, and we'll go over there, and -- (inaudible) Q: Hi, Senator Jonathan Weisman, from The New York Times You're having this meeting tonight in the old Senate chamber, but it sounds like you've made your decision So what is this meeting about tonight, and are you open to any kind of compromises that would let some of these or all of these nominees go forward with some proviso that the so-called constitutional option be taken off the table, at least for now? 12:38:18 SEN REID: Simple solution I mentioned it in my remarks So easy If the sky is falling and they think it's falling, let them stop the filibusters on the seven that I filed cloture on, and we will have up-or-down votes on these people and go on to the business for the day That seems pretty simple to me And it's also quite fascinating here, we're having a joint caucus I tried to do that in the past McConnell wouldn't let us do it The only time we've been able to do it is when I came up with the idea to have John McCain in a closed session with (our senators ?), talk about his experiences in Vietnam, and it was stunningly interesting But we've tried to do joint caucuses Now, no matter what reason there is for having one, we're having one I mean, that's good Hope that sets a tone for the future But I repeat for The New York Times: If they want to -- if they want to stop what's going on, don't filibuster, don't filibuster Cordray, don't filibuster Griffin, Block, Hochberg, Gina McCarthy, Perez That's a good way to stop all this MS TANDEN: There was someone (over there ?) OK Yes Go ahead Q: (Off mic) -- Wall Street Journal Are you open to -- assuming that this rule change goes forward, to going further later in the year? You mentioned gun control earlier Are you open to potentially making this change for legislation as well? 12:39:55 SEN REID: When you come here, I'm sorry you can't hear all the answers I answered that question I have no intent of changing the rule -- (inaudible) -- legislation, zero, just like I told this man from the National Journal Same answer Same question, same answer MS TANDEN: (Inaudible) -- are there questions from the public? Over here? Right there Q: Hello James Bradbury (sp), University of Colorado So Senator, if this nuclear option is supposed to mitigate gridlock in the Senate, what other rules would you like to see changed in order to make the Senate more effective? SEN REID: Nothing right now Q: Nothing right now 12:40:30 SEN REID: But remember, the Senate is an evolving body We've changed the rules in recent years 18 times I gave you one example I went back and studied the other reasons that we changed -- same thing as this Somebody gets the bright idea -- I don't know if it was a Democrat or Republican I really don't know this The other 17 times -- something just to bring the Senate to a standstill like we are now And so the rules were changed I'm sure it'll change in the future MS TANDEN: Other questions? Is that a -- (chuckles) -- the person -- (inaudible) -- and then we'll come back to Brad (sp) We only have a few more minutes Q: Senator, I think another interesting idea that's been proposed is -- SEN REID: Tell us where you're from and what's your -- Q: I'm sorry I'm Alex Loman (sp) from the University of Southern California I think an -- SEN REID: Oh Hope you have a better football team than last year That was a disaster (Laughter) That may -- that proves you can't buy college football players (Laughter) Q: Senator, you're almost making me want to switch to the other team (Laughter) SEN REID: I'm sorry, what's that? Q: You're almost making me want to switch to the other party But -- (laughter) -- I'm -- one of the more interlaying ideas that I've seen proposed is to shift the burden to the minority to over -- to sustain a filibuster rather than the majority to overcome a filibuster I'm interested in your views on that proposal 12:41:50 SEN REID: All right Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have suggested that, and that's something we can look at in the future It's harder to implement than people think But remember we have deep traditions here in the Senate, and maybe sometime in the distant future we could take a look at that Merkley and Udall have spent untoward (sic) hours and hours working on this I admire what they've done And remember -- I want to say this, young man, to everybody here -- this is not me marching down the road on this My caucus is supportive of me because that's where they want to go, to change this rule MS TANDEN: I just also want to say, as a UCLA Bruin, I appreciate your remarks (Laughter) We have time for two more questions Right there There's a mic coming to you Q: Laura Lipthen (ph) with Bloomberg News McConnell has made clear that the recess appointments are what he's most concerned about, and you have the votes set up to start with Cordray, with a procedural vote tomorrow Are there any circumstances under which you would see delaying that, maybe to have additional talks? How ironclad is a vote tomorrow? 12:42:53 SEN REID: Talks on what? Talks on what? Talks on what? If they have a proposal, bring it to me But otherwise, we're going to have a vote in the morning If they have a proposal, bring it to me The easiest way to do away with this is to simply get rid of these filibusters I mean, what -- logically, why would they hold up -- this is one of the most interesting things They created these recess appointments, we didn't They created them They wouldn't allow us to have these people What is -- what is Barack Obama supposed to do? The NLRB goes out of business August 1st It's gone It's over with And they're using -- I've heard it, oh, you're doing this illegally Well, it's only happened because of them We -- the president wouldn't have recess-appointed these people Now with these courts, what we've done -- they said, you cannot have a recess appointment, basically, period, is -- that's it It's gone to the Supreme Court We don't have time to wait and see what Justice Kennedy's going to do Maybe we should just call him (Laughter) MS TANDEN: One last question Right here Q: Thanks Thank you, Senator Todd Zwillich with Public Radio (International) Can you give us, just on Jonathan's question, a little more specificity on how this might go this week? Cordray is first Maybe you don't get all seven Maybe Republicans let three go or three with an agreement for four Is there -- is there wiggle room between seven and zero where this might be averted? And secondly, are you supportive or not supportive of the possibility of a gang forming which would essentially circumvent you on this? That could easily happen with eight senators And would you be supportive of that? 12:44:45 SEN REID: There have been gangs forming on this issue for a while Where we are -- my caucus supports where we are I'm not concerned about gangs That's gotten a little passe, frankly Q: Is there wiggle room between seven and zero, where, if McConnell gives you three of these nominees or four, but not seven -- SEN REID: No Q: It's seven or nothing? 12:45:18 SEN REID: Yeah I mean, we'll -- there's -- they -- no one questions -- (coughs) -- excuse me -- their capabilities, their credentials, their integrity They're doing it because they're trying to hold up things It's obstruct and delay That's what's going on around here And we want to make a simple, simple change As I said, it will apply to whoever is the next president It'll -- Democrat or Republican It'll apply to Barack Obama They should be able to have a team aboard -- now does that mean they are going to approved automatically? Of course not In the past Democrats and Republicans have worked together to stop nominees from going forward Didn't have to be a filibuster MS TANDEN: All right, I think that is unfortunately all the time we have today And thank you so much, Senator Reid, for being here, and for a great discussion this morning SEN REID: Thanks, everybody (Applause)