[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 33 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1225-S1226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 
309, S. 1086, now pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is pending.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 309, S. 1086, the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act.
         Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Christopher A. Coons, Patrick J. Leahy, Jack 
           Reed, Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty 
           Murray, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich, 
           Dianne Feinstein, Richard J. Durbin, Barbara Boxer, 
           Carl Levin, Amy Klobuchar.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Judicial Nominees

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I filed cloture on the childcare block 
grant. I have every assurance from my Republican colleagues that this 
vote will not be necessary. I hope that is the case. It would be great 
if we could vitiate that and move and start legislating.
  I believe that will be the case. Sometimes it is a long time from 
today to next Wednesday, when a vote would occur. I really do believe 
it will not be necessary. I hope that is the case.
  I indicated that I would say a few words about the man that does all 
of the objecting, or a lot of the objecting around here. We had the 
Senator from Kansas, the junior Senator from Kansas come and say he 
objected to these judges being approved because the senior Senator from 
Iowa, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, asked him to do 
so.
  In recent days Senator Grassley has criticized my management of the 
Senate floor regarding nominations. The ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee has said that I am responsible for the gridlock because of 
filibuster reform over the overuse of cloture. The past statements and 
recent actions of my friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, reveal his 
obvious either misunderstanding of what he said in the past or--I will 
leave it at that. There are a lot of terms that I could use, but I will 
not use them.
  These are things that he has said in the past that obviously he did 
not mean at the time or he has forgotten what he said. He once stood on 
the floor and said he was strongly in favor of up-or-down votes on all 
nominations. He even said, ``Filibustering the nominee into oblivion is 
misguided warfare and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage 
influence in the Senate.''
  That is what the man who is doing all of the objecting said before. 
He also said:

       It is just plain hogwash to say that moving to make sure 
     the rule is to give judicial nominees an up-or-down vote will 
     hurt our ability to reestablish fairness in the judicial 
     nominating process. It is not going to hurt minority rights.

  These are direct quotes from him:

       It establishes what we call regular order and as it has 
     been for 214 years. It will be fair both to Republicans and 
     Democrats alike. All the majority leader wants to do is have 
     a chance to vote on those nominees up or down.

  He could be easily talking about me. Maybe in the past he was talking 
about Senator Frist or Senator Lott. But it does not matter who has 
this job. That is what he is talking about:

       All the majority leader wants is to have a chance to vote 
     these nominees up or down. If these individuals do not have 
     51 votes, they should be rejected. But if these individuals 
     do have 51 votes, then they should be confirmed. That is 
     according to the Constitution.

  That is what he said. He said it here in May a few years ago, May 23. 
He also said--this is another quote.

       Let's debate the nominees and give our advice and consent. 
     It's a simple yea or nay when called to the altar to vote. 
     Filibustering a nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare 
     and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage and 
     influence the Senate. Threatening to grind the legislative 
     activity to a standstill if they don't get their way is like 
     being a bully in the schoolyard playground.

  He said that. The senior Senator from Iowa said that. He further 
said:

       Let's do our jobs. Nothing is nuclear about asking the full 
     Senate to take an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees.

  I'm not making this up. This is what he said, the man who has the 
audacity to come here to the floor and object, saying what a terrible 
thing it is that we are having up-or-down votes on these judges.
  He went on to say:

       It is the way the Senate has operated for years. The 
     reality is that Democrats are the ones who are turning Senate 
     tradition on its head by installing a filibuster against the 
     President's judicial nominees.

  That is what he said. He slows down Senate business even on nominees 
he supports. How do you like that? This week alone, the senior Senator 
from Iowa repeatedly voted against cloture on nominations he then 
supported moments later: Beth Freeman, Northern District of California; 
James Donato, Northern District of California; James Moody, Eastern 
District of Arkansas; Jeffrey Meyer, Connecticut.
  He voted to invoke the filibuster rule and then turns right around 
and votes for those judges. His obstruction, though, I am sorry to say, 
is not limited to nominations. When the Senate considered S. 744, the 
comprehensive immigration bill, Senator Grassley objected to 
consideration or adoption of Republican or bipartisan amendments on at 
least four occasions.
  When challenged, Senator Grassley admitted to violation of Senatorial 
courtesy. Here is what Senator Leahy said:


[[Page S1226]]


       Is it not a fact that the first amendment that was brought 
     up here was a bipartisan amendment of mine and Senator Hatch? 
     Shortly thereafter, the Senator from Iowa came with an 
     amendment. Following normal courtesy, I allowed mine to be 
     set aside so he could bring up his. So isn't it a fact that 
     we asked if he might set it aside for some noncontroversial 
     amendments on either side? He told me he could not. The 
     Senator is correct.

  You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth unless somebody 
understands they are listening to what you say both times. The ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, he is 
talking out of both sides of his mouth. The people of Iowa should check 
this out and see what he said and what he does.
  So he can come and criticize all he wants--criticize me. But it 
should be based upon facts, not standing his own statements on their 
head. He can't have it both ways.

                          ____________________