[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________