[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 74 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3058-S3059]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to the vote to invoke cloture on the Costa nomination.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
The cloture motion having presented under rule XXII, the Chair
directs the clerk to report the motion.
The assistant 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 nomination of
Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the 5th Circuit.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert Menendez,
Christopher Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Christopher A.
Coons, Angus S. King, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, Jeff
Merkley, Cory A. Booker , Amy Klobuchar, Dianne
Feinstein, Richard J. Durbin, Tom Udall, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Charles E. Schumer, Edward J. Markey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the
nomination of Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be the United States
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Manchin) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Boozman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Warren.) Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Ex.]
YEAS--58
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--36
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Crapo
Enzi
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--6
Ayotte
Boozman
Isakson
Manchin
Moran
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to invoke cloture on Gregg
Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the
Fifth Circuit, the yeas are 58, the nays are 36. The motion is agreed
to.
The Republican leader.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3474
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, is the next vote in order on the
underlying tax extender bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next vote will be on the motion to invoke
cloture on amendment No. 3060 to the tax extenders bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Madam President.
The American people actually need to know what is happening in their
Senate. This body exists to ensure that the citizens of this country
have a say in what our government does. The Senate is supposed to be
the citadel of our democracy, the place where we guarantee that no one
in the country is cut out of the legislative process. The whole purpose
of this body is to make sure that nobody is left out or left behind.
Yet today we have a Democratic majority that has turned this body
literally on its head. Instead of preserving the Senate's prerogatives,
they have systematically weakened or destroyed them all together. They
have turned the Senate into a graveyard of good ideas and open
democratic debate.
It is a gag order on the American people we represent. Instead of
robust, freewheeling debates about the important issues of the day, we
get bizarre monologues about the Democrats' latest villain.
[[Page S3059]]
We get silly, shameful attacks on private citizens. So in one sense
it is fitting that the majority leader announced today he wants to
rewrite the Constitution. I mean, at least you have to give them marks
for consistency.
They are already muzzling our constituents by blocking amendments,
and now they want to muzzle them even more by changing the Bill of
Rights. This is completely out of control.
Even if the Democratic majority doesn't like our ideas or those of
our constituents, the answer isn't to take away their constitutionally
guaranteed right to speak their minds. The answer isn't to shut down
their representatives' ability to influence legislation through
amendments. The answer, my friends, is to come up with better
arguments. The answer is to actually convince people in a free and open
marketplace of ideas that you are right.
Why are Washington Democrats so afraid of a free and open exchange of
ideas? What are they afraid of? Do they have that little faith in the
judgment of the people we represent? Over the past few weeks we have
seen just how scared our friends on the other side are of a free and
open debate.
A big majority wants to repeal President Obama's medical device tax;
79 people in this body voted for it. They won't allow a vote on it.
The American people want to see a vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Most
Senators say they want to vote on it too, but we are not allowed to
vote on it.
We have a tax bill that Members on both sides want to improve and
Members on both sides want to support. Yet we don't get a chance to
amend it.
We should have certainty in our Tax Code instead of these endless
expirations that only make it harder for people to prepare and for
businesses to plan and to compete. They don't want to do that either.
They are completely allergic--completely and totally allergic--to
anything that is constructive.
What they are doing is muzzling the people of this country, a gag
order on the people we were sent to the Senate to represent--all
presumably to protect their power. This is really quite scandalous. The
American people need to know what is happening in their Senate because
this is bigger than any one bill. It is about protecting the right of
the American people to have a say in what goes on in Washington.
We represent millions of people on this side of the aisle. They
represent many of the people on their side of the aisle. I think there
are something like 40 or so Democratic amendments pending to this
bill--Democratic Senators who offered amendments to this bill who will
not be heard.
This is all about protecting the one opportunity they have to shut us
out. It is about a party that has become so afraid of losing its hold
on power that they are willing to do just about anything to hold onto
it--even if it means, as I said earlier, to try to amend the Bill of
Rights.
We have a lot of smart people on the Democratic side, but I expect
none of them are smarter than James Madison. Yet apparently they
decided--after a couple of hundred years--Madison's work is not
sufficient. They want to recommend we amend the Bill of Rights. What is
before us today is not that; it is a tax extender bill.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on
Senate amendment No. 3060, the Wyden substitute, the amendment be
considered original text for the purpose of amendment; and
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, it be in order for the
Republican leader or his designee to offer the Toomey amendment related
to the medical device tax, and that amendments then be offered in
alternating fashion between the majority and the minority, with all
amendments being related to tax policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Everyone listen. The selfpronounced guardian of gridlock
just gave us his presentation. That is what the Republican leader calls
himself, and that is a good name that he got for himself--the guardian
of gridlock. That is what we have in the Senate. That is what we have
had here for 5\1/2\ years. We have struggled through parts of it, but
it has been difficult.
It is no surprise to me or to us that, of course, when something is
said about the Koch brothers, there are people who run down to the
floor to defend them. This time we have the Republican leader defending
the Koch brothers.
What I talked about today is something so radical--listen to what it
is--that we should have restrictions on how much money people can spend
in political campaigns and not have the government purchased by the two
richest people in America--the Koch brothers. So it is no surprise we
have someone running to their rescue.
I would also suggest this. My friend, the Republican leader, wants a
vote on Keystone. They had a vote. They wouldn't take it. As one of my
Democratic Senators said, my friend the Republican leader is more
interested in an issue than getting the pipeline done.
So here is where we are. The Republican leader has asked for
alternating amendments. That is a buzzword for ``we are going to
continue our filibusters.''
The chairman of the Finance Committee, Ron Wyden, as the new chair--
and we all have great expectations from Ron Wyden. He is an experienced
legislator. He spent many years in the House, and now he is a veteran
here in the Senate. He made a reasonable proposal--it was done before
the world--saying: OK, you want amendments, let's do them in relation
to this bill; that is, the tax extenders bill.
But I will go even a step further than that. First of all, everyone
should understand that this is a bill which was done by the Finance
Committee on a bipartisan basis. But if they are interested in more
amendments, why don't we have Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch see what
they can come up with? And if that is good enough for me, it is good
enough for my caucus.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________