[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 74 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3059-S3064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
There is now 2 minutes of debate.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I said before that I am willing to debate
and have votes on amendments related to tax extenders, and we heard
Senator Reid essentially extend the olive branch once more. That is
exactly what Senator Hatch and I did on a bipartisan basis in the
Finance Committee, and I am ready and willing to do that again in the
full Senate. But the Senate can't do that if action on the tax
extenders bill is blocked today.
So now the Senate has the opportunity to vote against a big tax
increase--actually, a bunch of big tax increases--that would slam our
fragile economy hard and would punish innovators, punish our small
businesses, punish homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages,
punish returning veterans looking for jobs, and punish students and
classroom teachers.
Colleagues, who here thinks it makes sense to tax innovation? That is
what is going to happen if the tax extenders bill fails to pass today.
Who here thinks it makes sense--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I urge that we not let students,
veterans, homeowners, and innovators be hurt today. Let's vote for
cloture this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
[[Page S3060]]
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator
from Oregon for the work, the wide-open work he did for the committee
because we did have an open process, but we only comprise a little less
than 25 percent of the Senate. To have a bill this important and be
foreclosed from amendments I think makes the case for the minority
leader and for this side.
I know there are many people on the other side who would like to have
an open process, who would like to see amendments, who would like to
have this be a real debating society from time to time rather than just
have a slam-dunk type of approach to everything. I have to say I think
there are a lot of people who aren't on the Finance Committee who had
no say at all on this bill and who might possibly want to participate
in the process.
We have just had, time after time----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Time after time we have been foreclosed. It is time to end
that and start acting as the U.S. Senate should act and allow both
sides at least an opportunity to express their views and allow every
Senator that opportunity, not just the ones on the Finance Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
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 substitute
amendment No. 3060 to H.R. 3474, an act to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt employees
with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans
Administration from being taken into account for purposes of
the employer mandate under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
Harry Reid, Ron Wyden, Angus S. King, Jr., Richard J.
Durbin, Robert Menendez, Mark R. Warner, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Christopher A. Coons,
Bill Nelson, Michael F. Bennet, Heidi Heitkamp, Barbara
Boxer, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Charles E.
Schumer, Thomas R. Carper.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 3060 to H.R. 3474, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt employees with health
coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken
into account for purposes of the employer mandate under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The 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), the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--40
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--7
Ayotte
Boozman
Isakson
Manchin
Moran
Rockefeller
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 40.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture
was not invoked on the substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, would you repeat the vote?
Ms. WARREN. The vote was 53 in favor and 40 opposed.
Mr. REID. Madam President, once again the Republicans cannot take yes
for an answer. They just voted against the second bipartisan bill in
less than a week. It is hard to comprehend, but that is true.
But we have learned on the energy efficiency--with all the different
agreements that were violated by the Republicans--we learned in the
last 24 hours the reason for this. Scott Brown, who is running for the
Senate--he is from Massachusetts but running for the Senate in New
Hampshire--he asked the Republican caucus: Make sure you don't give
Shaheen a victory on this.
So that is what it is all about on that bipartisan bill. That was a
bill to conserve energy; 200,000 jobs--something really important for
the country. They worked on it since last September.
Stunningly, my friend the Republican leader today is lamenting how
things are going around here: Why won't they give us a vote on
Keystone?
All he has to do is think back a couple days. They were offered an
up-or-down vote on Keystone. They refused to take it. Talk about
double-talk--triple-talk. And, of course--of course--whom do they come
running to for help? The Koch brothers.
I was criticized for thinking that we should do something about this
obscene campaign spending that is going on. And what, lo and behold, is
the first suggestion they have that they want to do on tax extenders?
They want to do something about ObamaCare. That is the only mention
that is listed there--ObamaCare. Even though it has fallen
significantly as an issue they are going to win anything on, that is
part of their mindset.
Today the Republicans' excuse is they need to vote once again to roll
back part of ObamaCare, just as I said. And I already went over the
Scott Brown episode. So I wonder who called them today to tell them to
kill this bill? Maybe Scott Brown has something to do with this also or
maybe it is one of the other Republican candidates who are desiring to
be in the Senate. No matter the excuse, Republicans continue to wage
war against common sense.
This tax extenders bill was a bill that was hashed out in the Finance
Committee. In the Finance Committee, they didn't allow anything except
germane amendments--in the Finance Committee--because the plan was to
bring that bill here and get it passed. It is a bill that is needed at
this time. The business community needs it. Tax reports have to be
filed, and until this bill passes, they are not going to be very good
if you are a big business. If you take a bus or a subway--there is a
subsidy in this bill for people who take buses and subways, public
transportation--that is not going to pass. And sales tax deductions--
lots of things that are just common sense. But my friend the Republican
leader calls himself the guardian of gridlock--the guardian of
gridlock--and I am not going to do a thing to take away that name he
loves so much because it is true.
Now we will have the weekend to think about this, I guess. I think it
is irrational to block these tax cuts--tax cuts. That is what just
happened. The Republicans voted against tax cuts. So maybe the
Republicans will hear from their friends down on K Street and
[[Page S3061]]
around the country, and maybe they will learn that this is pretty
important to everybody--not Democrats, not Republicans; it is important
for our country.
My door is always open. I indicated that in my statement following
the consent request of the Republican leader, but we have heard
nothing.
I don't know how anyone could be more reasonable than Chairman Wyden.
They wanted amendments. He offered them amendments.
In the meantime, it should not be lost that Republican Senators are
continuing their agenda by just saying no whether it is something as
logical and as important as pay equity, so a woman doing the same job
as a man gets the same amount of money; that was blocked. And this is
an issue that is more than just something that takes place away from
the maddening crowds. Look what happened, it appears, at the New York
Times. The woman who ran that newspaper was fired yesterday. Why? It is
now in the press. Because she complained she was doing the same work as
men in two different jobs and made a lot less money than they did. That
is why we need that legislation. My daughter should make as much money
as a man who does the same work. What kind of example are we setting
here when a woman who does the same work as a man doesn't get paid the
same amount of money? The Republicans blocked that.
They even blocked raising the minimum wage. We have had Rick Santorum
come out in favor of doing that, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and they keep
coming on every day, new people coming on to say the minimum wage
should be increased--Republicans. But it doesn't matter. They are
functioning here under the tutelage of the master of gridlock, the
guardian of gridlock.
So as we go back to a few days after President Obama was elected, all
the big shot Republicans came here and they came to two conclusions:
No. 1. We are going to do everything we can to make sure Obama is not
reelected.
And to the credit of my Republican friend, the Republican leader, he
stated that on the Senate floor. He said: My No. 1 goal is to make sure
Obama is not reelected.
That was a failure.
But what else did they say at that meeting? The way we are going to
make sure that Obama is not reelected and to make sure the Democrats do
not do that well--we are going to block everything.
That is what they have done, and here is an example of that right
here again today.
No to energy conservation, no to pay equity, no to minimum wage, and
now today a new one: no to tax cuts.
So I would hope that come November the American people would just say
no to this gridlock we have here in Washington in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Veterans' Health Care
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the front page of yesterday's San
Antonio Express News featured the heartbreaking story of a former Army
combat medic by the name of Anson Dale Richardson, a man from East
Texas who did multiple tours in Vietnam and went on to work as a heavy
equipment operator.
Last September Dale was diagnosed with a very serious form of throat
cancer. His doctor says he told medical officials at the Department of
Veterans Affairs to put Mr. Richardson on an immediate course of
chemotherapy. What happened next is the sort of tragedy that is
becoming all too familiar, with revelations from Veterans' Affairs
clinics and hospitals around the country.
According to the Express News, after being told to start chemotherapy
right away, Mr. Richardson waited to hear from the VA about his
appointment. He waited and waited, but he never heard back. On November
4, Dale Richardson died.
We will never know whether he would have or could have survived
cancer because he wasn't given that chance because he wasn't able to
start the chemo treatments when his doctor first diagnosed him. But we
do know that the Veterans' Administration's reported failure to give
him any chemo treatments took away his one last hope of beating this
terrible disease.
When he died, Dale left behind a wife named Carolyn. In an interview
with the Express News, Carolyn Richardson said of her late husband, ``I
just wish he'd had a chance.''
Dale Richardson's Austin-area doctor--the doctor who says he told VA
officials that Mr. Richardson needed immediate chemotherapy--got in
contact with my office to express his outrage and his tremendous
sadness and anger and frustration at Mr. Richardson's death. In fact,
the doctor said this episode was so disturbing that he is no longer
accepting contract work from the Veterans' Administration. He also said
that a VA physician personally told him: ``The system is broken, and
I'm glad I'm retiring.''
Given all of the stories that have accumulated and those that seem to
appear with every new edition of the daily newspapers--all the reports
of veterans dying or suffering because of the long wait times, all the
reports of appointment data being falsified, all the reports of VA
employees participating in coverups--given all that, it seems painfully
clear to me that the system is indeed broken and that the current VA
leadership is unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to fix it.
With that in mind, I know that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Secretary Shinseki, testified today before the Veterans' Affairs
Committee. I haven't yet had a chance to read the transcript of his
testimony, but I am hoping he will have answered or will at some point
answer these questions:
No. 1. Can you confirm, Secretary Shinseki, that supervisors of VA
facilities have been ordering employees to conceal wait times?
I would like for him to answer this question: Secretary Shinseki, can
you confirm whether VA cancer patients needing chemotherapy are being
provided with treatment in a timely manner?
No. 3. Secretary Shinseki, can you confirm whether the VA is
withholding all bonuses and pay raises from those employees who have
been accused of falsifying appointment data?
No. 4. Secretary Shinseki, can you confirm whether VA facilities are
preserving all appointment-related documents? In other words, can you
assure the Congress and the American people that evidence is not being
destroyed?
Finally, Secretary Shinseki, can you confirm whether all VA staffers
at the facilities under investigation will not be assigned to
investigate other VA facilities--a case of the fox perhaps watching the
henhouse.
These questions go to the very heart of the VA's credibility or to
the lack thereof. We have millions of veterans in this country and tens
of millions more people who either know a veteran or are related to
one, and I would like to think that all Americans, whether they know a
veteran, whether they have a veteran as a family member, all Americans
are united in our concerns with the way our veterans are being treated
and join with us in our commitment to get to the bottom of this mess
and figure out what went wrong and fix it. We all deserve answers, and
we deserve them now.
If Secretary Shinseki cannot provide the necessary assurances, then
it will become obvious that the VA is suffering from not only a
systemic crisis of competence and accountability but from a systemic
crisis of leadership as well.
I know everybody claims to be outraged by these news reports, by the
steady stream of allegations, and yet I fear the Obama administration
is not treating this with the kind of urgency it demands.
Remember, the administration has now spent more than $4\1/2\ billion
setting up the ObamaCare exchanges, and we remember what happened with
the Web site that was the portal where people would sign up for these
exchanges failed. It was all hands on deck. I commend the
administration for its timely response to that problem, but by
comparison, with the tragedies we are reading about in the newspapers
about the 40 veterans who died in Phoenix while reportedly waiting for
treatment at a VA clinic or hospital when put on a secret waiting list,
I don't see that sense of urgency coming from the administration or
from this Congress, for that matter.
I do commend Senator Sanders and Senator Burr, the chair and ranking
[[Page S3062]]
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the Senate, for having
Secretary Shinseki and others here today so we can begin the process of
peeling the layers of the onion so we can get to the truth.
I realize the administration has to balance competing priorities, but
in my view there are few priorities more important than honoring our
sacred promise to America's military heroes. I would hope we can all
agree that even one story like Dale Richardson's is one too many. The
time for happy talk and empty promises is long past. What our veterans
deserve and need now is real accountability and reform and not this
sort of ``kick the can down the road'' attitude that seems to pervade
Washington but, rather, a real sense of urgency to get to the bottom of
the problem and to fix it without any delay; otherwise, there will be
more veterans who will be forced to suffer and possibly lose their life
as Dale did because of the incompetence of the administration at the VA
and the lack of leadership necessary to get to the bottom of this and
get it on the right course.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, after I speak, I ask unanimous consent my
friend and colleague from Utah be given the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank him for letting me say a few words.
Tax Extenders
I was listening to the debate between the majority leader and the
minority leader, and I just wanted to be clear. The tax extender bill
was negotiated very well by Senators Wyden and Hatch, with many of us
in the committee participating, and it was truly a bipartisan product.
The ideas in there, I would probably say, were half Republican and half
Democratic.
Senator Hatch made a very good point. He said that is only about 25
percent of the Senate. What about everybody else? If we have no
amendments, no one else can legislate.
I want to clarify our offer. Senator McConnell said amendments on the
whole Tax Code should be allowed. That is no way to legislate. That
goes the opposite way. The Finance Committee knows the Tax Code, and as
a result they should get first crack at it; otherwise, we may as well
not have a committee system. But we should allow amendments that are
relevant or germane to the extenders. There were many extenders. Many
Members who are not on the committee probably have many ideas about how
to change those amendments--make them longer, make them shorter.
The House actually took three of our extenders and made them
permanent. Maybe that is a debate our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle want to have, which would be a very legitimate debate, even
though some people might say that costs too much or it leaves out some
extenders, et cetera. Maybe some of them don't want to have certain
extenders in the legislation. Knock them out or enrich them. All of
these things are possible.
Instead of Senator McConnell's offer--any amendment on the whole Tax
Code--Senator Wyden offered to Senator Hatch that the Republicans give
us a list of amendments they propose, and then the two of them would
sit down and negotiate that list. There will be Democratic amendments--
I think there are 30 or 40 on Senator Wyden's list--and Republican
amendments on Senator Hatch's list. The two of them are outstanding
legislators. They get along well, and we could come up with a list and
actually move this bill with amendments. That is what I hope will
happen over the weekend and on Tuesday we can move forward.
To me, the offer of Leader Reid and Senator Wyden makes eminent
sense. It is how we used to legislate. We didn't lay it open for every
amendment. When the committee chair and ranking member agreed on a
bill--Lamar Alexander, my good friend from Tennessee, has reiterated
this to me over and over--we would then go to the floor and the two of
them would work it out, providing fairness to both sides of the aisle
since each of them has the respect of their leadership.
Again, our offer is plain and simple: Show us your amendments, and we
will show you our amendments. Let them be relevant and germane to the
bill before us, which is tax extenders, and we will be very reasonable
and accommodating so we can move the bill forward, pass it, and have a
debate on improving it with amendments that come up on both sides.
With that, I thank my good friend from Utah for yielding the floor
and letting me speak ahead of him.
I yield the floor to the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from New York. I
consider him one of the better Senators in the Senate and a dear friend
and a person I have always been able to work with. He is tough--there
is no question about that--but so am I, although nobody knows that.
I just want to speak for a few minutes on this extender package. It
is a bipartisan bill. It took a lot of work to put it together. We had
to bring everybody on the Finance Committee together, and that is about
25 percent of the Senate. We all had a chance to bring up amendments
whether they were germane or not, which is the right of Senators.
Sometimes we get some embarrassing amendments, but that is part of the
charm of this body.
The fact is, if you just want to have germane amendments, that is not
what the U.S. Senate stands for and that is not what the rules say. I
don't blame anybody who wants to do that who is trying to push their
bill, but let's not take away the rights of Members of the Senate.
Let's not take away the right of debate we have always had on this
floor that gives the Senate such charm and also allows everybody to
participate and bring up whatever they feel is right.
Sometimes we have to call a halt to it. After days or weeks of debate
on major bills, such as this one, the majority leader may want to end
the debate because he feels as though it is enough. At that point--but
not before--you can fill the parliamentary tree in order to get the
agreement between the two sides to where there are just a few
amendments left, but you don't do it by calling up a bill, filing
cloture, accusing the other side of filibustering when there is no
intention to filibuster, and then fill the parliamentary tree so you,
as the majority leader, can determine the type of amendment and who
does and who doesn't get an amendment. That is not the way this great
Senate is supposed to operate. It is offensive, and it is starting to
get to our side.
If we were in the majority and we did that to the Democrats, you
folks would be so upset it wouldn't even be funny. I think it is time
for us to start letting the Senate operate as it always has. We will
get more done, and it will probably be better legislation than not, and
frankly, every one of us will feel better about being Members of the
Senate.
Let's be honest. The Republicans have been given nine amendments
voted upon since last July in the greatest deliberative body in the
world. That is just plain ridiculous and it is not right.
Let's take the House. The House is supposed to be more partisan. In
the House you have a rules committee that is nine to four. Republicans
have nine members and the Democrats have four members. They double the
number in the majority party, plus one. They could stop anything from
happening. In the House they have had well over 130 Democratic
amendments since last July--if my recollection is correct on that, and
I think it is--compared to nine in the greatest deliberative body in
the world. Give me a break.
The fact is that is less than one amendment a month. You can imagine
why our side is so upset about it, and then we get a bill as important
as the extenders package. It is not $100 billion, but it is about $88
billion, as I recall. There are very important provisions in this bill.
There are some I love and some I don't love too much, but we worked it
out between the two parties and we each had our own ideas of what was
right and what was wrong and we worked it out in a bipartisan way.
I want to personally pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Senator Wyden of Oregon. His leadership was very much
acceptable, and it was easier to work out in the end because he was so
open and realized we had some ideas too.
[[Page S3063]]
Our constituents put faith in us to make these decisions and the
tough choices around here, and that means making them. A democracy
functions because the rules allow it to function. The rules, in my
opinion, have been bogged down with partisanship and protection effort
rather than allowing the Senate to work its will. This is not how a
real representative Republic functions.
I think we have to find a reasonable way forward. I intend to work
hard to find that reasonable way. I think we have to find a way that
both Democrats and Republicans can have their voices heard.
When we marked up this bill, it was a fair and open process. Both
sides had their opportunity to bring up the amendments they wanted, and
that is why we came up with a bill that is as acceptable as this one
is. We had an open amendment process in committee, and it should be
that way here too. This bill passed on a voice vote out of the
committee. It took a lot of effort on the part of Senator Wyden, the
chairman, myself, and everybody else on the committee, but we were able
to do that.
It is important that the American people know why this disagreement
occurred today. The only procedural possibility that the Republicans
had was to vote against cloture and to make it very clear that we don't
like the way the Senate is being run today. We don't think it is fair,
and we don't think it is right. It has nothing do with policy. It has
to do with how we proceed, and frankly I think a message was sent
today.
It is unconscionable to me that Members on both sides, Republicans
and Democrats, do not have an opportunity to offer their amendments. I
might add, it is nice for the majority to say, well, we only want the
germane amendments, but I never heard that when they were in the
minority. They wanted every nongermane amendment they could get that
might embarrass Republicans. I personally don't like to see that very
much, but it is a right that has always existed in the Senate, and it
should not be taken away and it should not be dismissed by rote.
I am going to do my very best, in a bipartisan way with Senator
Wyden, to work out this impasse, but it is going to have to be fair and
Republicans are going to have to have a fair shot at having some
amendments.
I hope we get rid of this process of calling up a bill and
immediately filing cloture because they think Republicans are going to
filibuster when there was no intention to filibuster and then filling
the parliamentary tree to foreclose any amendments unless the majority
leader approves. Come on. That is not the way the Senate should run.
Frankly, yes, it is a little unwieldy sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't
run smoothly, but that is one of the charming things about the Senate,
and it is one of the things that will bring us together if we can
occasionally recognize that we have different points of view. The
Republicans are more conservative, there is no question about that, and
the Democrats are more liberal, there is no question about that.
Actually, I find that to be probably a good thing in many ways because
both sides have to try to work it out. But we can't work it out if we
can't call up amendments and if it is a stilted process that is
determined only by the majority leader.
I am going to do everything in my power to get this resolved. I have
already chatted with Senator Wyden, the chairman of the committee. He
says he is going to do the same, and I know that is true. He is an
honorable man. We are going to see if we can come up with a way to
bring both sides together so we can pass this bill, and hopefully it
will be an example of what we can do if we are willing to work
together.
We have to get rid of these procedural approaches on every bill.
Sometimes it is appropriate to use any procedure we want to on some
bills that should not see the light of day. This is not one of those.
This is a bill that has to see the light of day. This is a bill that
will make a difference in this country. This is a bill that virtually
everybody in this body wants, to a more or less degree, and some want
it very much. This is a bill that really needs to pass. This is a bill
that, hopefully, when the House passes their bill, we can get together
in a conference and work it out, as big boys and girls should.
What we have been going through here now for 4 years, really, has
been a disgrace. I think it is time to end the disgrace and get all of
us working together, not necessarily in agreement--sometimes we have to
fight things out--but working together in a way that is fair to both
sides.
So far, our side feels it hasn't been fair to the Republican side.
There has been too much assertion of power in the wrong way, in
derivation of the rules. It started long ago, but it really came to a
full culmination when the majority broke the rules to change the rules.
One reason they were able to do that is because many on the other side
have never been in the minority in the Senate. I will do my part to see
that my friends on the other side have that wonderful experience
because then they will understand why these rules are made to begin
with.
The filibuster rule in particular was formulated because they
couldn't get anything done in the Senate, and it was a way of invoking
cloture and ending debate so they could get the matter over with. It
has worked amazingly well in spite of the fact that from time to time
we couldn't get bills through that we wanted to get through. There was
a reason for that rule, and to break the rules to change the rules was
the wrong thing to do to begin with. It has caused a lot of bitterness
on the floor.
I have heard some Republicans saying: Let's stick it to them. I am
not going to allow that to happen. I hope the same is true on the other
side because I have heard some of the Democrats are saying: Let's stick
it to them with some special amendments.
Let's try to get this done in a way that is meaningful. Let's try to
get it done in the best interests of the American people. Let's try to
get it done so that all of us can hold our heads high and say we did
our best. If we do that, I think we will have a new day in the Senate
that literally will work in the best interests of everyone. I don't
want my side treating the Democrats the way we have been treated. I
just don't think it is right. I don't think it is fair. I think it is a
big mistake.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
National Police Week
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and pay tribute to
our men and women who serve this country every day as America's peace
officers. This week is National Police Week. Back in 1962, President
Kennedy designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day.
This is the day we take pause and thank those peace officers who help
us every day to keep our families safe, and keep our streets safe, and
keep law and order so that we can live the lives we live in the United
States of America.
Our law officers wake up every morning and put on a uniform to show
us they are with us. It is a symbol they wear proudly and we look up
to. They are here to protect our communities, our families, and, in
fact, every one of us. That is a tall order. They frequently place
themselves in dangerous situations.
Every day perhaps a wife, perhaps a child, perhaps a mother or
whoever is in their family watches them walk out the door and wonders:
Will they return safely?
Few among us know what that is--what it is to make a life-and-death
decision, to put your life on the line every day as you are working on
behalf of the people of your community and the people of your country.
Today is also a day where we pay tribute to those officers who have
made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, those men and women
who swore an oath to serve and protect their communities and, in the
course of doing so, lost their lives.
This afternoon I attended the National Peace Officers' Memorial
Service on the lawn outside the Capitol. Just as we paid tribute to our
fallen officers there, I wish to do the same on the Senate floor.
[[Page S3064]]
These men and women take their duties to serve and protect very
seriously, and they make this Nation, as a result, a better place for
all of us.
When I served as North Dakota's attorney general in the 1980s I had
the privilege and, in fact, the honor to work side-by-side with the men
and women of our State's law enforcement community. They were highway
patrolmen, State and local officers, various Federal officers, and
tribal police. It was a job that I truly began to appreciate--the job
of law enforcement--that hard work they engage in to serve our State. I
can say without a doubt they were the finest public servants I have
ever had the honor to stand side by side with.
During that time I also experienced the absolute heartbreak of losing
officers in the line of duty. Today I want to recognize two of those
officers.
They are Deputy Sheriff Valence LeeWayne Pascal from the Benson
County Sheriff's Office: On August 26, 1993, Deputy Pascal executed a
warrant for an arrest in Leeds, ND. He took the individual into custody
for failure to appear in court on a DUI charge, a fairly routine
practice for a deputy sheriff. While the deputy was sitting in the
front seat of his patrol car, the individual in the back seat leaned
forward and shot him. He died the next day, August 27, 1993.
And I also want to recognize Senior Patrol Officer Keith Allen
Braddock of the Watford City Police Department. Responding to a call
over an enraged patron at a local bar in Watford City, Officer Braddock
arrived on the scene when the man returned with two rifles and opened
fire on Officer Braddock. Despite being wounded, Officer Braddock
returned fire, hitting the man in a leg and preventing any further
casualties. He succumbed to his wounds at the scene and died early that
morning on March 20, 1996.
When I became attorney general, I formed a lasting bond with those
officers, remembering never to forget. As I stood in that leadership
role at funerals and at services, watching the parade of police
officers, sheriffs' departments, and deputies pay their respect, I told
myself: Remember, never forget. Never forget that they had families,
that these two officers had someone in their lives who mattered to
them. The children's parents will never see them walk the aisle. Those
children will never see their parents be grandparents. Yet this in the
line of duty.
Today is a special day in this Capital City. It is a special day
across America when literally hundreds of law enforcement officers
gather at memorial walls with names on them, similar to the one that is
on the capitol grounds in North Dakota, and where people gather to
remember how truly grateful we should all be for the people who stand
on the line. They protect our freedom, they protect our safety, and
some of them don't make it home as a result.
I believe that we owe all of the men and women who have sacrificed a
great debt of gratitude, and today I bring my voice to express my
appreciation for and remembrance of the wonderful people of America's
law enforcement community.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Cloture Motion Withdrawn--H.R. 3474
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with
respect to H.R. 3474 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________