[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 25, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3994-S3997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE AMENDMENT PROCESS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before I came to the Senate, I read in the 
history and civics books that the Senate was called the world's 
greatest deliberative body, where anybody with a good idea or even a 
bad idea at least had an opportunity to talk about it, offer an 
amendment or legislation, and get a vote. That is what was meant by 
``the world's greatest deliberative body.''
  Unfortunately, the Senate has become virtually unrecognizable to 
those of us who began our tenure under the previous leadership of the 
Senate.
  Simply put, we have gone from an institution that legislates, that 
debates the great ideas to solve the problems and challenges of this 
great democracy to one that has become a killing floor for good ideas.
  We have had at least three bipartisan bills in the last few weeks the 
majority leader has stopped because he has refused the opportunity for 
Republicans in the minority and the Democrats in the majority to offer 
any amendments and to get votes.
  I think about the Shaheen-Portman bill, the energy conservation bill, 
the tax extenders bill for the expiring 50 or so tax provisions, and 
the appropriations bill that recently was on the Senate floor. All of 
these pieces of legislation enjoy bipartisan support. So one would 
think, in a dysfunctional Senate, at least those kinds of bills would 
have the opportunity to get debate, amendment, and passage.
  That is not the case because the majority leader insists on a ``my 
way or the highway'' mentality. In essence, he wants to be the traffic 
cop who decides whose ideas get to be debated, what amendments get to 
be offered, and what votes get to occur.
  As one Senator from a State that represents 26 million constituents, 
I refuse to participate in a process where the majority leader from 
Nevada gets to tell my constituents what kind of amendments I get to 
offer on their behalf. It is unacceptable. This is not the Senate I 
joined when I got here nor a Senate any of us should be proud of.
  Shortly after I got to the Senate, Republicans became the majority 
party. I always tell my friends and constituents back home, being in 
the majority is a lot more fun than being in the minority. But back 
then it was understood by both parties that the price of being in the 
majority, and recognizing and respecting the minority did have rights, 
is that you had to take some tough votes on amendments, but after all 
that is why we are here. That is part of the price we pay for serving 
in the Senate--to vote sometimes on things we would prefer not to vote 
on

[[Page S3995]]

and sometimes we have to take tough votes.
  Like it or not, that is how the Senate used to operate. Both 
Republicans and Democrats alike recognized that allowing an open 
amendment process was about guaranteeing that all Americans--all 
Americans--those represented by Senators in the majority and those 
represented by Senators in the minority--that all Americans acting 
through their elected representatives had a voice and a vote on the 
Senate floor.
  Sadly, under the current majority leader, the amendment process has 
become a distant memory. Again, this is not just about a Senator's 
prerogative. This isn't about just the process or procedure. This is 
about our constitutional form of governance, where every State has two 
Senators and every Senator has the prerogative to represent their 
constituents to the best of their ability.
  Here is a sad statistic: Since last July, nearly 1 year ago, we have 
had rollcall votes on a mere nine minority amendments; that is, among 
the 45 of us who sit on this side of the Chamber, we have only had a 
chance for nine rollcall votes on amendments.
  Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, our friends in the House 
held rollcall votes on more than 160 minority amendments.
  In other words, Republicans control the House; Democrats control the 
Senate. But in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the minority had nine 
votes on amendments. In the Republican-controlled House, the minority 
got 160 votes on amendments.
  So this isn't just about our being denied amendments. The fact is and 
what I can't understand is why majority party Democrats are willing to 
stand by and allow the majority leader to deny their rights and to deny 
their constituents a voice and a vote on the important work done in the 
Senate.
  Since July, we have actually had fewer rollcall votes on Democratic 
amendments than on Republican amendments. Imagine. I understand being 
in the minority--and being in the minority means not often getting your 
way, but if I was in the majority and the majority leader was shutting 
me out and my constituents out and denying us a chance to have votes on 
amendments--and I am a Member of the majority party--I think I would 
have some tough explanations to give to my constituents about why I was 
not allowed to be effective as their representative in the Senate.
  But here is an even more shocking scenario. For freshman Democrats--
people newly elected to the Senate--this is what Politico said 
yesterday:

       Since joining the Senate in January 2013, the 12 freshmen 
     Democrats have not had a single vote on the floor on any 
     amendment bearing any of their names as the lead sponsor.

  That is shocking to me. So none of the 12 freshman Democrats--Members 
of the majority party--have had a single vote on any of their 
amendments that bear their name as the lead sponsor since 2013--not a 
single vote.
  Their constituents, the majority party, completely shut out of the 
process because of the dictatorship on the floor of the Senate of the 
majority leader.
  Over that same period, during the 113th Congress, for example, the 
junior the Senator from Alaska, the senior Senator from Arkansas, the 
senior Senator from Colorado, the senior Senator from New Mexico, and 
the junior Senator from Montana have not had a single rollcall vote on 
an amendment that bears their name as the lead sponsor.
  For that matter, according to The Hill, the junior Senator from 
Alaska ``has never received a roll-call vote on an amendment he's 
offered on the Senate floor ever.'' Shocking. So not one time in his 
Senate career has the junior Senator from Alaska received a rollcall 
vote on the Senate floor because of the way the majority leader has run 
the Senate. He has been denied the opportunity to be effective on 
behalf of the people he represents in the Senate--and he is a Member of 
the majority party.
  It has gotten so bad, according to the same Politico article I cited 
a moment ago, that the junior Senator from New Jersey recently asked 
one of his Democratic colleagues whether voting on Presidential 
nominees was all the Senate did. He could be forgiven for thinking that 
because that seems like all we do these days. In addition, the junior 
Senator from Connecticut said: ``I got more substance on the floor of 
the House in the minority than I've gotten as a member of the Senate 
majority.''

  Again--I repeat myself--these are Democrats, Members of the majority 
party who have been shut out of the process. Their party controls the 
Chamber, yet this debate is obviously not about party control or 
individual Members, but it is about making sure that millions upon 
millions of Americans should have their voices heard in the Senate. It 
is about giving us a chance on their behalf to represent them in this 
body.
  I am encouraged to read that some of my colleagues across the aisle 
are starting to push back against the majority leader's tyranny. I 
would urge them to continue pushing back and to continue to remind the 
majority leader that putting up a legislative blockade is not only bad 
for the minority party and the Republicans, it is bad for the majority 
party and the people they represent, too.
  In conclusion, I would say that in addition to the amendment issue I 
have spoken about for the last 10 minutes or so, there are no fewer 
than 284--284--House-passed bills that are awaiting consideration here 
in the Senate--284. Do you not think that among those 284 bills there 
is just one or two or three decent ideas that might be debated, perhaps 
improved upon, by an open amendment process in the Senate that we 
should take up and consider?
  Many of these are jobs bills, the type of legislation that would help 
promote economic growth and, boy, we sure could use some economic 
growth because the economy is contracting, not growing, which means 
that jobs are scarce and people are hurting. There are bills that would 
expand opportunity and increase family income. At a time of mass 
unemployment and stagnant wages, where the median household income has 
gone down by nearly $2,300 since June of 2009, it is simply outrageous 
that the majority leader has refused to take up any one of those 284 
bills that have passed the House, most of which had bipartisan support. 
It is outrageous he has refused to let us take up those bills, many of 
which would help the millions of Americans who are currently looking 
for a job who cannot find a job. The American people, after all, are 
the reason why we are here, and they are the ones who are suffering the 
most from the majority leader's autocratic rule. They deserve better, 
and it is time all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, demanded 
that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I concur with the distinguished Senator from Texas and the concerns 
that we have and we share about the lives of people all across the 
country and their ability to earn a living.
  Tomorrow President Obama is planning to travel to Minnesota. So as I 
come to the floor the President is making the preparations because the 
President said he will spend the day in the shoes of a woman who had 
written a letter about the economic challenges she faces. I hope the 
President takes the time to actually talk to other people as well and 
spend a day in their shoes as well, because I think there are a lot of 
people in Minnesota--a lot of people in Minnesota--who would like to 
ask the President about his health care law and about some of the 
damaging side effects of the law.
  The Mankato Times had a story from Minnesota schools to lose more 
than $200 million because of ObamaCare. A State representative is 
quoted as saying that wasteful spending on the health care law has left 
many taxpayers outraged because they will soon be making a significant 
impact on Minnesota schools, on the students in the State of Minnesota. 
Will the President address that?
  According to documents released by Minnesota's Management and Budget 
Office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs associated with 
the health care law compliance will cost school districts statewide at 
least $207 million. As the State representative said:

       This is troubling news for our schools. This is $200 
     million that school districts won't be

[[Page S3996]]

     able to use to hire more teachers to improve their 
     educational programs. This is an unneeded expense that does 
     absolutely nothing for our students.

  As the Minnesota State representative says: ``It is pretty sad when 
schools are forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the 
education of our children.''
  The President says the health care law should be forcefully defended 
and be proud of. Is that something the President is going to forcefully 
defend and be proud of? You take a look at the side effects of the 
health care law, so many side effects of the health care law.
  One of the side effects is the medical device tax that Democrats 
included in the law. It is a destructive tax and is hitting the people 
on the ground in Minnesota where the President is going to be tomorrow. 
This destructive tax impacts the livelihood of individuals. These are 
the folks who work to make things such as pacemakers, artificial 
joints, ultrasound equipment. It is a tax the President asked for, the 
President demanded and wanted as part of the health care law, and that 
every Democratic Senator in this Chamber voted for, including the two 
Democratic Senators from Minnesota where the President will be 
tomorrow. It adds up to $3 billion a year. Companies will have to make 
up for that lost revenue. They are going to do it through higher prices 
on other individuals and moving some of their construction and their 
distribution overseas. Is that what the President wanted in this health 
care law? Will he forcefully defend and be proud of that?
  According to a survey by an industry trade group about this--the 
folks who actually make these medical devices--that is exactly what is 
happening. Device manufacturers have had to cut 14,000 jobs because of 
the tax last year. They say they didn't hire another 19,000 they 
planned to hire. That is a total of 33,000 American jobs lost because 
of the taxes in the President's health care law. Now there are more 
than 350 medical device firms in Minnesota, companies in Minnesota that 
employ people on the ground in Minnesota, citizens who want to be hard-
working individuals, supporting more than 30,000 jobs in Minnesota. 
Since the health care law passed, the medical device industry has lost 
more than 1,000 of those jobs in Minnesota where the President will be 
tomorrow. Is the President ready to stand with those individuals about 
the devastating side effects of his health care law?
  One of the biggest device makers in the state is called Medtronix. 
They announced they are moving their headquarters to Ireland. That is 
not only because of the President's health care law and not every job 
lost in the industry is due solely to this one tax, but the Obama 
administration's burdensome tax policies and this terrible health care 
law side effects are impacting people all around the country and 
specifically in this area in Minnesota.
  One of the side effects is fewer jobs for American families. The 
President has said that Democrats who voted for the law should 
forcefully defend and be proud of it. I hope someone in Minnesota will 
get the chance to ask the President tomorrow if he is proud of the 
thousands of jobs his health care law is costing the hard-working men 
and women who make these medical devices in this State of Minnesota. I 
hope the President will spend a day in the shoes of someone who lost 
their job as a medical device maker.

  A lot of people in Minnesota and around the country are also worried 
about another devastating side effect of the health care law, and that 
is the impact on their paychecks--smaller paychecks that a lot of 
families are getting specifically because of the health care law. 
Yesterday there was an article in the Washington Post, page 2, Tuesday, 
June 24th: ``Businesses gear up for employer mandate.'' Subheadline: 
``Some cut workers' hours; others struggle with costs, logistics.''
  Well, what happens if you cut hours? What happens if you are 
struggling with costs? Who is impacted by that? Obviously, the families 
of the individuals who are working in those businesses. The article 
says employers around the country have been cutting their workers' 
hours back to part-time status. Part time in the health care law is 
defined as 30 hours a week. Most people think of a 40-hour workweek. 
Not President Obama. He has a different view of what a full-time job 
is. They had to cut back to part-time status in order to avoid paying 
for the expensive health care mandates required by the law.
  The article in the Washington Post yesterday adds that ``seasonal 
employees and low wage workers such as adjunct professors, cafeteria 
staffers'' have been especially hard hit.
  It is happening in Minnesota. The President is going to be there 
tomorrow, and he is going to say, ``I want to walk a day with this 
woman and see what her life is like.'' He can hand-select somebody who 
makes it look as though his policies might be working, but there are 
people in Minnesota who are being harmed by the President's policy.
  In Faribault, MN, the city is to cut hours of workers because it 
cannot afford to pay for their insurance. The city of Mankato, MN, had 
to do the same, cutting most of their workers to 29 hours a week to 
keep under the limits set by the health care law. In Hastings, MN, the 
schools have to limit how much their classroom aides, food service, and 
transportation employees can work. The same thing is happening in towns 
and counties and businesses all over the State of Minnesota where the 
President will be tomorrow. They are cutting back hours, reducing the 
size of their paychecks, and why? Because of the health care law. Is 
the President going to spend a day in the shoes of someone who has had 
their hours cut back because of the health care law? Is he going to 
forcefully defend his law to those people when he is in Minnesota 
tomorrow?
  Are the two Senators from Minnesota who voted for the health care law 
ready to forcefully defend the smaller paychecks these people are 
getting? This isn't just happening in Minnesota, it is happening all 
around the country. You know, it is not bad enough that these people 
are getting hit a second time by another very expensive side effect of 
the health care law--smaller paychecks. Now what they are seeing is 
higher premiums they have to pay. According to a new study, people in 
Minnesota are paying a lot more for health insurance. Why? Because of 
the health care law. For an average 64-year-old woman in Minnesota, 
premiums would have been $273 a month in 2013 before the mandates in 
the Obama health care law kicked in. But in 2014, buying insurance 
through an ObamaCare exchange, her premiums jumped to over $400 a 
month. She is paying $1,500 more this year than she did last year 
because of the President's health care law.
  Who is going to forcefully defend that? Who is going to come and be 
proud on the floor of the Senate and speak with great pride about what 
they have done to this woman and the effect of this health care law in 
her life?
  For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $95 a month 
in 2013. Under the ObamaCare law, he is paying $140 a month--an extra 
$540 this year compared to last year.
  Can the Senators who voted for this law be proud of these kinds of 
premium increases? The American people wanted reform that gave them 
access to quality affordable care--access, quality, affordable. What 
they are getting is higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles.
  Republicans have offered solutions for patient-centered health care, 
measures such as increasing the ability of small businesses to get 
together and negotiate better rates, expanding health savings accounts, 
allowing people to buy health insurance that works for them and their 
families because they know what is best for them and they don't need 
the government and President Obama to tell them that he knows better 
what they need in their lives than they know what they need in their 
lives. Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care 
they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost.
  The President may not want to talk about any of these tomorrow in 
Minnesota, all the ways his health care law is hurting people in 
Minnesota and around the country, hurting education, hurting jobs, 
hurting the economy and hurting the pocketbooks of men and women around 
the country. But Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor, 
keep talking about the burdensome side effects, the expensive side 
effects, and sometimes the irreversible and sometimes fatal side 
effects as a

[[Page S3997]]

result of this health care law. And we will continue to offer real 
solutions for better health care without the terrible side effects that 
the American public continues to face as a result of the President's 
health care law.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Is there a motion now pending to proceed to S. 2363?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion 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 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 motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 384, S. 2363, a bill to protect and 
     enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and 
     shooting, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Kay R. Hagan, Richard J. Durbin, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Debbie Stabenow, Ron Wyden, Joe Donnelly, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Angus S. King, Jr., Mark Begich, Tim 
           Kaine, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar, Heidi Heitkamp.

  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.

                          ____________________