[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 118 (Sunday, July 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5703-S5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 22, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the
Veterans Administration from being taken into account for
purposes of determining the employers to which the employer
mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act.
Pending:
McConnell modified amendment No. 2266, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell (for Kirk) amendment No. 2327 (to amendment No.
2266), to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of
the United States.
McConnell amendment No. 2328 (to amendment No. 2327), to
repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
entirely.
McConnell amendment No. 2329 (to the language proposed to
be stricken by amendment No. 2266), of a perfecting nature.
McConnell amendment No. 2330 (to amendment No. 2329), to
change the enactment date.
Cruz motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair that Cruz
amendment No. 2301 is not in order because it is inconsistent
with the Senate's precedents with respect to the offering of
amendments, their number, degree, and kind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask through the Chair if the Democratic leader has a
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the bill been reported?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill has been reported.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before the 3
p.m. vote that Senator Boxer be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
and that Senators Wyden and Murphy be permitted to speak for up to 5
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask if the Democratic leader would
modify his request to give me 12 minutes and Senator Hatch 10 minutes
following Senators Boxer, Wyden, and Murphy.
Mr. REID. Why does the Senator from Tennessee get so much time? But I
don't object, Mr. President. Just before the vote.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Just before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, someone was speaking with me. What is the
order? I get up to 10 minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, it is Sunday, and it is unusual for us to be here, but
as I have said many times, this is the reason we are here. Look at this
photo. This is the bridge collapse in California, and there is another
report coming that says this is going to be far from the last one we
have.
This is a bridge that carries thousands of people a day from
California to Arizona. This can happen in any one of our States, and
the fact is we need to pass a transportation bill. I am so grateful to
my colleague Senator Inhofe and to everyone on that committee who got
this started.
The Environment and Public Works Committee had a 20-to-0 vote so we
don't have to face this anymore. After that, we had other committees
act, just not in as bipartisan a fashion, so it was difficult. At that
point, Leader McConnell and Senator Durbin stepped in with Senator
Inhofe and me, and all we did was try to get to where we are right now,
which is a place where we can pass a fair funding bill.
I have a list. It is very interesting, and I ask unanimous consent
that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
FEDERAL SHARE OF EACH STATE'S CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR HIGHWAY & BRIDGE
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island............................................ 102
Alaska.................................................. 93
Montana................................................. 87
Vermont................................................. 86
South Carolina.......................................... 79
Hawaii.................................................. 79
North Dakota............................................ 78
Wyoming................................................. 73
South Dakota............................................ 71
Connecticut............................................. 71
New Mexico.............................................. 70
Idaho................................................... 68
Alabama................................................. 68
New Hampshire........................................... 68
Missouri................................................ 65
Mississippi............................................. 65
Colorado................................................ 64
Minnesota............................................... 64
Oklahoma................................................ 63
Arkansas................................................ 62
Georgia................................................. 62
Tennessee............................................... 62
West Virginia........................................... 61
Iowa.................................................... 59
Ohio.................................................... 58
Virginia................................................ 57
Maine................................................... 57
Wisconsin............................................... 55
Oregon.................................................. 54
Indiana................................................. 54
New York................................................ 54
District of Columbia.................................... 52
California.............................................. 49
Nevada.................................................. 49
Arizona................................................. 49
Nebraska................................................ 49
Kansas.................................................. 49
Louisiana............................................... 48
North Carolina.......................................... 48
Maryland................................................ 48
Texas................................................... 47
Pennsylvania............................................ 46
Washington.............................................. 45
Kentucky................................................ 44
Michigan................................................ 41
Delaware................................................ 41
Florida................................................. 39
Illinois................................................ 39
Utah.................................................... 38
Massachusetts........................................... 37
New Jersey.............................................. 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my State counts on the Federal Government
for one-half of its transportation funding, highways, and transit.
Rhode Island counts on the Federal Government for 100 percent; Alaska,
93 percent; Montana, 87 percent; South Carolina, 79 percent; Hawaii, 79
percent; North Dakota, 78 percent; Wyoming, 73 percent; Connecticut, 71
percent; New Mexico, 70 percent, and it goes down from there, but the
vast majority of our States count on the Federal Government for
funding.
What we have done, as both Senators Reid and McConnell have pointed
out, is we just keep patching up the highway trust fund.
I could go to a bank and say: I want to buy a House. The banker says:
You have great credit. That's the good news. The bad news is you can
only get a 5-month mortgage. What would I do in that case? I would
sadly walk away. I can't afford to invest in a home if I have only 5
months of a mortgage. It is the same way with the States. The way the
House went about it, and the way some of my colleagues on both sides
want to handle it, is another 5-month extension, and our States are
stopping.
On Tuesday, the general contractors told us that in 25 States they
have
[[Page S5704]]
begun to lay off many, many, many construction workers. We all know at
the height of the great recession we had millions of unemployed
construction workers. It has been tough to get them back to work, and
remember the businesses that employ them, it has been tough to get them
back to work.
It has been so hard and now we are seeing a reversal of all the hard
work we did because we did a 2-year transportation bill that was
helpful. This would be the first 6-year authorization in decades and
the first 3-year funding, I believe, in 10 years. It could be more. We
need to do this.
I want to close by saying this: Working across the aisle is always
difficult, but it is exciting, it is interesting, and the staffs from
both sides have shown they can do it.
Last night, I was on the phone with Senator McConnell's staff--I
think it was 20 minutes until 12--and I kept saying: If we can't fix
this, I have to call the Senator. They said: Please don't. Well, we
worked it out this morning.
I see the Senator from Rhode Island Mr. Whitehouse is coming in now.
I told the Senators that Rhode Island counts on this Federal highway
trust fund for 100 percent of the funding. I also did not mention that
Senator Whitehouse is on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He
is a very active and productive member. There is a program in there
that is important to all of our States--major programs that will
finally have a fund, regardless of whether it is Kentucky, Utah, Rhode
Island or California.
This is a fair bill. It has a good increase for highways and a good
increase for transportation. States and cities want it. Yesterday, I
found out from Senator Inhofe--who, by the way, did a terrific national
radio address on this issue, and I thank him for that--that the mayor
from Oklahoma City and the mayor from New York City wrote a letter
saying how desperately they need the certainty. We are on the cusp.
Amendment No. 2327
Mr. President, I personally support the Ex-Im Bank. I know my
colleague Senator McConnell and I do not agree on this. I think the Ex-
Im Bank is important.
We should not forget that we are still recovering from the worst
recession since the Great Depression. We need to stay focused on
putting people back to work, creating jobs, and growing the economy.
We can do that by passing the transportation bill. I thank my
colleagues for working together on this bill, and for their patience
with this process. This bill will support millions of jobs and
thousands of businesses nationwide, it will help rebuild our country's
infrastructure, and it will strengthen our economy.
It will also provide funding certainty for State and local
governments and the construction industry, which was hard hit in the
Great Recession. There are approximately 1.4 million fewer construction
workers today compared to 2006--which equals roughly 20 percent of all
construction jobs--and over 522,000 construction workers remain out of
work in the U.S.
The law that authorizes our transportation programs will expire in
just 5 days--on July 31st--and the Highway Trust Fund is going to run
out of money shortly after that. Many States, including Utah, Arkansas,
Georgia, Tennessee, and Wyoming, have delayed or canceled construction
projects due to the uncertainty in Federal transportation funding.
We have the opportunity to pass a bill, the DRIVE Act, which is vital
for jobs and the economy. Last week, a letter was sent from 68 groups
calling on the Senate to vote for a six-year reauthorization of federal
surface transportation programs. This letter was signed by labor groups
such as the Operating Engineers, the Laborers International, and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters, as well as business groups such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the
National Retail Federation.
This letter was also signed by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, our State DOTs, who know
better than anyone the importance of certainty from a long-term bill.
Today we have the opportunity to do even more to help grow our
economy by reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. I applaud my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to reach a bipartisan
agreement for a multi-year reauthorization.
At a time when too many of our workers are still looking for jobs,
the Ex-Im Bank helps American businesses create jobs. Last year alone,
it financed $27.5 billion in exports for over 3,000 businesses,
supporting over 164,000 American jobs. And over the last 6 years, it
has supported a total of 1.3 million jobs.
Not only that, the bank helps the United States level the playing
field when so many other countries heavily subsidize their exports. The
Ex-Im Bank helps American businesses compete fairly.
Even more important, this job creation comes at no cost to the
public. The Ex-Im Bank covers its own costs--sometimes even returning
money to the Treasury--and maintains a default rate of under 2 percent.
Unfortunately, as of July 1, the Ex-Im Bank has been unable to
process any new transactions--and this poses a real threat to our
economy. Business deals that are months or years in the making are now
on hold, and may fall through, unless we reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank
immediately.
Let me tell a few stories about the Ex-Im Bank's impact in
California. Since 2009, the Ex-Im Bank has helped almost 1,000
California exporters--702 are small businesses--to make deals to export
$18 billion in American products.
Here are just a few examples of what the Ex-Im Bank has done for
California businesses.
FirmGreen, based in Newport Beach, CA, is a veteran-owned business
that converts landfill gas and other renewable resources into renewable
energy and clean fuel. Financing from the Ex-Im Bank enabled FirmGreen
to lead a landfill gas project in Brazil, which generated 165 new
manufacturing jobs across seven States. Unfortunately, FirmGreen
recently lost a $57 million contract because of the uncertainty
surrounding the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization. The company's CEO Steve
Wilburn put it well recently, ``For Congress to create a partisan issue
out of a bipartisan entity that is supporting U.S. business and growing
jobs simply for the debate is just wrong.''
Los Kitos Produce, a minority, woman-owned produce company in Orange,
CA, wanted to expand its business to new markets overseas. To reduce
the risks involved in selling to new foreign buyers, the company
applied for an insurance policy from the Ex-Im Bank. This insurance
facilitated $750,000 in sales and the company's expansion into Colombia
and Korea. This helped to increase exports from 5 percent to 25 percent
of their total sales.
Martha Montoya, CEO of Los Kitos Produce, said:
Without the Ex-Im Bank, I'd lose my growers' trust to ship
overseas. Our growers reinvest everything back into their
business and back into their community. They can't afford to
risk not being paid. Congress needs to support American small
business by reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. The bottom line is:
without Ex-Im Bank, we wouldn't be able to export.
ProGauge Technologies of Bakersfield, CA, manufactures machines that
inject steam into reservoirs to thin out oil so it is easier to pump.
In recent years, the company received $15.6 million in Ex-Im loan
guarantees. Exports now make up 65 percent of the company's revenue.
ProGauge President Don Nelson said:
Without Ex-Im bank, [a lender] would make us put up 100
percent collateral, and we would have no money available for
operations. . . . Revenues would go down by about 75 percent
and I'd have to lay off between 50 and 60 people. Ex-Im is
critical to our business.
The Washington Post reported that ProGauge will have to withdraw its
bid for a $30 million project in the Middle East if the Ex-Im Bank is
not reauthorized. ``It's going to be devastating for us'' said CEO Don
Nelson. ``Basically, we just won't be able to operate anymore.''
Wiggins Lift Company is a small business in Oxnard, CA, that employs
over 50 workers and has been family owned for three generations. The
Ex-Im Bank recently provided financing of $1.4 million for Wiggins to
export its forklifts to three Brazilian companies. This deal will help
to sustain an estimated 30 jobs at Wiggins Lift.
[[Page S5705]]
``Ex-Im's guarantee is a positive for everyone'' said Wiggins Lift
CEO Michelle McDowell. ``These sales are helping us continue to grow,
add employees, and contribute to the U.S. economy.''
These are just a few stories of what will be lost if the Ex-Im Bank
is not re-authorized. Every day that the Ex-Im Bank is unable to make
new loans, more and more businesses will lose opportunities to compete
and sell their products worldwide, and that means jobs lost right here
in America.
Let's do the right thing. Let's reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Let's
pass the highway bill. Let's create jobs and strengthen our economy.
I urge my colleagues to support this important reauthorization.
To sum it up, we have a lot of small businesses that count on the Ex-
Im Bank to finance them so they can export our products. We have so
many in our State.
I hope it passes on a bipartisan vote, and I thank Leader McConnell.
I know this is not something he likes at all, but he made a commitment
and he is sticking to it.
Lastly, we are going to have a vote to overturn ObamaCare. Senator
Hatch and I were discussing how much we disagree on this point, but I
told him I wouldn't hold back. I think it doesn't make any sense.
We are looking at millions of people nationwide who now have health
insurance and cannot be told by their insurer they have a preexisting
condition like high blood pressure or diabetes, forget it. We have so
many families that now have their 24-year-old, 25-year-old, 26-year-old
on their insurance.
I have stories that will make you feel good--stories from people in
my State. One person had her cancer caught at a very early stage, and
as a result of that she has lived to tell the tale. Before ObamaCare,
she couldn't have gotten the tests she needed to discover this deadly
cancer.
I just say rhetorically to my friends on the other side--and they are
my friends. I will tell you, we have really built up some relationships
over this bill, which I am so happy about. Why don't we work together
to fix the problems? We know no bill is perfect. The Transportation
bill is far from perfect, and we had to fix that too.
Maybe there is a new day dawning. We keep saying that, but it doesn't
seem to be happening. But maybe something good is going to come from
the bipartisanship, tough as it has been. The Transportation bill is
far from perfect. I wanted to do so much more on safety, and I have to
say that Senator Nelson did such a good job. I must have talked to
Senator Wyden half a dozen times. He kept putting on pay-fors that were
good, but they were rejected by the other side. We could have done so
much more if we had gone that way. We did what we could do, and just as
in the trade battle where our caucus was very split, our caucus is very
split here.
I hope we can find enough courage and interest, and most important,
keep this in mind: This is, to me, the poster child of why we have come
together. This America, this doesn't look like America. It is wrong,
and we can come together and hopefully vote for Ex-Im Bank, against the
repeal of ObamaCare, and then move forward with a good cloture vote
tomorrow night on our very much compromised bill on transportation--
because it is a compromise.
Again, my thanks to people on both sides of the aisle--Democrats,
Republicans, and everybody--for moving this along.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 2328
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have spent much of my time in public
service working to promote bipartisanship in health care. In fact, the
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here. I think he may
speak next. Our colleague from Tennessee Senator Alexander is a
cosponsor of my comprehensive health care reform bill. So, for me,
bipartisanship and health care policy is enormously important, and
there are certainly plenty of ways in which Democrats and Republicans
could be working together to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on the menu either today or in
this Congress.
Today, instead of looking forward on health care in America, the
Senate, on a transportation bill, will have a vote on whether to go
backward on health care--backward to the days when health care in
America was for the healthy and the wealthy. I specifically used those
words because the moment you repeal the Affordable Care Act, millions
of Americans lose protection against preexisting conditions. The moment
that happens, if you are healthy and wealthy, no sweat, but for the
millions who are aren't, they are back in that abyss where they go to
bed at night worried that they may get wiped out the very next morning
because they have a preexisting health condition.
Protection for those individuals will be gone the moment the Senate
votes. I hope the Senate will not vote for ending the Affordable Care
Act this afternoon, but the moment it does, gone is that protection for
preexisting conditions. Gone are the tax credits. These are
opportunities for Americans to get a little bit of tax relief when
hard-working families pay for health insurance--gone when we repeal the
Affordable Care Act. Gone would be the protections that bar insurance
companies from charging top dollar for rock-bottom coverage. Gone would
be the protections for young adults. Right now, they can't be locked
out of their parents' insurance plans. Gone would be the protection for
individuals to make sure their insurance isn't canceled the moment they
get sick. Once again, pregnancy could be considered a preexisting
condition.
So what I think this shows is that this debate is no longer about
numbers on a page, bills we write, lots of charts, lots of graphs, lots
of small print. But this isn't an abstraction, when we go back, as I
have described, to the days when health care was for the healthy and
the wealthy. More than 16 million Americans have gained health
insurance coverage by virtue of the Affordable Care Act. Their health
is on the line every single time there is a vote to repeal that law. So
those are the consequences.
I will wrap up because I see my good friend from Tennessee is here,
as well as my Senator and my colleague from Utah. Both of them have
joined me repeatedly in trying to promote bipartisan approaches on
health care policy. I don't take a backseat to anybody in this body on
working on health care policy in a bipartisan fashion. There is nothing
that I think would be more valuable than to have Democrats and
Republicans come together, not to talk about repealing this law but to
find ways to strengthen it. There is not a law that has been passed
that we can't strengthen. And having spoken with my friend from Utah
and my friend from Tennessee repeatedly, I think they know I am serious
about reaching out for common ground with respect to this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional
seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. The pie-in-the-sky insistence that the Affordable Care Act
will be repealed and somehow we will not have the suffering I have just
described--that is not reality.
What we ought to do is reject this amendment to repeal the Affordable
Care Act and then get back to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen
the law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Chair please inform me when 10
minutes has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.
Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today there will be at least three
votes. The first, as we have heard, is to end debate on Senator
McConnell's amendment to repeal ObamaCare. The second will be to end
debate on the Export-Import Bank. Then there may be a third vote on an
appeal by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, to overturn a ruling of the
Chair that an amendment of his is not in order. This is how that came
about. On Friday Senator Cruz offered an amendment regarding Iran.
[[Page S5706]]
The Chair ruled that the amendment was not in order because--and this
is what the Chair said, in fact--``it is inconsistent with the Senate's
precedents with respect to the offering of amendments.'' The Senator
from Texas then appealed the ruling of the Chair. His intention today
will be to try to obtain a majority vote to overturn the Chair's
ruling.
I respect the Senator's strong desire to offer his amendment, but I
believe he ought to do it within the Senate rules or I believe we
should change Senate rules in the way our rules prescribe. If, instead,
a majority of Senators agree with the Senator from Texas, the Senate
will be saying that a majority can routinely change Senate rules and
procedures anytime it wants on any subject it wants in order to get the
result it wants. The problem with that, as former Senator Carl Levin of
Michigan once said, is that a Senate that changes its rules anytime a
majority wants is a Senate without any rules.
Think of it this way. Football season is coming up. Let's say the
Tennessee Titans are playing football against the Indianapolis Colts in
Nashville and the home team sets the rules of the game. So when the
Titans gain 9 yards, they change the rules to say 9 yards is a first
down or when the Colts gain 100 yards, the Titans say: Sorry, you need
110 yards to score a touchdown. No one would want to play such a game.
No one would want to watch such a game. No one would respect such a
game. That is why every Monday in New York City a team of former
National Football League officials reviews every referee's call and
noncall from the previous Sunday's games played in the NFL. The league
wants to make absolutely sure its rules are followed. And the NFL has a
rules committee that meets between seasons to consider changes in the
rules. It has rules about how to change its rules. The NFL, of course,
wouldn't even consider allowing the Titans to change the rules in the
middle of a game in Nashville in order to defeat the Colts.
The U.S. Senate has a rules committee, too, and we have rules on how
to change our rules. We should follow those rules. The U.S. Senate is
the chief rulemaking body for the United States of America. If we
cannot follow our own rules, how can we expect 320 million Americans to
follow the rules we write for them? If we render ourselves lawless, how
can we expect our fellow Americans to respect and follow the rule of
law?
There is a practical problem with what the Senator from Texas seeks
to do. If he succeeds, it will destroy a crucial part of what we call
the rule of regular order in the U.S. Senate. He will create a
precedent that destroys the orderly consideration of amendments. There
will be unlimited amendments. There will be chaos. And ironically,
while destroying regular order, he wouldn't get the vote on the Iran
amendment he seeks. That is because if he overrules the Chair and
creates another branch of the amendment tree, the Senate leaders have a
right to offer an amendment to fill that new branch of the tree before
he does.
The U.S. Senate is unique in the world. It has been called the one
authentic piece of genius of the American political system. Its
uniqueness is based upon a variety of rules, precedents, procedures,
and agreements that encourage extended debate. This process encourages
consensus, and consensus is the way we govern a complex country,
whether it is a civil rights bill or a trade agreement or an education
bill. But a body of 100 of us that operates by unanimous consent
requires restraint and good will on the part of Senators to function.
We saw a good example of that a couple of weeks ago when the Senate
passed 81 to 17 in 1 week a complex elementary and secondary education
bill. Any Senator could have made that process much more difficult, but
not one did, and the country is impressed with that result.
There are different ways--several different ways--to establish Senate
rules and procedures, but they all fall under the same umbrella. There
are standing rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789 with the advice
of Thomas Jefferson. There are standing orders. Sometimes we set rules
by passing a law, such as the Budget Act. Sometimes we establish a rule
by unanimous consent or by agreeing to a new precedent. Taken together,
all of these represent the full body of the Senate's Rules of
Procedure. These Rules of Procedure have several things in common, no
matter how they were established. The authority for establishing and
changing each of them comes from the same place: article I, section 5
of the United States Constitution. Every one of them can be changed by
67 votes, following rule XXII of the Senate, except that a standing
order may be changed with 60 votes.
One other thing these different forms of rules and precedents have in
common is that the latest change supersedes whatever rule or precedent
was established earlier. So if the Senator from Texas persuades the
majority of us to overrule the Chair today, that decision governs the
Senate forever until it is changed or unless it is changed. So there is
no real difference between changing a rule or changing a precedent.
What is important is not how the precedent was established or the rule
was established but what is being overturned.
It is true that occasionally the Senate majority uses its power to
overturn the ruling of the Chair to refine the interpretation of rules
or precedents. This means that in some limited circumstances, the
Senate changes its rules by majority vote.
The question today is not whether we can overturn the ruling of the
Chair but whether we should overturn the ruling of the Chair. I believe
we should not do so. To do so would destroy regular order in the
Senate. It would create chaos in the Senate. Most importantly, a Senate
in which a majority routinely changes the rules by overruling the Chair
is a Senate without any rules.
There is a right way and a wrong way to change our rules and
procedures. This would be the wrong way. I urge my colleagues to not
agree with the Senator from Texas in his effort to overturn the ruling
of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Treating Each Other With Courtesy and Respect
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate in my
capacity as President pro tempore. I hope my colleagues will give
attention to what I am about to say and will take it to heart because I
speak from the heart out of respect for my colleagues and out of love
for this great body in which we are all privileged to serve.
The Senate has a long and justly celebrated tradition of comity and
respect among Members. Although there have been occasional exceptions
throughout history, on the whole, Senators have taken great care to
treat each other with courtesy and respect, both in private discussions
and in public deliberations. We do this for several reasons--first,
because mutual respect is essential for us to be able to work together
to forge consensus on difficult issues that stir deep and sometimes
divisive feelings. Passing meaningful legislation in this body
typically requires the two parties to work together, and that, in turn,
requires a trust and a certain level of good will. Courtesy and decorum
foster an atmosphere where we can work in good faith to find common
ground, where we can appeal to nobler instincts to do what is best for
all Americans, not just those of a particular partisan persuasion.
The second reason we treat each other with courtesy and respect is
because it is the honorable thing to do. We come to this body as 100
men and women with vastly different backgrounds, life experiences, and
views on how government should operate. But we share a common humanity
and a common goal to improve this great Nation and to secure the
blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. We divide into
parties and join caucuses. We fight passionately about matters of
tremendous consequence. But we do not become enemies. We remain
colleagues. And colleagues treat each other with respect. We treat each
other with honor even when we feel another has perhaps not accorded us
the same esteem. Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other
venues or perhaps on the campaign trail, but they have no place among
colleagues in the U.S. Senate.
The third and most important reason we treat each other with courtesy
and respect is because we are the people's representatives. We are not
here on
[[Page S5707]]
some frolic or to pursue personal ambitions; we are here because the
people of the United States have entrusted us with the solemn
responsibility to act on their behalf in shaping our Nation's laws.
This is a high and holy calling. It is not something to take lightly.
It is a sacred trust in which pettiness or grandstanding should have no
part. We are here to do serious work. In doing this work, egos will
inevitably be bruised. Feelings from time to time may be hurt. This is
inherent in the nature of politics. But we are here to carry out the
people's business. We serve the people, not our own egos. When we are
on the losing side of a particular debate, when we are disappointed, we
pick ourselves up and move ahead to the next challenge.
Our Nation's Founders designed the Senate to play a special role in
our constitutional system. In contrast to the more raucous, populist
House, the Senate was to be a body of deliberation and reasoned
judgment. Senators were to seek the common good and consider national,
not just parochial, interests in crafting legislation and considering
nominees.
Decorum is essential to executing this constitutionally ordained
role. Deliberation and reasoned judgment require an atmosphere of
restraint, an atmosphere of thoughtful disagreement. Deliberation
without decorum is not deliberation at all; it is bickering. And
bickering is beneath this body.
Regrettably, in recent times, the Senate floor has too often become a
forum for partisan messaging and ideological grandstanding rather than
a setting for serious debate. It has been misused as a tool to advance
personal ambitions, a venue to promote political campaigns, and even a
vehicle to enhance fundraising efforts--all at the expense of the
proper functioning of this body. Most egregiously, the Senate floor has
even become a place where Senators have singled out colleagues by name
to attack them in personal terms and to impugn their character--in
blatant disregard of Senate rules which plainly prohibit such conduct.
The Senate floor has hosted many passionate debates on crucial issues
over the years. Tempers from time to time have flared. Voices have on
occasion been raised. But we have almost universally confined our
criticisms to policies and to ideas, to what we think is wrongheaded
about particular bills or proposals. We have not, at least in my
memory, called our opponents dishonest or sought to disparage their
motives.
To bring personal attacks to the Senate floor would be to import the
most toxic elements of our current political discourse into the well of
the Senate, into the very heart of this institution. This would serve
only to pollute our deliberations, to break the bonds of trust that are
essential for achieving some measure of consensus, and to invite the
dysfunction that so saturates our media and popular culture into this
storied Chamber.
For those of us who care about the Senate as an institution and who
want it once again to help solve the vexing challenges that face our
Nation, such misuse of the Senate floor must not be tolerated. Each of
us--Republicans and Democrats alike--must stand together in support of
the Senate's time-honored traditions of collegiality and respect. We
must stand resolute in requiring that the Senate's formal rules
requiring dignity and decorum be observed. And we must ensure that the
pernicious trend of turning the Senate floor into a forum for advancing
personal ambitions, for promoting political campaigns, or for enhancing
fundraising activities comes to a stop. There are enough other
platforms for those seeking to accomplish those objectives; the Senate
floor need not be one.
Mr. President, I recognize that many of my colleagues are quite new
to the Senate and may not yet have had many opportunities to experience
its proper institutional role as a forum for reasoned deliberation and
constructive debate. Some are less familiar with its traditions of
comity and respect. Others may know little of the Senate's history in
rising above parochialism and narrow self-interest. And a few, I regret
to say, seem unconcerned for its historic pivotal role in promoting
consensus and helping to overcome our Nation's challenges.
As one who has had the privilege of serving here for the past four
decades, I can attest from firsthand experience that the Senate can be
and has been in times not too far past a distinguished and constructive
body that does much good. I recall vividly times when this body was
marked by good will rather than rancor and disrepute. In some respects,
the Senate today is but a mere shadow of its former self, another
casualty of the permanent political campaign. This is deeply
disheartening to those like myself who were here to experience this
body's better days, and it has severely damaged the proper governance
of our Nation.
Mr. President, I have been frank in my remarks today. This candor
stems from my genuine concern for this body and its future. I have been
frank because I have seen so much of what I love about this body
frittered away in recent years for small-minded, shortsighted, partisan
gain. By virtue of my long service here in the Senate and my role as
President pro tempore, I am a dedicated institutionalist. I care deeply
about this institution and want it to work.
Our current majority leader has made important strides in putting the
Senate back on a path toward meaningful deliberation and constructive
lawmaking aimed at the common good, but his efforts and those of other
Senators on both sides of the aisle who take the long view in seeking
to build up this institution will not suffice unless each one of us is
committed to instilling comity and respect as a core feature of
everything we do.
Let's each move forward with a renewed sense of honor and respect, a
resolve not to tolerate misuse of the Senate floor, a commitment to do
our part to restore civility and constructive debate as defining
characteristics of this body, and a renewed willingness to work
together for the good of all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Utah for an
excellent speech. I entirely agree with his call for civility and
decorum and respect. No Member of this body should engage in ad hominem
attacks directed at any other Member of this body, be they a Republican
or be they a Democrat. At the same time, I would note that it is
entirely consistent with decorum and with the nature of this body
traditionally as the world's greatest deliberative body to speak the
truth. Speaking the truth about action is entirely consistent with
civility. Indeed, in a quote often falsely attributed to George Orwell,
the sentiment has been expressed thusly: ``In a time of universal
deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.''
I would make four brief points.
First of all, on Friday I gave an unusual speech--a speech unlike any
I have given in this Chamber. It was not a speech I was happy to give.
It was a speech to which the senior Senator from Utah has responded. I
would note that in the course of that speech I described an explicit
promise the majority leader had made to me and to all 53 Republican
Senators. Neither the majority leader, nor the Senator from Utah, nor
the Senator from Tennessee has disputed that the majority leader, in
front of every Republican Senator, made that promise, looking me in the
eyes--namely, that there was no deal on the Export-Import Bank, that
its proponents could offer it in the regular order and there would be
no special preferences whatsoever. We saw on Friday that promise was
false.
In particular, on the amendment on the Export-Import Bank, first of
all, it was not offered by its proponents, it was called up by the
majority leader. Very few of us get our amendments called up by the
majority leader because he has priority of recognition, he can edge out
any other amendment in this Chamber.
Secondly, the majority leader followed that by filling the tree--a
procedural mechanism that he had often decried when the former majority
leader employed it to block other amendments.
Third, the majority leader filed cloture on the Export-Import Bank
amendment--a tool he has used only once in his entire tenure as
majority leader.
Those were extraordinary steps designed to force a vote to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and they were
[[Page S5708]]
directly contrary to the promises the majority leader made to all 53
Republicans and to the press. My saying so may be uncomfortable, but it
is a simple fact entirely consistent with decorum, and no Member of
this body has disputed that promise was made and that promise was
broken.
The senior Senator from Tennessee gave a learned speech on changing
the rules of this body through appealing the ruling of the Chair, and I
very much agree. When the former majority leader used the nuclear
option, it was wrong to violate the rules. But the amendment tree does
not come from the rules, the amendment tree comes from the precedents,
and precedents are set precisely through appealing the rulings of the
Chair by a majority vote.
Indeed, I would note that previously many Members of this body have
voted in favor of overruling the ruling of the Chair, including my
friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who has voted 4 times in his
career to overrule the ruling of the Chair; my friend the majority
whip, who has voted 5 times in his career to overrule the ruling of the
Chair; and, indeed, the distinguished majority leader, who has voted 14
times in his career to overrule the ruling of the Chair. I would note
beyond that, that as recently as April 2, 2014, there was a third-
degree appeal precisely like the one I have filed that was filed by
Senator Vitter. The ruling of the Chair was appealed, and a significant
number of Republicans voted in favor of that appeal, including the
majority leader and including the majority whip.
Many Republicans railed against the filling of the tree when the
Democratic leader was the majority leader. If it was an abuse of power
then, it remains so today. Indeed, I would note what the current
majority leader said at the time: ``The practical effect of [filling
the tree] is to disenfranchise the people I and my members represent,
and, more significantly, a significant number of the people his members
represent whose voices are simply not heard in the Senate.''
Beyond that, let me say on the substance that if you oppose filling
the tree to silence the amendments of Members, be they in the majority
party or the minority party, you should vote in favor of allowing my
amendment to go forward.
I would note that the Senator from Tennessee was incorrect that it
would allow unlimited amendments. It would simply add a third branch to
the tree and not unlimited amendments.
At the same time, if you are resolved to stand with our friend and
ally the Nation of Israel, if you are resolved to stand with American
hostages in Iran, and if you are convinced to not lift sanctions on
Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist as a
Jewish State and that they release four American hostages, then you
should vote to allow that amendment to be voted on.
Needless to say, if you oppose the Export-Import Bank, you should
vote to allow that amendment to be voted on.
Finally, if you want other amendments on pressing issues, be they
defunding Planned Parenthood, be they stopping sanctuary cities, be
they passing Kate's Law, or be they ending the congressional exemption
from Obamacare, you should vote in favor of allowing this amendment to
be voted on.
A great many Members of this body have given long, eloquent speeches
on how this body operates when each Member has a right to offer
amendments--and even difficult amendments. We debate and resolve them.
That is the heart of this vote, and I would encourage each Member here
to vote his conscience or her conscience on both substance and the
ability of the Senate to remain the world's greatest deliberative body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments of my
colleague, the junior Senator of Texas, both last week and this week,
and I would have to say he is mistaken.
First of all, if, in fact, the majority leader had somehow
misrepresented to the 54 Senators what the facts are with regard to the
Ex-Im Bank, I suspect we would find other voices joining that of the
junior Senator, but I hear no one else making such a similar
accusation.
Secondly, I would just say to my colleague that there is an
alternative explanation. There is an alternative explanation. As the
majority leader has said time and time again, anytime 65 Senators want
to do something here in the Senate, sooner or later they are going to
get their way. Indeed, that represents the vote in support of the Ex-Im
Bank--something I will end up voting against but where I realize that
majorities will carry the day eventually.
But if the rule the junior Senator from Texas is arguing for is
embraced, we will lose all control of the Senate schedule; there will
be chaos; and, indeed, we won't be able to meet simple deadlines, such
as the one that exists on the 31st of this month with regard to the
expiration of the transportation fund, because even after we close off
debate, any Senator who wants to get a vote on an amendment will be
entitled to do so. And that cannot be the rule. It is not the rule. It
has never been the rule. And that is why what the junior Senator is
attempting to do is so extraordinary.
I will be opposing that, and I hope all of our colleagues will join
us in opposing that because ultimately what that would mean is that a
determined 51 Senators who want to raise taxes, who want to pass
Obamacare 2.0, who want to pass a cap-and-trade bill or a carbon tax,
who want to pass Dodd-Frank 2.0, or any additional government
spending--they will be able to do it. They will be guaranteed an
opportunity to get an amendment and be able to vote on that amendment,
and it will pass in the Senate. I don't think that is in the best
interests of the Senate. I don't think it is in the best interests of
the 27 million people whom the junior Senator and I represent together.
I certainly don't believe that is in the best interests of this
institution which we all revere.
If all 100 Senators have the opportunity to offer an amendment
without restraint, then there will never be any deadline. There will
never be any conclusion, and we would not be able to do the simple work
that we have been asked to do on behalf of the American people.
The final point is this. I know the junior Senator feels passionately
about this amendment. But the fact of the matter is that we have a
process that has been set up to review the Iran deal that President
Obama and Secretary Kerry negotiated. We are going to have a chance to
examine it, debate it, and review it over the next 2 months, and then
we will have a chance to vote on it. There is a time and place for this
vote. I will no doubt support the same position that the junior Senator
is supporting. It is not on this bill. It is not now. It is not at the
expense of breaking the orderly procedures that make sure that everyone
gets a chance to participate. I would just say in conclusion that there
was no misrepresentation made by the majority leader on the Ex-Im Bank.
The only thing the majority leader promised was an opportunity to
offer an amendment on a bill, recognizing that if he denied that
opportunity, when 65 Senators wanted it--not just one Senator who we
know can stop things around here, slow them down--the 65 Senators would
be bound and determined to use any available leverage until they got
that vote. So I agree with what the majority leader has decided to do
and how he has decided to handle it. I know there are passionate views
around here, but that does not justify changing the rules of the Senate
through such extraordinary means. So I hope our colleagues join me to
ratify the ruling of the Chair when that time comes rather than to
overrule it.
To overrule the Chair on something this important to the orderly
consideration of the Senate's business would be a terrible mistake.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Tennessee.
Cloture Motion
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S5709]]
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative 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,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the McConnell
amendment No. 2328, to repeal Obamacare.
Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, John Barrasso,
Dan Sullivan, Michael B. Enzi, John McCain, Joni Ernst,
Deb Fischer, Tim Scott, Mike Rounds, James E. Risch,
Daniel Coats, James Lankford, David Perdue, Richard
Burr.
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. 2328, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, to amendment No. 2327, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--43
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Coons
Corker
Flake
Markey
Murkowski
Sanders
Sessions
Toomey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
43.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum be waived on the next vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
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,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Kirk
amendment No. 2327 to amendment No. 2266, as modified, to
H.R. 22, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the
Veterans Administration from being taken into account for
purposes of determining the employers to which the employer
mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act.
Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Susan M.
Collins, John McCain, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt, Jeanne
Shaheen, Thomas R. Carper, Heidi Heitkamp, Maria
Cantwell, Patty Murray, Sherrod Brown, Christopher A.
Coons, Richard J. Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Harry Reid.
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. 2327, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, for the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, to amendment No.
2266, as modified, 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. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--26
Barrasso
Boozman
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Fischer
Gardner
Hatch
Inhofe
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Rubio
Sasse
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Vitter
NOT VOTING--7
Coons
Corker
Flake
Markey
Sanders
Sessions
Toomey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are
26.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Vote on Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the appeal
of the junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, in relation to the offering
of his amendment No. 2301, which has been ruled out of order.
No debate is in order pursuant to rule XXII.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Senate?
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CARPER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CARPER. I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S5710]]
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment
No. 2282, withdrawing Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
Mrs. BOXER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not in order.
Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
The question is on the appeal.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Senate?
The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.
Amendment No. 2328
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, on Friday, July 24, 2015, as a result of a
clerical error, I was inadvertently listed as a cosponsor on McConnell
amendment No. 2328.
Today, a unanimous consent request was filed by the majority leader's
office to remove my name as a cosponsor of this amendment. I did not
cosponsor this amendment, do not support it, and voted against invoking
cloture on it today.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Marine Lance Corporal Skip Wells
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, while we have a pause in our business for
a moment, I rise to offer a brief but sincere eulogy. At this very
moment in Woodstock, GA, Skip Wells, U.S. Marine Corps lance corporal,
is being buried and worshipped. Thousands of Georgians are at the First
Baptist Church of Woodstock, GA to attend his funeral.
Skip Wells was murdered in Chattanooga, TN, on the 16th day of July
while he was doing his duties as a marine, recruiting people to come
into the U.S. military.
Skip graduated from Sprayberry High School just a few years ago. He
played the clarinet and musical instruments in his church orchestra. He
was a great student with thousands of friends. He was a young man we
would all be proud of. His life was taken away from us in a snap by an
enraged person on a religious tear.
When a young man of 21 years old dies in the prime of life, we ask
why. In particular, when he wears the uniform of the U.S. Marine Corps,
we ask why. It is inexplicable. We all know the Book of Ecclesiastes
tells us, ``There is a time for everything''--a time to be born and a
time to die. There is never a time when a young marine's life should be
taken. It causes us to truly think about something. As we act in this
U.S. Senate and guide our country, hundreds of thousands of young men
and women volunteer to wear the uniform of the United States of
America, and when they put it on, they never know when that day to die
might come, but they have all made the commitment that they are ready,
willing, and able to die for the country they love, the United States
of America.
To Skip's mother Cathy, his extended family, and all those who knew
Skip, we send our condolences and our best wishes for them to recover
over time and heal.
In Woodstock, GA, an inscription is being read right now, which I
will read on the floor of the Senate so we will read it at the same
time. These words are comforting, they mean something, and in a time of
grief for all of us, I think they are important. Skip's mother wanted
this as a part of the ceremony. It is entitled ``To Those I Love.''
When I am gone, release me, let me go.
You musn't tie yourself to me with tears.
Just be happy that we had so many good years.
I gave you my love, you can only guess,
How much you gave to me in happiness.
I thank you for the love you each have shown,
But now it's time I traveled alone.
So grieve a while for me, if grieve you must,
Then let your grief be comforted by trust.
It's only for a while that we must part,
So bless the memories within your heart.
I won't be far away, for life goes on,
So if you need me, call, and I will come.
Though you can't see or touch me, I'll be near.
And if you listen with your heart, you'll hear,
All of my love around you, soft and clear.
And then, when you must come this way alone, I'll greet you
with a smile, and say ``Welcome Home.''
That is the Book of John, Chapter 15, the 13th verse. ``Greater love
has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.''
Skip Wells laid down his life for all of the people of the United
States of America, for his family, and for his friends. We ask God to
bless him and bring mercy to his family. We ask God to bless the great
country that Skip wore the uniform to die for--the United States of
America.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________