[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16736-16737]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           FILIBUSTER REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the past few weeks, we have been 
discussing a plan by the Democratic leadership to break the rules of 
the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate; in other words, 
the nuclear option. This plan would break their very clear commitment, 
which was given at the end of 2006 when they were still serving in the 
minority, to respect the rights of the minority. It would break their 
promise to follow the Golden Rule, and it would break their pledge to 
never, ever use the nuclear option to break the Senate rules.
  They have governed in a much different way. Their actions yesterday 
on the pending bill related to the Transaction Account Guarantee 
Program illustrate well the heavyhanded ``my way or the highway'' 
manner of running the Senate.
  Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly to get on this bill--voted 
overwhelmingly to get on the bill. We soon found out, however, that no 
good deed goes unpunished. Less than a minute after agreeing to adopt a 
motion to proceed to the bill, the Democratic majority filled the 
amendment tree to prevent any Senator, Republican or Democrat, from 
offering any amendments.
  Republicans have significant, on-point amendments we would like to 
offer. For example, Senator Corker has an amendment that requires the 
FDIC to charge the full premium necessary to cover the cost of this 
insurance. Senator Vitter has a similar amendment. Senator Corker also 
has an amendment that would make participation in the TAG Program 
voluntary so banks don't have to pay premiums for insurance they don't 
use. Senator Wicker has an amendment that would limit the term and 
exposure of the extension of the TAG Program.
  Other Members on both sides of the aisle have additional amendments 
that are relevant to this bill. No Senators, however, Republican or 
Democrat, will get to offer any of these amendments because of the 
autocratic manner in which the Democratic majority is handling this 
legislation, which is, by the way, the same way they have handled the 
previous bills nearly 70 times.
  Within 2 minutes, after blocking out all amendments, the Democratic 
leadership filed cloture on the bill so our friends could end debate on 
this legislation before it even began. This procedural hard ball, like 
blocking out all amendments by filling the amendment tree, is all too 
common.
  This is the 107th time the Democratic majority has moved to cut off 
debate

[[Page 16737]]

on a matter, be it a bill, an amendment, or a conference report, on the 
very same day--the very same day the Senate began considering the 
matter. And to boot, this is a bill that never went through committee. 
Like so many other bills the Senate has considered under the Democratic 
majority, it was written behind closed doors. This has happened nearly 
70 times as well.
  In short, what happened on this bill is a prime example of the 
Democratic leadership's hat trick: bypass the committee process to 
write a bill behind closed doors; prevent anyone, Republican or 
Democrat, from representing their constituents by offering an 
amendment; and then move to end debate on the bill--again, this is a 
bill that never went through committee and that no one was allowed to 
amend--on the very same day the Senate takes up the bill. The 
Democratic leadership, no doubt, likes running the Senate this way 
because it gives them nearly total control--nearly total control--or, 
as they prefer to describe it, this approach is ``efficient.'' 
Efficient. Now that they are no longer in the minority, this is what 
they believe the Senate should aspire to be.
  One can describe this heavyhanded approach in a lot of ways, but you 
can't say it comports with their promise to respect minority rights. 
You certainly can't say it is an example of the golden rule, and you 
can't say it resembles anything like how the Senate used to be run, how 
the Senate is supposed to be run, and how our Democratic colleagues 
promised they would run it. The heavyhanded way the Democratic majority 
is handling this bill is a prime example of the fact that we don't have 
a rules problem around here, we have an attitude problem around here.
  So I would call on my Democratic colleagues--especially those who are 
not in the leadership and who have the experience and wisdom that comes 
from serving in the minority--to work with us to get the Senate back to 
how it is supposed to function. I urge them not to be complicit in 
irreparably changing the Senate as an institution that respects the 
rights of the minority and the views of the constituents whom the 
minority represents.
  Madam 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.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________