[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8316-8320]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 8317]]

  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 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:

[[Page 8318]]

  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 
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.

[[Page 8319]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 8320]]

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.
  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 1990's 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 the 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 thousands 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.

                          ____________________