Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 568, 569, 565, and 571.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I will read into the Record--maybe tonight, but if not, I will do it Monday--statements made in the past by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee where he talked in detail about how foolish it would be to have cloture on nominations for judges--his exact words.

I am disappointed that there has been an objection, but as I indicated yesterday, we are in groundhog year. Why would this next week be any different than the rest of this year?

They have objected and obstructed--they meaning the Republicans in the Senate--everything. Look at what we just finished--and I mean finished. We just finished a bill that had been worked on for a long time by the junior Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

This is a bill that would help veterans. No one disputes the bill would help veterans. All 26 veterans organizations, including the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, supported that legislation--plus 24 other veterans organizations. So what happens over here with the Republicans? They figured out a way to say no. They always do that. But the way they say no is to obstruct, and that is what they did on this veterans bill.

I hope every veteran in America understands the fact that we had something that would improve the lives of the fighting men and women who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and those Asian veterans from Vietnam and some from Korea and some from World War II who are still with us. Because of the continual obstruction over here to do anything they can to slow down the Obama administration, they are even willing to hurt veterans.

This was a bill that didn't take a single penny. It was paid for with leftover war money. We agreed to have amendments, but that is just all hot air from the Republicans. We would be willing to do these bills if they would allow us to have amendments, and they figured out a way to say no again.

So we have to invoke cloture on district court judges that my friend, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has said time and time again should not happen.

Either tonight or Monday I will read verbatim into the Record what he has said in the past.

I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 659.

Mr. President, there is a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived for the cloture motion with respect to Calendar No. 659.

I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, there is a cloture motion at the desk and I ask it be reported.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I now move to proceed to legislative session.

There is a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I move to proceed to legislative session.

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I now move to proceed to legislative session.

I ask the clerk to report the cloture motion, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, is the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 309, S. 1086, now pending?

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I filed cloture on the childcare block grant. I have every assurance from my Republican colleagues that this vote will not be necessary. I hope that is the case. It would be great if we could vitiate that and move and start legislating.

I believe that will be the case. Sometimes it is a long time from today to next Wednesday, when a vote would occur. I really do believe it will not be necessary. I hope that is the case.

I indicated that I would say a few words about the man that does all of the objecting, or a lot of the objecting around here. We had the Senator from Kansas, the junior Senator from Kansas come and say he objected to these judges being approved because the senior Senator from Iowa, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, asked him to do so.

In recent days Senator Grassley has criticized my management of the Senate floor regarding nominations. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has said that I am responsible for the gridlock because of filibuster reform over the overuse of cloture. The past statements and recent actions of my friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, reveal his obvious either misunderstanding of what he said in the past or--I will leave it at that. There are a lot of terms that I could use, but I will not use them.

These are things that he has said in the past that obviously he did not mean at the time or he has forgotten what he said. He once stood on the floor and said he was strongly in favor of up-or-down votes on all nominations. He even said, ``Filibustering the nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage influence in the Senate.''

That is what the man who is doing all of the objecting said before. He also said:

It is just plain hogwash to say that moving to make sure

the rule is to give judicial nominees an up-or-down vote will

hurt our ability to reestablish fairness in the judicial

nominating process. It is not going to hurt minority rights.

These are direct quotes from him:

It establishes what we call regular order and as it has

been for 214 years. It will be fair both to Republicans and

Democrats alike. All the majority leader wants to do is have

a chance to vote on those nominees up or down.

He could be easily talking about me. Maybe in the past he was talking about Senator Frist or Senator Lott. But it does not matter who has this job. That is what he is talking about:

All the majority leader wants is to have a chance to vote

these nominees up or down. If these individuals do not have

51 votes, they should be rejected. But if these individuals

do have 51 votes, then they should be confirmed. That is

according to the Constitution.

That is what he said. He said it here in May a few years ago, May 23. He also said--this is another quote.

Let's debate the nominees and give our advice and consent.

It's a simple yea or nay when called to the altar to vote.

Filibustering a nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare

and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage and

influence the Senate. Threatening to grind the legislative

activity to a standstill if they don't get their way is like

being a bully in the schoolyard playground.

He said that. The senior Senator from Iowa said that. He further said:

Let's do our jobs. Nothing is nuclear about asking the full

Senate to take an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees.

I'm not making this up. This is what he said, the man who has the audacity to come here to the floor and object, saying what a terrible thing it is that we are having up-or-down votes on these judges.

He went on to say:

It is the way the Senate has operated for years. The

reality is that Democrats are the ones who are turning Senate

tradition on its head by installing a filibuster against the

President's judicial nominees.

That is what he said. He slows down Senate business even on nominees he supports. How do you like that? This week alone, the senior Senator from Iowa repeatedly voted against cloture on nominations he then supported moments later: Beth Freeman, Northern District of California; James Donato, Northern District of California; James Moody, Eastern District of Arkansas; Jeffrey Meyer, Connecticut.

He voted to invoke the filibuster rule and then turns right around and votes for those judges. His obstruction, though, I am sorry to say, is not limited to nominations. When the Senate considered S. 744, the comprehensive immigration bill, Senator Grassley objected to consideration or adoption of Republican or bipartisan amendments on at least four occasions.

When challenged, Senator Grassley admitted to violation of Senatorial courtesy. Here is what Senator Leahy said:

Is it not a fact that the first amendment that was brought

up here was a bipartisan amendment of mine and Senator Hatch?

Shortly thereafter, the Senator from Iowa came with an

amendment. Following normal courtesy, I allowed mine to be

set aside so he could bring up his. So isn't it a fact that

we asked if he might set it aside for some noncontroversial

amendments on either side? He told me he could not. The

Senator is correct.

You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth unless somebody understands they are listening to what you say both times. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Iowa, he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The people of Iowa should check this out and see what he said and what he does.

So he can come and criticize all he wants--criticize me. But it should be based upon facts, not standing his own statements on their head. He can't have it both ways.