Floor Statements

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour before resuming consideration of the Keystone bill. Senators should expect votes on pending amendments to the bill after lunch today. Votes are possible into the evening tonight as well as during tomorrow morning's session of the Senate. We need to make progress on this bill and all Members should expect a busy day.

Mr. President, the Senate, as I indicated, will continue its work on the Keystone jobs bill today. It is great to see a real debate on the floor of the Senate again. We saw some action in the Chamber yesterday and even some unpredictability. We saw how democracy in the Senate has looked many times in the past. It is great to see both sides able to offer amendments once more.

I know many of our Democratic friends have been ready to give more of a voice to their constituents too. I know they have been waiting for this moment for some time. The assistant Democratic leader said he welcomes our vision of the Senate where Members ``bring amendments to the floor, debate them, vote on them, and ultimately pass legislation,'' and that is what we are doing.

Another Democratic colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, said he was ``very excited'' about the prospect of an open amendment process. He also noted that it gave Members of his party a valuable opportunity to pursue some of their own priorities through the legislative process.

The Senator makes an important point about the more open Senate we are working toward. A more open Senate presents more opportunities for legislators with serious ideas to make a mark on the legislative process. It can give Members of both parties a real stake in the ultimate outcome of the bill on the floor. And because it does, it represents one of our best avenues to secure passage of sensible legislation centered on jobs and the middle class. That is something we should all want.

So I hope Members in both parties will help us continue our efforts to make the Senate function better. That would be a good thing for our country. It would represent a change from the kind of Senate we have seen in recent years. And it would represent a positive step forward, not just for Congress but for the people we represent.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, many have now heard the sad news that one of the giants of Kentucky politics passed away last night. Wendell Ford first came to the Senate in the 1970s, calling himself just ``a dumb country boy with dirt between his toes.'' But over a distinguished two-decade career, this workhorse of the Senate would prove he was anything but.

I had the opportunity to watch my Senate colleague up close as he ascended to leadership in his party and established himself as a leader on issues of importance to my State. A proud Kentuckian who rose from page in the statehouse to Governor of the State, Ford shaped the history of the Commonwealth in ways few others had before him.

He never forgot the lessons about hard work he learned while milking cows or tending to chores on the family farm. This World War II veteran never backed down from a fight either.

We imagine he approached his final battle with the same spirit. Elaine and I, and I am certain I speak for the entire Senate, send our condolences to his wife Jean--Mrs. Ford, as Wendell often called her-- and the rest of the Ford family at this difficult time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 24

Mr. President, I would like to remind everybody these are supposed to be 10-minute rollcall votes. To the extent that you do not make it in the 10 minutes, you inconvenience everybody else. I would hope people would be respectful of their colleagues and stay close to the floor and vote during the 10 minutes.

We have actually reached a milestone here that I think is noteworthy for the Senate. We just cast our 15th rollcall vote on an amendment on this bill, which is more votes--more rollcall votes on amendments than the entire Senate in all of 2014.

I particularly want to commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell for their fair and open process that has been engaged in. This is the way the Senate ought to work.

Now the question I know on everyone's mind is: What do we do next? Right? It is Thursday night. We have a current tranche of amendments. We are having a little difficulty getting our friends on the other side of the aisle to offer their amendments so they can be considered.

In order to consider amendments, they need to be offered. So here is where we are for the evening: We are going to finish this tranche. Chairman Murkowski is interested in setting up an additional tranche of amendments tonight. Once she has been able to set up an additional tranche of amendments for tonight, we will be able to announce the way forward for later.

I thank my friend from Illinois. He is entirely correct. We are open for business. When we finish this tranche, I hope Senators on both sides who have additional amendments to be considered will come and offer them.

After we get an additional tranche of amendments that are pending, then I think we will be in a better position to announce the way forward.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 27

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 78, as Modified

I object.

Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Can we have order in the Senate.

The Senate is not yet in order, Mr. President.

My colleagues, here is the situation. Earlier today we cast our 15th rollcall vote on this bill. That is more votes than we had on all amendments on the floor--rollcall votes--throughout all of 2014. We have now voted on 19 rollcall amendments, and here is the situation in which we find ourselves at 10 o'clock on Thursday night. There are 12 amendments pending--6 Democratic amendments and 6 Republican amendments--but our good friends on the other side will not agree to vote on their own amendments.

So we find ourselves in a unique situation. We have opened up the Senate for amendments for both sides. Our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, have had more rollcall votes on amendments than all of last year combined. Yet our Democratic friends don't even want to agree to vote on the amendments they have pending.

We are left with only one way to avoid having to invoke cloture on each amendment, which would tie up the Senate for weeks, in order to provide our colleagues on the other side an opportunity to vote on the amendments they said they wanted to vote on. So there is really only one way to go forward, and so what I am going to do is ask unanimous consent that starting at 10 o'clock the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Sullivan No. 67, Cardin No. 75, Murkowski No. 98, Reed No. 74, Flake No. 103, Leahy No. 30; Cruz No. 15, Whitehouse No. 28, Moran No. 73, Carper No. 121, Daines No. 132, and Markey No. 25; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and that no second-degrees be in order to the amendments. I ask consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all votes after the first in the series be 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, let me just say one more time, I think everybody understands. What we have here are at least six Democratic amendments that presumably they understand because they offered them. I assume they know what is in them because they wrote them and offered them. Yet they do not want to vote on them.

We have been on this bill for a while. We have already had more rollcall votes on this bill than the entire Senate had on every bill through the whole year of 2014. I think it is time that we start moving forward.

So since there is an objection to setting votes on the pending amendments, there is really only one way to ensure a vote on these amendments absent a cloture motion, which I was explaining earlier. If we had to file cloture on each of these amendments, we would be on them for weeks trying to help our friends on the other side get votes on amendments they offered.

So given the fact that they are reluctant to vote on their own amendments, which presumably they understand, the only way to go forward is to table their amendments. So I, therefore, intend to begin tabling the pending amendments, ensuring a vote on the proposals they have offered, which presumably they understand, but moving the process along tonight.

For a question only, without losing the floor.

I am not suggesting we are not working on Friday. I am suggesting we are working tonight.

Well, I have not said anything about Friday. Did anybody hear me say anything about Friday? We are talking about right now.

Amendment No. 25

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to Carper amendment No. 121.

I move to table the Carper amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Objection.

Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to the Whitehouse amendment No. 28.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

I call for regular order with respect to Leahy amendment No. 30.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I call for regular order with respect to Reed amendment No. 74.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I send a cloture motion on the underlying bill to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. Friday, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Sullivan No. 67, Cardin No. 75, Murkowski No. 98, Flake No. 103, Cruz No. 15, Moran No. 73, and Daines No. 132; further, that all amendments on the list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and no second degrees be in order to the amendments. I ask consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all votes after the first in the series be 10-minute votes.

Does the Senator from Illinois intend to object to my consent?

We just had votes on Democratic amendments that the Senator's Members offered and he didn't want to agree to have a vote.

Am I correct the Senator from Illinois is going to object?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the next vote will be Monday, at 5:30 p.m. The assistant Democratic leader and I have agreed to announce no more votes tonight.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great Kentuckian and a man who has dedicated his entire career to promoting civil rights and helping people. My good friend Ben Richmond, the longtime president and CEO of the Louisville Urban League, recently announced his impending retirement from that position. Mr. Richmond has served as president and CEO of the Louisville Urban League for nearly 30 years-since 1987.

Mr. Richmond is a civil rights champion who has led a venerable civil rights institution such as the Louisville Urban League to new heights. Under his tenure, the Louisville Urban League has promoted job training and education for many in Louisville's African-American community. His body of work is so outstanding that in 2007 he received from the city the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Award, a recognition for a local activist who is dedicated to King's principles and who has promoted peace, equality, and justice.

Since Mr. Richmond took over the Louisville Urban League, the staff has grown from around 20 to 30 and the annual budget grown from under $1 million to around $3.3 million. Mr. Richmond is the driving force for fundraising for the budget.

The Louisville Urban League placed more than 200 people in jobs last year with a combined annual income of nearly $5 million. It helped about 1,000 prepare for finding employment through career expos, job training, referrals, and career counseling. It also has many programs to help youth and seniors.

The Louisville Urban League is nearly halfway towards realizing their goal of seeing 15,000 local African Americans earn college degrees between 2012 and 2020. Mr. Richmond oversaw the Louisville Urban League's move to a new headquarters in 1990. And under Mr. Richmond's tenure, the Louisville Urban League was just one of 13 Urban League affiliates nationwide to receive a top score in a self-audit required by the National Urban League.

We are lucky, that after his retirement, Mr. Richmond plans on staying in Louisville. Our city can continue to benefit from his wisdom and experience. I want to wish my good friend Mr. Ben Richmond all the best in retirement, and I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Ben for his successful tenure at the helm of the Louisville Urban League. The city of Louisville and the State of Kentucky have certainly benefitted immeasurably by his many efforts over the decades.

The Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper recently published an article extolling Mr. Ben Richmond's many accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 38, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 4:30 p.m., Monday, January 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1. I further ask that notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments be at 3 p.m. on Monday, with second degrees at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, the next vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. If Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell can reach an agreement for additional votes on amendments, those could be scheduled for Monday night as well.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 38 as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator Wendell H. Ford of Kentucky.

Mr. President, today the Senate is continuing to consider S. 1, a bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and there are six amendments pending, three from each side. We will begin voting on those amendments as soon as Chairman Murkowski and Senator Cantwell work out an orderly schedule. Senators should expect votes throughout the day in relation to these amendments and any others in the queue.

Mr. President, last night, the American people heard two very different addresses. One was focused on the middle class and how Washington can work together in a serious way for better jobs, higher wages, and more opportunity. It was a call for constructive cooperation. It was a call for new ideas.

I wish to commend Senator Ernst for her thoughtful address. She understands the needs of working people in a way those of a particular mindset in Washington simply don't understand. She knows that the middle class is looking for Washington to function again and that hard- working Americans want DC to focus on their needs instead of the demands of powerful special interests. That is just what they told us in November when they sent this new Republican Congress here on their behalf.

I was hoping for something similar from President Obama--not identical, of course. We don't agree on all the issues; that is clear enough. But there are enough areas of common ground where we should be able to work together. It would have been most constructive if he had put the focus of his address on those areas of potential agreement. The moment of high purpose called for the leader of the free world to show America what could be accomplished through constructive, bipartisan engagement.

The State of the Union can be about more than veto threats or strident partisanship. This kind of partisanship is what we have become accustomed to from the President. We know the President may not be wild about the people's choice of a Congress, but he owes it to the American people to find a serious way to work with the representatives they elected.

On some issues, such as cyber security, he sent a positive sign. He also began what I hope will be a sustained effort to move his own party forward to encourage them to work with us to help create more jobs by breaking down foreign trade barriers and allowing America to sell more of what it makes and grows.

Those were the good signs. But that was only part of the speech. There is not a lot serious lawmakers can do with talking points designed specifically not to pass. Members in both parties would have welcomed serious ideas about how to save and strengthen Medicare, how to protect Social Security for future generations, and how to balance the budget without tired tax hikes.

We listened closely for specific details on how he would work with both parties to achieve comprehensive tax simplification that focuses not on growing the government but on creating jobs.

The President has expressed some support for ideas such as this previously. He should have expanded on it last night. There is still time for him to do it. But whatever he chooses, the new Congress will continue working to send good ideas to his desk.

One of those good ideas is a bipartisan infrastructure project the Senate will resume working on today--the Keystone jobs bill. It is heartening to see a real debate and an amendment process on the floor of the Senate again. It is a result of a new spirit of reform that is being brought to Congress. It aims to give Members of both parties a stake in positive solutions so we can get Washington functioning again on behalf of our people.

We are looking to the President to join us in our positive mission for the middle class. It is what the American people just voted for last November. It

is what Senator Ernst articulated so well last night. And if the President is willing to put the veto threats away and the designed-to- fail talking points aside, we can still cooperate to get some smart things done for the people we represent.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.