Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 481.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to consider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Tuesday, June 24, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that following morning business the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. There will be five rollcall votes at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order following the 10-minute remarks from the Senator from Arizona Mr. Flake.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. The Republicans will control the first half and the majority will control the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4660. There was a lot of conversation about how to move forward on this yesterday, but by late last night a way of moving forward was not obtained. We are still working on that. We expect to begin consideration of the bill around 12:45 p.m. today, something like that.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Last weekend there was something strange and unusual happening out in Southern California near a place called Dana Point, which is north of San Diego. The previous night's guests were being ushered off the premises by hotel security. A private security team moved onto the property, setting up checkpoints. The hotel employees could be seen sweeping the rooms for electronic listening devices, and dozens of wealthy men and women were led into the resort, registering to attend an event deceptively entitled ``T&R Annual Sales Meeting.'' This meeting, once started, turned into a multiple-day event. It was closed to all spectators, journalists, and all those not explicitly invited. No official itinerary was available and details have not been forthcoming. There were at least two Senators slated to attend and they did attend, but their offices have refused to comment on their participation. After all, attendees were sworn to secrecy--high levels of security, concealment, deception, and oaths of silence. That doesn't sound anything like a typical conference. It sounds more like a cult. But instead of being a religious movement or a secret sect, this is a cult of money, influence, and self-serving politics. This is the cult of Koch, and I am referring to the Koch brothers. At their twice-yearly secret donor retreat, Charles and David Koch raise millions--millions and hundreds of millions--of dollars they then use to pursue their radical agenda--and it is radical. This year's conference was especially important to the Koch brothers as they coordinate efforts to spend hundreds of millions of dollars dictating this year's elections. But why cloak their message in secrecy? In his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Charles Koch invited his critics to ``try to understand my vision for a free society.'' It is easy to understand. Look at the Libertarian run he had for Vice President in 1982. They laid out what they wanted to do: privatize Social Security, basically do away with government. So to his critics he said, ``Try to understand my vision of a free society.'' That is pretty easy to do. How could we possibly understand the Kochs' vision, though, when they and their loyal followers try to do everything in secrecy? They hide from America. The truth is the Koch brothers are concealing their massive fundraising because Americans overwhelmingly oppose the purchase of our country. Our country shouldn't be for sale, and it isn't for sale, and I think in a little less than 5 minutes that can be proven. Instead of making the case directly to the American people, the Koch brothers funnel unseemly amounts of money into elections, trying to elect representatives who will do their bidding. Again in the paper today, they have all these phony organizations they fund. It is just a way to hide the agenda of the Koch brothers. They don't want their name to appear. They want to do everything they can to mislead the American people. The influence of unlimited spending on a political system is not right. It allows individuals to dictate their will on the American electoral process, and in this instance in secret. This unlimited campaign spending disenfranchises Americans who don't have the resources to go tit-for-tat with two of the richest men in the world. When the minority leader was a freshman Senator, he also took exception to the limitless spending of special interests. He said: If the American public thinks that special interests are having undue influence on the process, then get rid of the PACs. I will be more than happy to eliminate PACs altogether. But I guess times have changed. Now the Republican leader rails against campaign finance reform when in the past he was in favor. There should be no surprise that he attended the Kochs' planning session this past weekend. Evidently Senator McConnell no longer believes that special interests have an undue influence on our government. But he wasn't the only member to attend the Koch extravaganza. The junior Senator from Florida found the time to fly across the country and kiss the ring of the Republican Party's billionaire benefactors and, among other things, told them how outrageous it is that people are talking about the climate changing, that the Earth is warming. I am sure the junior Senator got a lot of applause there, even though we were not able to hear the applause because it is all very secret. What else should we expect? The decisions by the Supreme Court have left the American people with the status quo in which one side's billionaires are pitted against the other side's billionaires--except one side doesn't have any billionaires. We must undo the damage done by the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance decisions, and we need to do it now. That is why I support the constitutional amendment sponsored by Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado. This constitutional amendment grants Congress the authority to regulate and eliminate the raising and spending of money for Federal elections. Senators Udall and Bennet's amendment will rein in the massive spending of super PACs which have grown so much since the Citizens United decision in January of 2010. This constitutional amendment also provides States with the authority to institute campaign spending limits at the State level. Simply put, a constitutional amendment is what this Nation needs to bring sanity back to political campaigns and to restore Americans' confidence in their elected leaders. Let's put an end to the cult of darkness which is corrupting our elections. It is time we revive our constituents' faith in the electoral system and let them know their voices are being heard.

Mr. REID. Be happy to.

Mr. REID. We are already seeing it, I am sad to say. In one State the Koch brothers have spent almost $20 million against one Senator, and they say that is just the beginning. America should not be for sale. I agree with the Republican leader when he said there should be limits put on this. I agreed, as I read the quote from his earlier remarks, it is not right. Now we have two of the richest men in the world trying to buy America, and they are not only trying to buy Senate seats and House seats, there are votes on secretaries of state around the country, State legislatures. They have far more money than virtually every government and they want to have their view of government be the law: Privatize Social Security, do away with the Internal Revenue Service, and on and on with their money-buying program to convince the American people that the Koch brothers are right. Mr. President, I would also say this through the Chair to my friend. They not only have all these entities I have talked to you about, they give money to the Chamber of Commerce. I am sure they were their largest contributor. Why? Because the Chamber of Commerce runs ads against us. I appreciate the question and I would like to go on a little longer but the Republican leader is here. I will close, but I deeply appreciate my friend who has been such an advocate on the Judiciary Committee and I hope very soon that the full committee reports on that resolution so we can move it on the floor.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 770, Aguilar; No. 538, Nichols, to be Ambassador to Peru; No. 766, McWatters, to be a Member of the National Credit Union Administration; and No. 712, which is Wormuth, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that postcloture time on the motion to proceed be considered expired; that the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed; that if the motion is agreed to, Senator Mikulski or her designee be recognized to offer substitute amendment No. 3244, which consists of the text of S. 2437, Calendar No. 411, division A; the text of S. 2438, Calendar No. 412, as division B; and the text of S. 2389, Calendar No. 390, as division C; provided further that for the consideration of division B, H.R. 4745, Calendar No. 430, and for the consideration of division C, H.R. 4800, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, be deemed House-passed text in H.R. 4660 for purposes of rule XVI; further, that the substitute amendment offered by Senator Mikulski or her designee be considered a committee amendment for the purposes of paragraph 1 of rule XVI; further, all amendments or motions to commit be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Mr. President, before the Presiding Officer calls for approval of this consent, let me say a few words so everyone understands all of the procedural stuff. It is a fairly simple matter. We have waited all week to get a simple agreement to move forward on appropriations bills the way we have always done. If it had been just one appropriations bill we wouldn't need consent. We put three of them together, and that was the right thing to do. But it seems to me we spent all week doing, so much of the time, nothing. Sadly, I am sorry this is the norm around here. For every single matter, even wildly popular matters such as an appropriations bill, it requires the full play of the cloture rule to advance. This has been so even though on Tuesday, when cloture was invoked on proceeding, 95 Senators voted to get on the bill, only 3 voted against it. Senators on both sides said they want to have amendments, and we should have amendment votes. I am willing to have amendment votes on this and other things. Let's talk about this today. I want to have votes on the conditions that Senator McConnell has so frequently stated, a 60-vote threshold. The idea of a 60-vote threshold will not come as a surprise to anyone in this Chamber, I don't think, because I wish to take a minute outlining direct quotes from my friend the Republican leader. No. 1: Now, look, we know that on controversial matters in the Senate, it has for quite some time required 60 votes. No. 2: Requiring 60 votes, particularly on matters of importance, is not at all unusual. It is the way the Senate operates. No. 3: Matters of this level of controversy require 60 votes, so I will ask my friend [referring to me] if he would modify his consent request to set the threshold for this vote at 60. Again he said: For him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude in a body of 60 votes for almost everything is going to be done with 51 votes makes no sense at all. And he said: So it is not at all unusual that the President's proposal of this consequence would have to achieve 60 votes. That is the way virtually all business is done in the Senate, certainly not extraordinarily unusual. Finally he said, quite recently: Mr. President, I can only quote my good friend [again referring to me] who repeatedly has said--most recently that in the Senate, as has been the case, we need 60 votes. It requires 60 votes, certainly on measures that are controversial. So let's make this pretty simple. We are going to have the ability to offer germane amendments, and we will follow the McConnell rule and will have 60 votes on them. It seems fair. That is my consent request, and I would ask that it be approved.

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, my friend the Republican leader is obviously not in contact with what is going on around here. This doesn't apply to Republican amendments, it applies to Republican or Democratic amendments--as all of his requests, which are in the record and I read. A reasonable number of amendments he wants. Fine. That is what we want too. We want to have a reasonable number of amendments on this bill and move it forward. It is important we get this done. I have served in the House of Representatives--not without going into a lot of detail here, as the Presiding Officer has served in the House of Representatives. The rules there are totally different. Of course, there are a lot of votes because every vote is predetermined in the House, with rare exception, because the Rules Committee sets the boundaries of what happens. So over in the House the majority never loses. Here the Senate is the way it is. We are willing to do votes as the Republican leader has stated time and time again we should do it. I disagree, but as he has said, this is the way the Senate operates now. I wish it didn't, but it does and that is the way we should proceed. I am willing to move forward on this bill. We should have a 60-vote threshold, and I think that would be the appropriate thing to do. Therefore, I object.

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID. The House is different than the Senate. There is no question about that. We could have on this bill a lot more than seven votes, so we should do that. Would the Chair state the business that is before this body?

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told there is 7 minutes remaining postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4660.

Mr. REID. I yield that time back.

Mr. REID. If she wants to use the time, please do.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I know there are others who wish to speak, and if they want to use time remaining postcloture, fine; otherwise, I yield the time back, and the floor will be open for everybody. But I need to do that first. So, does anyone want to speak for the 2 minutes remaining on this? I ask unanimous consent that all time postcloture be yielded back.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 384, S. 2363.

Mr. REID. Madam President, my friend from Tennessee is a fine man. He has been a good Senator, a good member of a President's cabinet, and he really has tried to be a peacemaker all the time I have known him. But his speech that he just gave could be given by any Democrat about the obstruction, the delay, the diversions that have taken place during the entire time President Obama has been President. We have never had to file cloture on every motion to proceed as we did on this one, as we have done on everything that comes along. So we can talk about where we have been, but I think we should talk about where we are. Everyone knows that, because of the Republicans, there has been a threshold of 60 votes. But I say to my friend from Tennessee: I asked for my consent agreement. He says we are very close. With his skills of negotiating compromises, I am willing to listen to something else if he has a better idea to change the McConnell 60-vote threshold rule. I have some ideas myself, but perhaps they should come from him. I, on behalf of my caucus, am entirely agreeable to listen to any reasonable counteroffer. We have been trying really hard to get things done, but every step we take is a stalling tactic. My friend talked about ambassadors. I don't know the exact count--I haven't gotten it for a day or two--but the last count I had, 54 foreign ambassadors were held up. The continent of Africa, up to a third of the countries there do not have a U.S. ambassador. That doesn't count the scores of other people who are being held up. Why are they being held up? They are being held up because we are now able to move judges. Ambassadors related to judges is nearly empty. We have a few district court judges, and we have a circuit court judge. They will report some more out. But in an effort to--use whatever term you want--``We will show you guys. You are going to get your judges, and we are not going to give you any other nominations.'' So we are working through those very slowly. As much as I care and respect the Senator from Tennessee, he does not need to lecture me about stalling around here. We are not. If they want to beat the record of eight or nine amendments--however many it is-- move this bill. They will have lots of amendments. And we can start doing that this afternoon. So, Madam President, I repeat now for the third time: If my friend from Tennessee has a better idea on moving forward--he says we are so close--I am willing to listen to him.

Mr. REID

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. There is a cloture motion at the desk and I ask that it be reported.

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

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to legislative session.