Media Stakeout with Mitch McConnell and Richard Burr - Scheduling Senate Votes Around Democratic Presidential Candidates' Schedules

Statement

Media Stakeout with Mitch McConnell and Richard Burr - Scheduling Senate Votes Around Democratic Presidential Candidates' Schedules

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, good afternoon, everyone.

You know, there's been a lot of talk lately about the -- what happens when the phone rings at 3:00 a.m. in the White House, but not nearly enough discussion of what happens if the phone rings at 3:00 p.m. here in the Senate. As you can see, the doors are closed and will remain closed all afternoon because the majority is trying to accommodate the schedule of their presidential candidates. Now, look, we understand people have to run for president and are not likely to be here much of the time, but to have the schedule of the Senate completely revolve around the schedule of the Democratic presidential candidates strikes me as particularly ridiculous.

This isn't the first time we've had this experience. Last June, when the -- there was a big labor meeting here in Washington, all the schedule was pushed aside, we went to the so-called card check, the issue of getting rid of the secret ballot in labor union elections, and did it at a time that could get the Democratic candidates for president back here. A month later, last July, we had a Code Pink/MoveOn rally. Once again, the presidential candidates were invited back, we had an all-night show and tell here on Iraq. And now, you know, we're staging this for another special-interest vote, this time for the plaintiffs' lawyers, with the Ledbetter vote.

So here we are, shut down, on a Wednesday afternoon, no action in the Senate, in order to accommodate the Democratic candidates for president's schedule.

Senator Burr.

SEN. BURR: Thank you, Mitch.

You know, I drew the short straw, so it's my bill that's been caught in the cross-hairs this time. It could have been any ranking member, any piece of legislation.

I'm the one that for the last 48 hours has been accused of stalling and holding up a veterans bill. I know better than anybody that I'm in the minority; that I'm not the one, and it's not Mitch McConnell, that decides when the Senate is open for business and when it's shut for business; that we have limited minority rights. And what I was trying to do is exercise the limited rights that we have as the minority to make sure that there was a full debate, to make sure that all members understood the history of the issue, to make sure that members that wanted to offer amendments had the opportunity to do it.

For 48 hours, I quietly took the criticism that the debate was unnecessary and that exercising your right as a member to offer amendments ought to be expedited. Then last night Senator Reid made a unanimous consent request that we go straight to consideration of the bill. I'm all for that. I wanted to do it first thing this morning. But he also wanted to change the Senate rules that require a filibuster to happen one hour after we reconvene the United States Senate.

I objected to that. I objected because I didn't think we needed to accommodate presidential candidates just to accommodate their schedules. The reality is that Senator Reid chose to delay the opening of the Senate until 5:00 this afternoon to accommodate the schedule of two candidates.

Senator Durbin said yesterday, and I quote, "I can't imagine there would be any delay in wanting to bring critical help to our veterans." Well, he's brought a delay to it. We could have had the opportunity to open up this morning. The veterans bill would be finished and we would have also taken care of the cloture motion that needed to happen.

He also said, and I quote, "It isn't fair. It isn't fair to the veterans who wait on important legislation like this." This was just yesterday. Well, apparently when allowing the minority its rights in the legislative process, it's not fair, but to accommodate presidential candidates to come back is just business as usual.

If that's the way the majority determines that they want to run the United States Senate, I'm confident the American people will seek a change in who runs the United States Senate. But I'm also confident that we will continue to protect the rights of the minority, the rights of all members that want to come to the Senate floor and debate legislation, the right of all members to amend legislation, and that that's what will take priority on what happens in the United States Senate, not the schedules of the presidential candidates.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Take a couple of questions, if there are any. Yeah.

Q Mr. Leader, do you accept the research that indicates there would not be an increase in -- (off mike) -- if this legislation became law?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Not be an increase in what?

Q (Off mike.)

Q (Off mike) -- Senator.

SEN. MCCONNELL: What?

Q The Congressional Budget Office has said there would not be an increase in -- (off mike).

SEN. MCCONNELL: You're talking about Ledbetter?

Q Yeah.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, I don't accept that. No one I know seriously believes there's any chance that that is not the case.

This is basically a vote that's important to what used to be called the American Trial Lawyers Association, the plaintiffs' bar. That's why they're having the vote.

Q Senator, what do you think about the president's --

SEN. MCCONNELL: Me?

Q -- Senator McConnell -- about the farm bill? He wants a one-year extension. Do you think that means that an agreement was unlikely or a veto was likely?

SEN. MCCONNELL: I think it doesn't mean anything more than what he said. I still hold out some hope that we're going to be able to get a farm bill. I think we're pretty close. And most of my members would rather get a farm bill than have a one-year extension. So that -- those discussions are still under way.

Okay, thanks, everybody.

Source