On the recordAugust 4, 2015
The Republican leader is my friend, and I don't mean in any way to disparage him, other than to bring out a little bit of history. I can't imagine how he can make this offer with a straight face. Have amendments pending? That is like nothing. We tried that before, as recently as the highway bill. Having amendments pending doesn't mean anything. We want to pass a good cyber security bill. We have a bill that has been crafted in the intelligence committee. Other committees have been interested in participating in what we have here on the floor, but they are willing to say: OK. We have a bill from the intelligence committee. There have been no public committee hearings, no public markups. There has been nothing done other than a rule XIV which, of course, my friend said he would not do if he got to be the leader and there would be a robust amendment process. Having a robust amendment process has nothing to do with having amendments pending. We want to pass a good bill. But we want to have a reasonable number of amendments, and there will be votes on those amendments. We are not asking for longtime agreements. The Republican leader's proposal would not lead to votes on the amendments. He would allow the amendments to be pending, but if the Republican leader were to file cloture, as he has done repeatedly the last few months--and an example is what he did with the recent highway bill--all amendments that were not strictly germane would fall.…





