On the recordJuly 26, 2015
I have listened to the comments of my colleague, the junior Senator of Texas, both last week and this week, and I would have to say he is mistaken. First of all, if, in fact, the majority leader had somehow misrepresented to the 54 Senators what the facts are with regard to the Ex-Im Bank, I suspect we would find other voices joining that of the junior Senator, but I hear no one else making such a similar accusation. Secondly, I would just say to my colleague that there is an alternative explanation. There is an alternative explanation. As the majority leader has said time and time again, anytime 65 Senators want to do something here in the Senate, sooner or later they are going to get their way. Indeed, that represents the vote in support of the Ex-Im Bank--something I will end up voting against but where I realize that majorities will carry the day eventually. But if the rule the junior Senator from Texas is arguing for is embraced, we will lose all control of the Senate schedule; there will be chaos; and, indeed, we won't be able to meet simple deadlines, such as the one that exists on the 31st of this month with regard to the expiration of the transportation fund, because even after we close off debate, any Senator who wants to get a vote on an amendment will be entitled to do so. And that cannot be the rule. It is not the rule. It has never been the rule. And that is why what the junior Senator is attempting to do is so extraordinary.…
Source
govinfo.gov




