A resolution designating September 26, 2013, as "National Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day".

Mr. President, while I am looking for these quotes, let me ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m. today and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Our proposal was born out of the sincere belief that, even in today's hyper-partisan environment, it is still possible for Senators from both parties to work together to restore the deliberative traditions for which the Senate was once known. It took many days of discussions over two months among our group to reach an agreement we could present to our Leaders. We looked past our frustrations with the recent practices of the Senate and acted together for the sake of this vital institution. I would also like to thank our former and current Parliamentarians, Alan Frumin and Elizabeth MacDonough, who answered our questions and provided their expert advice throughout our discussions.

Perhaps the most significant reform in the bipartisan leadership proposal, as in our bipartisan proposal to the leadership, is a reform designed to end the abuse of the threat of a filibuster on the motion to proceed to a bill--that is, the abuse of the Senate's minority protections to obstruct the Senate from even taking up and debating legislation. Reform in this area is vital, because abuse of the rules on the motion to proceed has prevented the Senate from engaging in what our rules are supposed to promote: Debate of the important issues our nation must face. Over the previous two Congresses, we have had to hold 59 cloture votes on motions to proceed, and the very threat of the filibuster on the motion to proceed has on countless occasions derailed the Senate's legislative process. Reforming the procedures regarding the motion to proceed will allow this body to deliberate as it is intended to do.

The proposal before us will give the majority leader two alternatives to the method in the existing rules for proceeding to a bill. The first alternative, in the form of a standing order effective for the 113th Congress, would limit debate on the motion to proceed to 4 hours. When used by the majority leader, this alternative would guarantee consideration of some minority amendments. Specifically, two amendments each for both the majority and the minority would be the first amendments in order at the beginning of consideration of a measure. The order of those amendments would be the first minority amendment, the first majority amendment, the second minority amendment, and the second majority amendment. Each amendment would need to be disposed of prior to the offering of the next amendment in order. These amendments would not be subject to amendment or division, and if adopted, the amendments would be considered original text for purpose of further amendment. They could be tabled or filibustered. If an amendment is not offered in its designated order, the right to offer that amendment would be forfeited. Filing deadlines would occur on these amendments if a cloture motion is filed. If cloture is invoked, any of these amendments not offered prior to the expiration of post-cloture time could be offered and would be guaranteed up to 1 hour of debate.

The second alternative would allow the Senate to move quickly when both the majority and minority leaders agree we should proceed to a matter. Specifically, where eight Senators from each side, including the two Leaders, sign a cloture petition on the motion to proceed to a measure, then the cloture vote would occur the day following the filing of the motion with no post-cloture debate if cloture is invoked.

The bipartisan proposal before us would also reform the process of going to conference by collapsing the three motions currently required by the rules to be adopted in order to go to conference into a single motion and shrinking the cloture process on that conference motion from 30 to 2 hours. This change would be in the form of an amendment to the Standing Rules, and was part of our bipartisan group's recommendations to the leaders.

In addition, the proposal before us would reform the consideration of nominations. First, for district court nominations, it would reduce post-cloture time from 30 to 2 hours, as recommended by our bipartisan group of eight. Second, it would shrink the cloture process on subcabinet nominations by reducing post-cloture time from 30 to 8 hours. This change would be in the form of a standing order and would be effective for the 113th Congress.

When a few Senators threaten to filibuster or object to proposed unanimous consent agreements, those Senators should have to come to the floor to speak or object. Our bipartisan group's reform proposal urged the leaders to give notice that the existing rules of the Senate will be used more vigorously to force filibusterers to show up on the Senate floor to speak, and their colloquy on this matter reflects the leaders' intention to do so.

This proposal includes reasonable protections for the minority, and it reforms our procedures in ways that can end the gridlock that bedevils us. And as it accomplishes those important reforms, this proposal allows the Senate to avoid a process that would break the rules of the Senate and do untold damage to this institution. Amending our procedures in this way, without use of the nuclear option, avoids having the Senate go from gridlock to meltdown. I want to spend some time discussing this process because the issue is extremely important and not fully understood.

The greatest difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives is the approach to minority rights. Senate rules protect the rights of the minority and the House rules do not. With those rights, a minority or even a single Senator can influence the legislative process. Without those rights, a simple majority can render a minority irrelevant and powerless to influence the legislative process.

The current Standing Rules of the Senate spell out clearly the process by which the rules of the Senate may be amended. Rule 5 states that the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. Rule 22 states that an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting is required to end debate on a proposal to amend the rules.

Some Senators have argued that the Constitution empowers a simple majority of Senators to force a change in the rules at the beginning of a Congress, although the change would occur in violation of rule 5 and rule 22. Supporters of this position refer to this procedure as the ``constitutional option.'' Others, including many of us who have served here for longer periods of time in both the majority and in the minority, refer to it as the ``nuclear option'' because we can see the damage this procedure would do to the Senate. Indeed, many of us who are deeply concerned about its use vehemently opposed Republican threats to use this procedure in 2005.

How worried were we in 2005? Senator Kennedy was worried enough to tell his colleagues: ``By the time all pretense of comity, all sense of mutual respect and fairness, all of the normal courtesies that allow the Senate to proceed expeditiously on any business at all will have been destroyed by the preemptive Republican nuclear strike on the Senate floor . . . They will have broken the Senate compact of comity, and will

have launched a preemptive nuclear war.''

And here's what Senator Biden said on this floor: ``I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.''

Why were our esteemed former colleagues so concerned about walking this path? Here are some of the dangers inherent in the ``constitutional'' or ``nuclear'' option, and some explanation of why and how the Senate has consistently rejected this approach in the past.

Supporters of the nuclear option claim a simple majority of Senators can force a rules change at the beginning of a Congress, but do not argue that they can do so at other times. There is no basis for the argument that the beginning of a Congress enjoys a special status for rules adoption or amendment that the remainder of a term of Congress does not. If the Constitution grants a simple majority of Senators the right to amend the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a Congress, when and how does that majority lose that right? This temporal distinction cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. It makes no distinction as to when.

That provision of the Constitution, which governs the Senate, also governs the House. The House adopts its rules at the opening of every Congress, but it can and does amend its rules in the middle of a Congress. If the Constitution grants a simple majority of Senators the power to adopt rules, what would stop that simple majority from amending those rules in the middle of a Congress, just as our House colleagues do? And if that is the case, the Senate would no longer be able to fulfill its historic distinction of protecting the rights of the minority.

Some supporters of the constitutional or nuclear option claim that rule 22's supermajority threshold to end debate on a proposed rules change is unconstitutional because it inhibits the Senate from exercising its constitutional power to determine its rules under article I, section 5.

But the power to set its own rules is just one of the many powers granted the Senate by the Constitution. For instance, the Senate is empowered to provide advice and consent on nominations and to consider legislation to collect taxes, to pay the nation's debts, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Yet, filibusters have delayed or prevented the Senate from acting on those important measures and nominations that fall within the Senate's constitutional duties.

In testimony before the Senate Rules Committee, CRS expert Stanley Bach argued:

Adopting and amending its own rules is not the only thing,

and arguably not the most important thing, that the

Constitution empowers and expects the Senate to do. If

filibusters are unconstitutional because they impede the

Senate in its efforts to exercise its authority under section

5 of Article I to adopt or amend its rules, then why are

filibusters constitutional when they impede the Senate's

efforts to exercise its equally or more important authority

under Article I, especially section 8, to legislate on

matters committed to it and the House of Representatives?

In other words, if the filibuster of a rules change is unconstitutional, as nuclear option advocates contend, then a filibuster on any matter would also be unconstitutional because it would delay or prevent the Senate from discharging its constitutional duties. So by declaring the filibuster unconstitutional on a rules change, advocates of the nuclear option are thereby swinging the door wide open to eliminate the filibuster altogether from the Senate.

Some supporters of the nuclear option say that the Founders never intended for the Senate to have filibusters. They claim that the original Senate's rules included a motion for the previous question, which they further claim was used to end debate and bring a matter to an immediate vote. So, they argue, the early Senate supported the ability to close debate and bring a matter to immediate vote by simple majority vote.

The problem is that they have their history wrong. The early form of the motion for the previous question is unlike its modern day version. In the first Congress, both Chambers had a motion for the previous question in their rules--the Senate dropped the motion from its rules in 1806. But the early version of the motion was not used to bring a question to an immediate vote. The motion, which was phrased ``shall the question be now put,'' was used to suppress or postpone a question. It was moved by Senators who would then vote against the motion in order to suppress or postpone the pending question.

The modern day version of the motion for the previous question in the House serves as a simple majority cloture device. However, in the early House, just as in the Senate, if the motion for the previous question was decided in the negative, then the question was suppressed and the House moved on to other business; if the motion was decided in the affirmative, then the House would continue debate on the pending question, not immediately proceed to a vote. That practice continued until 1811, when a new precedent was set that the motion, when agreed to, would immediately end debate and bring a vote on the question. That was the origin of simple majority cloture in the House.

The early history of the motion for the previous question is set forth in the House of Representatives official guide to procedure, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House:

In early Congresses, the previous question was used in the

House for an entirely different purpose than it is today,

having been modeled on the English parliamentary practice. As

early as 1604, the previous question had been used in the

Parliament to suppress a question that the majority deemed

undesirable for further discussion or action. The Continental

Congress adopted this device in 1778, but there was no

intention of using it as a means of closing debate in order

to bring the pending question to a vote. Early

interpretations of the rule in the House were consistent with

its usage in the Continental Congress. (House Practice, page

690)

Just as in the House, the early Senate rules had a motion for the previous question, which, just as in the House, was used only to end debate and move to another matter, not put a question to an immediate vote. This motion was eventually dropped from the Senate rules. In his speech to the Senate on March 2, 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr recommended changes to the rules of the Senate. Among those, he suggested that the Senate drop the motion for the previous question on the basis that it was duplicative to the motion for indefinite postponement. The diary of John Quincy Adams contains the following account of Burr's speech:

He [Burr] mentioned one or two of the rules which appeared

to him to need a revisal, and recommended the abolition of

that respecting the previous question, which he said had in

the four years been only once taken, and that upon an

amendment. That was proof that it could not be necessary, and

all its purposes were certainly much better answered by the

question of indefinite postponement. (Memoirs of John Quincy

Adams, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. I, p. 365)

Supporters of the nuclear option often reference advisory opinions and rulings by Vice Presidents Nixon, Humphrey, and Rockefeller that the Senate may adopt its rules by simple majority vote at the opening of Congress. These advisory rulings and opinions were rendered during actual attempts to change the rules, but the proposed changes were rejected, for good reason.

For example, Vice President Nixon believed the constitution granted a simple majority of Senators the power to force a rules change in violation of Senate rules. In 1957, when an attempt to change the rules was made at the beginning of a new Congress, Nixon made reference to his belief, but his advisory opinion recognized no special status for the beginning of a Congress. Nixon believed a simple majority of Senators could amend the rules at any point during a Congress. In his advisory opinion, Nixon said, ``The Constitution also provides that `each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.' This constitutional right is lodged in the membership of the Senate and it may be exercised by a majority of the Senate at any time.'' Vice President Nixon also acknowledged that his opinion was merely advisory, and not binding upon the Senate.

Vice President Humphrey advised the Senate in 1969 that if a simple majority of Senators, but fewer than the two-

thirds required by the rules, voted to invoke cloture on a proposed rules change, then he would rule that cloture had been invoked. On January 16, 1969, the Senate voted 51-47 in favor of a motion to invoke cloture. Vice President Humphrey ruled that cloture had been invoked by the majority. Humphrey's decision was appealed and the Senate reversed Humphrey's decision by a vote of 53-45. In doing so, the Senate established a clear precedent rejecting Vice President Humphrey's ruling that a simple majority could end debate.

Supporters of the constitutional argument point to statements by Vice Presidents Humphrey and Rockefeller in 1967 and 1975, respectively. In both these instances, the Vice Presidents advised the Senate that tabling a point of order against a motion to end debate by simple majority would validate the motion to end debate and cause it to self- execute. It is my understanding that both former and current Senate Parliamentarians disagree with the advisory opinions of Humphrey and Rockefeller. Tabling a point of order lodged against a motion to end debate by simple majority does not validate that motion or cause it to self-execute. In tabling the point of order, the question simply recurs on the underlying motion, and that question is debatable. At the end of my remarks I intend to propound several parliamentary inquiries that, I believe, will address the errors of the Humphrey and Rockefeller rulings.

Let's examine more closely these two advisory rulings.

In 1967, it was Senator McGovern who offered a motion to end debate by a simple majority on the question of proceeding to a rules change. Senator Dirksen raised a point of order that the motion was out of order because it violated the rules of the Senate. Vice President Humphrey advised the Senate that if the Senate tabled the Dirksen point of order, that act would serve to validate the constitutionality of the McGovern motion. But in any event, the Senate rejected the motion to table the Dirksen point of order by a vote of 37-61. Then the Senate sustained Dirksen's point of order by a vote of 59-37. This is yet another example of the Senate establishing a clear precedent rejecting simple majority cloture of debate on a rules change.

Then, again, in 1975, the Senate faced a very similar question. Senator Mondale offered a motion that would end debate with a simple majority. Majority Leader Mansfield raised a point of order against the motion. Vice President Rockefeller advised that if the Senate tabled the Mansfield point of order, he would interpret that act as an expression of the Senate that the motion was proper--again, as I will show in a moment, a dubious position. After considerable intervening action and debate, the Senate ultimately sustained the Mansfield point of order by a vote of 53-43. Once again, the Senate established a clear precedent of its rejection of simple majority cloture of debate on a rules change.

The danger of the advisory rulings by Humphrey and Rockefeller in 1967 and 1975 is made clear in a grave warning issued by our former colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate and the author of its definitive history. During the debate in 1975 on the question of whether a simple majority could end debate on a proposed rules change, Senator Byrd gave the following remarks that I believe we should heed carefully today.

May I say to those of us on our side that the day may

come--although I hope it will not be in my time--when we will

be in the minority, and it will take only 51 Senators from

the other side of the aisle to stop debate immediately,

without one word, on some matter which we may consider vital

to our States or to the Nation. Let me show the Senate how

this would work. ...

Suppose it were the Bay of Tonkin resolution, which

involved a declaration of war by the Congress of the United

States. Any Senator could contrive his own--and I do not use

that word disrespectfully--any Senator could write a

similarly phrased divisible motion, a multiple motion, sent

it to the Chair and all someone would have to do is raise a

point of order, another Senator would move to table the point

of order; if the point of order were tabled, the matter,

without debate, would immediately be put to a vote. If a

majority were to sustain that vote, debate would be closed on

the basic motion to move to consideration of the matter, or

if the matter were already before the Senate, to proceed to

vote immediately on the matter without further debate.

Senator Byrd that same day said:

I must say that I have to disagree respectfully with the

Chair. We are today operating by the rules of the Senate,

which rules and precedents provide that a motion before the

Senate, against which a point of order has been made and

tabled, remains before the Senate and is debatable. I cannot

for the life of me understand how, in this instance, the

motion, if the point of order is tabled, will not still be

before the Senate and will not be debatable. I cannot

understand that. I cannot understand how the Chair can

logically state that the Senate, by this motion, and by

virtue of its tabling a point of order, which is a separate

matter, ipso facto shuts off debate on the motion.

Now, if we go down this road, I can guarantee that every

Senator in this body will rue this day ... Senators, do we

want to do it this way? If this is done today, it can be done

any day. If it can be done on this constitutional question,

it can be done on any other constitutional question. It can

be done on any other point of order the Chair wishes to refer

to the Senate for decision. ... I believe that there is a

danger here that, if Senators will reflect upon it for but a

little while, they can foresee a time when we would say that

we went the wrong way to achieve an otherwise very notable

purpose ... Put this power in the hands of a tyrannical

leadership, and a tyrannical majority of 51 Senators, and we

are going to be sorry on both sides of the aisle. (121

Congressional Record 3842-3844)

So in 1975, the Senate did what it has always done when confronted with the question of simple majority cloture on debate of a motion to amend the rules. It rejected it.

The reason that the constitutional approach to rules changes has never been implemented is that every time it has been attempted, the Senate has not gone along.

When Vice President Humphrey explicitly ruled that the Senate could end debate by a simple majority, the Senate voted to overturn that ruling. In those instances when a Vice President has advised that tabling a point of order against a motion to limit debate on a rules change by a simple majority amounted to Senate approval of that motion, the Senate has either voted to reject that interpretation outright or voted against tabling the point of order.

The very basis for minority rights in the Senate is the absence of simple majority cloture, which would allow a majority of Senators to end debate. The absence of simple majority cloture is the only ground on which a minority, and sometimes a single Senator, can stand to demand they be heard on any given issue.

I believe by the letter and spirit of our rules, and the history and practice of this body, the bipartisan leadership proposal before us merits support. But I also recognize that these arguments alone may not suffice for the millions of Americans who understandably do not know or care much about the procedures and rules of the Senate, and who have watched for the last 4 years with mounting frustration as abuse of those rules has obstructed progress and mired the Senate in seemingly endless delay.

The foundation of Democratic governance is rule by majority consent. Indeed, democracy arose as a response to centuries of rule by a privileged and self-interested minority imposing its will on the majority. And the need for a system that protects minority rights is counter-intuitive to many Americans, who find it hard to understand why the majority's will does not always carry the day in the Senate.

But while the foundation of our Democratic system is rule by the will of the people, our Founding Fathers were careful to enshrine protections against what they warned was a dangerous threat to true political liberty. They called it ``majority faction,'' the possibility that a majority of the public would, in pursuit of its own interests, infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens.

They crafted our system with a series of checks and balances to protect against the dangers of majority faction. And since the founding, many of the most important steps forward for our country have involved protecting minorities from the harms of majority faction.

The giants of the Senate have recognized the vital importance of protecting minority rights. Senator Daniel Inouye was rightly eulogized recently in this chamber as a wise and experienced presence in the Senate. He demonstrated that wisdom from the very beginning of his career here. In

his maiden speech on this floor, he implored the Senate to preserve its protections for minority views, even when those protections allowed a misguided minority to obstruct our Nation's progress. This is what he said:

The philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

is not simply to grant the majority the power to rule, but is

also to set out limitation after limitation upon that power.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion:

What are these but the recognition that at times when the

majority of men would willingly destroy him, a dissenting man

may have no friend but the law? This power given to the

minority is the most sophisticated and the most vital power

bestowed by our Constitution.

Understand what was taking place here. Senator Inouye spoke as the Senate was debating whether to weaken the rights of the Senate minority, so that the Senate majority could end grave injustice by enacting civil rights legislation. Senator Inouye, a man who had himself felt the pain of racial discrimination, even during and after his remarkable service to this nation during World War II, used his first speech on this floor to warn against the attempts ``to destroy the power of the minority . . . in the name of another minority.''

I want to make clear to my colleagues my belief that defense of the minority's rights in the Senate is not defense of the current use, and abuse, of those rights. It is not a defense of a few who threaten routinely to prevent consideration of judicial nominees unanimously approved in committee, or to prevent debate on legislation. We need to act so that the Senate can function again.

But we can't save the Senate by destroying its very nature and role. In the past, Senators strongly committed to reforming the Senate rules have been equally committed to preserving its institutional strengths. Listen to the words of Senator Mansfield, who, in 1967, worked to reform the cloture rule so the Senate would function more normally-- but, importantly, urged his colleagues not to pursue those reforms by the destructive means of establishing simple majority cloture to end debate on a rules change. While arguing strongly for reform, Senator Mansfield said, ``[The] urgency or even wisdom of adopting the three- fifths resolution does not justify a path of destruction to the Senate as an institution and its vital importance to our scheme of government. And this, in my opinion, is what the present motion to invoke cloture by simple majority would do.'' Senator Mansfield added: ``I simply feel the protection of the minority transcends any rule change, however desirable. . . . The issue of limiting debate in this body is one of such monumental importance that it reaches, in my opinion, to the very essence of the Senate as an institution. I believe it compels a decision by more than a majority.''

In 1975, Senator Byrd argued in favor of the rule change reducing the number of votes needed to end debate from 67 to 60. But he strongly opposed using simple-majority cloture of the debate on that rules change. ``I feel that a three-fifths cloture vote would protect the minority, protect the uniqueness of this institution, and preserve a fair and equitable way to close debate. But I am not for destroying the Senate as a unique institution in an effort to reach that end.''

In 2010, in testimony before the Rules Committee on this subject, Senator Byrd said:

During this 111th Congress, in particular, the minority has

threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for

Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to every

Senator's duty to act in good faith. I share the profound

frustration of my constituents and colleagues as we confront

this situation. The challenges before our nation are too

grave, too numerous, for the Senate to be rendered impotent

to address them, and yet be derided for inaction by those

causing the delays. . . . Does the difficulty reside in the

construction of our rules, or does it reside in the ease of

circumventing them? A true filibuster is a fight, not a

threat, not a bluff. . . . Now, unbelievably, just the

whisper of opposition brings the `world's greatest

deliberative body' to a grinding halt. . . . Forceful

confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the

antidote to the malady.

There have without question been times when a self-interested or hide-bound minority in the Senate has frustrated American progress. But there have also been times when a Senate majority has attempted to impose its will in ways that would have been harmful. Those instances resonate far less loudly when one is a supporter of a frustrated majority. But those of us who have served in the minority in this body, as I have for nearly half my time in the Senate, remember them well.

In the recent past, Senate Democrats in the minority used the protections afforded the minority to block a series of bills that would have unwisely restricted the reproductive rights of American women. We beat back special-interest efforts to limit Americans' ability to seek justice in our courts when harmed by corporate wrongdoing. We used those protections to seek an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. We used them to oppose the nomination of nominees to the Federal courts who we thought would do great harm to the law. Progressives distressed that the recent fiscal cliff agreement raised the estate tax exemption to more than $5 million should recall that without the protections afforded the Senate minority, a total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006. Forty- one Senators prevented that from happening.

Over the history of this body, giants of the Senate have repeatedly warned us against the danger of damaging, even with the best of intentions, the Senate's protections for minority rights and extended debate. Time and again, the Senate has heeded those warnings. While it is necessary to reasonably preserve those minority rights, it also is urgent that we restore the Senate's ability to function. Unless we do that, the Senate's character and function within our system of government will remain threatened by constant gridlock. The bipartisan proposal before us holds the promise of restoring the Senate's deliberative and legislative process, without going down a ``nuclear'' path that might severely damage the Senate in an attempt to save it. This proposal holds the promise of demonstrating to a nation hungering for bipartisan cooperation that we are capable of providing it. I urge my colleagues to embrace a bipartisan approach that will allow us to end the gridlock of which we have seen too much, and to do so with the bipartisan spirit of which our people have seen too little.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, the American people have been witness to one of the most breathtaking-- breathtaking--indictments of big-government liberalism in memory. And I am not just talking about a Web site. I am talking about the way in which ObamaCare was forced on the public by an administration and a Democratic-led Congress that we now know was willing to do and say anything--anything--to pass the law.

The President and his Democratic allies were so determined to force their vision of health care on the public that they assured them up and down that they would not lose the plans they had, that they would save money instead of losing it, and that they would be able to use the doctors and hospitals they were already using.

But, of course, we know that that rhetoric does not match reality. The stories we are hearing on a nearly daily basis now range from heartbreaking to comical. Just yesterday I saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying his dog--his dog--had qualified for insurance under ObamaCare. So, yeah, I would probably be running for the exits too if I had supported this law. I would be looking to change the subject--change the subject--just as Senate Democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations. If I were a Senator from Oregon, for example, which has not enrolled a single person--a single person--for the ObamaCare exchange, I would probably want to talk about something else too.

But here is the problem with this latest distraction: It does not distract people from ObamaCare. It reminds them of ObamaCare. It reminds them of all the broken promises. It reminds them of the power grab. It reminds them of the way Democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else--one set of rules for them and another for everybody else.

Actually, this is all basically the same debate, and rather than distract people from ObamaCare, it only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way--willing to do or say just about anything to get its way. Because that is just what they are doing all over again.

Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate--break the rules of the Senate--in order to change the rules of the Senate. And over what? Over what? Over a court that does not even have enough work to do?

Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law Washington Democrats forced upon them, and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges--a fake fight over judges--who are not even needed.

Look, I get it. As I indicated, I would want to be talking about something else too if I had to defend dogs getting insurance while millions of Americans lost theirs. But it will not work. The parallels between this latest skirmish and the original ObamaCare push are just too obvious to ignore.

Think about it. Just think about it. The majority leader promised--he promised--over and over that he would not break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. This was not an ancient promise. On July 14 on ``Meet the Press'' he said: ``We're not touching judges.'' This year, on July 14, on ``Meet the Press'': ``We're not touching judges.''

Then there are the double standards.

When Democrats were in the minority, they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without; namely, the right to extended debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them--to them--and another set to everybody else. He may just as well have said: ``If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them.'' ``If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them''--just the way so many Democrats in the administration and Congress now believe that ObamaCare is good enough for their constituents, but that when it comes to them, their political allies, their staffs, well, of course, that is different.

Let's not forget about the raw power--the raw power--at play here. On this point, the similarities between the ObamaCare debate and the Democratic threat to go nuclear on nominations are inescapable-- inescapable. They muscled through ObamaCare on a party-line vote and did not care about the views of the minority--did not care one whit about the views of the minority. And that is just about what they are going to do here.

The American people decided not to give the Democrats the House or to restore the filibuster-proof majority they had in the Senate back in 2009, and our Democratic colleagues do not like that one bit. They just do not like it. The American people are getting in the way of what they would like to do. So they are trying to change the rules of the game to get their way anyway. They said so themselves. Earlier this year, the senior Senator from New York said they want to ``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another''--``fill up the DC Circuit one way or another.''

The reason is clear. As one liberal activist put it earlier this year, President Obama's agenda ``runs through the DC Circuit.'' You cannot get what you want through the Congress because the American people, in November 2010, said they had had enough--they issued a national restraining order, after watching 2 years of this administration unrestrained--so now their agenda runs through the bureaucracy and through the DC Circuit.

As I said, in short, unlike the first 2 years of the Obama administration,

there is now a legislative check on the President. The administration does not much like checks and balances, so it wants to circumvent the people's representatives with an aggressive regulatory agenda, and our Democratic colleagues want to facilitate that by filling up a court that will rule on his agenda--a court that does not even have enough work to do, especially if it means changing the subject from ObamaCare for a few days.

And get this: They think they can change the rules of the Senate in a way that benefits only them. They want to do it in such a way that President Obama's agenda gets enacted but that a future Republican President could not get his or her picks for the Supreme Court confirmed by a Republican Senate using the same precedent our Democratic friends want to set. They want to have it both ways.

But this sort of gerrymandered vision of the nuclear option is wishful thinking. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Senator Grassley pointed out yesterday: If the majority leader changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court, as Senator Grassley pointed out yesterday.

Look, I realize this sort of wishful thinking might appeal to the uninitiated newcomers in the Democratic Conference who have served exactly zero days in the minority. But the rest of you guys in the conference should know better. Those of you who have been in the minority before should know better.

Let's remember how we got here. Let's remember that it was Senate Democrats who pioneered, who literally pioneered the practice of filibustering circuit court nominees, and who have been its biggest proponents in the very recent past. After President Bush was elected, they even held a retreat in which they discussed the need to change the ground rules by which lifetime appointments are considered. The senior Senator from New York put on a seminar, invited Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein. In the past the practice had been neither side had filibustered circuit court nominees. In fact, I can remember at Senator Lott's gagging several times and voting for cloture on circuit judges for the Ninth Circuit, knowing full well that once cloture was invoked, they would be confirmed.

So this business of filibustering circuit court judges was entirely an invention of the guys over here on the other side, the ones you are looking at right over here. They made it up. They started it. This is where we ended up.

After President Bush was elected, they held this retreat that I was just talking about and made a big deal about it. It was all a prelude to what followed, the serial filibustering of several of President Bush's circuit court nominees, including Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the DC Circuit was filibustered by Senate Democrats a record seven times--seven times. Now they want to blow up the rules because Republicans are following a precedent they themselves set.

I might add, we are following that precedent in a much more modest way than Democrats did.

So how about this for a suggestion? How about instead of picking a fight with Senate Republicans by jamming through nominees to a court that does not even have enough work to do, how about taking yes for an answer and working with us on filling judicial emergencies that actually exist?

Yet rather than learn from past precedent on judicial nominations that they themselves set, Democrats now want to set another one. I have no doubt if they do, they will come to regret that one as well. Our colleagues evidently would rather live for the moment, satisfy the moment, live for the moment, and try to establish a story line that Republicans are intent on obstructing President Obama's judicial nominees. That story line is patently ridiculous in light of the facts. That is an utterly absurd suggestion in light of the facts.

Before this current Democratic gambit to fill up the DC Circuit one way or the other, the Senate had confirmed 215--215--of the President's judicial nominees and rejected 2. That is a 99-percent confirmation rate. There were 215 confirmed and 2 rejected--99 percent.

Look, if advice and consent is to mean anything at all, occasionally consent is not given. But by any objective standards, Senate Republicans have been very fair to this President. We have been willing to confirm his nominees. In fact, speaking of the DC Circuit, we just confirmed one a few months ago 97 to 0 to the DC Circuit.

So I suggest our colleagues take a timeout, stop trying to jam us, work with us instead to confirm vacancies that actually need to be filled, which we have been doing. This rules change charade has gone from being a biannual threat, to an annual threat, now to a quarterly threat. How many times have we been threatened, my colleagues? Do what I say or we will break the rules to change the rules. Confirm everybody, 100 percent. Anything less than that is obstructionism. That is what they are saying to us.

Let me say we are not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer. If you think this is in the best interests of the Senate and the American people to make advice and consent, in effect, mean nothing--obviously you can break the rules to change the rules to achieve that. But some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.

This strategy of distract, distract, distract is getting old. I do not think the American people are fooled about this. If our colleagues want to work with us to fill judicial vacancies, as we have been doing all year--99 percent of judges confirmed--obviously we are willing to do that. If you want to play games, set yet another precedent that you will no doubt come to regret--I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you will regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

Let me be clear. The Democratic playbook of broken promises, double standards, and raw power, the same playbook that got us ObamaCare, has to end. It may take the American people to end it, but it has to end. That is why Republicans are going to keep their focus where it belongs, on the concerns of the American people. It means we are going to keep pushing to get back to the drawing board on health care, to replace ObamaCare with real reforms, to not punish the middle class, and we will leave the political games to our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that more than 200 judicial nominations have been confirmed by the Senate since 2009?

Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that under the bipartisan streamlining provisions of S. Res. 116 and S. 679 in the 112th Congress, the Senate removed 169 nominations from Senate consideration completely, moved 272 nominations to the Senate's expedited calendar, and removed from Senate consideration approximately 3,000 nominations for the NOAA officer corps and the Public Health Service?

I move to adjourn the Senate until 5 p.m. and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that under the bipartisan provisions of S. Res. 15, adopted earlier this year, postcloture debate time on a district court nomination is limited to 2 hours before an up-or-down vote is required under the rules?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Is it correct under the provisions of S. Res. 15, adopted earlier this very year, that postcloture debate time on any executive branch nomination other than those at the Cabinet level is already limited to 8 hours before an up-or-down vote is required under Senate rules?

Mr. President, one other parliamentary inquiry. When the Senate's rules were amended and a new standing order on consideration of nominations was established earlier this year, the majority leader and I engaged in a colloquy to announce that no further rules changes would be considered unless under the regular order and through the action of the Senate Rules Committee.

Would the Chair confirm that currently the rules of the Senate provide that a proposal to change the Senate rules would be fully debatable unless two-thirds of the Senators present and voting voted to invoke cloture, which would mean 67 Senators voting in the affirmative if all 100 voted?

Further inquiry: It is my understanding that prevailing on appeal of the ruling of the Chair would

change Senate precedent on how nominations are considered in the Senate and effectively change the procedures or application of the Senate's rules.

How many votes are required to appeal the ruling of the Chair in this instance?

So I am correct that overturning the ruling of the Chair requires a simple majority vote?

Mr. President, I make a point of order that nominations are fully debatable under the rules of the Senate unless three-fifths of the Senators chosen and sworn have voted to bring debate to a close. Under the precedent just set by the Senate, cloture is invoked at a majority. Therefore, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 243, S. 1356, the Workforce Investment Act of 2013.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. I filed cloture on that bill last night. As a result, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the bill is 1 p.m. today.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 1752

Mr. President, I am told S. 1752 is due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of our Iran sanction regime and believe that the current sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table.

I believe we must do everything possible to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons capability, which would threaten Israel and the national security of our great country.

The Obama administration is in the midst of negotiations with the Iranians that are designed to end their nuclear weapons program. We all strongly support those negotiations and hope they will succeed, and we want them to produce the strongest possible agreement.

However, we are also aware of the possibility that the Iranians could keep the negotiations from succeeding. I hope that won't happen, but the Senate must be prepared to move forward with a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill when the Senate returns after the Thanksgiving recess. I am committed to do just that.

A number of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, have offered their own amendments on Iran, and they have offered a couple of the amendments in the Defense authorization bill. I know other Senators also have their own sanctions bills they would like to move forward on.

I will support a bill that would broaden the scope of our current petroleum sanctions, place limitations on trade with strategic sectors of the Iranian economy that support its nuclear ambitions, as well as pursue those that divert goods to Iran.

While I support the administration's diplomatic efforts, I believe we need to leave our legislative options open to act on a new bipartisan sanctions bill in December, shortly after we return.

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

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

Mr. President, the American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right.

During this Congress--the 113th Congress--the United States has wasted an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction. As a result the work of this country goes undone.

Congress should be passing legislation that strengthens our economy and protects American families. Instead, we are burning wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters. I could say, instead, we are burning wasted days and wasted weeks between filibusters.

Even one of the Senate's most basic duties--confirmation of presidential nominees--has become completely unworkable. There has been unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction. For the first time in the history of our Republic, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing his executive team or confirming judges. It is truly a troubling trend that Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees, even when they have no objection to the qualifications of the nominee. Instead, they block qualified executive branch nominees to circumvent the legislative process. They block qualified executive branch nominations to force wholesale changes to laws. They block qualified executive branch nominees to restructure entire executive branch departments, and they block qualified judicial nominees because they don't want President Obama to appoint any judges to certain courts.

The need for change is so very obvious. It is clearly visible. It is manifest we have to do something to change things.

In the history of our country--some 230-plus years--there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama administration--so 230-plus years, 50 percent; 4\1/2\ years, 50 percent. Is there anything fair about that?

These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote--yes or no--but Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote--any vote--and deny the President his team.

Gridlock has consequences, and they are terrible. It is not only bad for President Obama and bad for this body, the Senate, it is bad for our country, it is bad for our national security, and it is bad for our economic security.

That is why it is time to get the Senate working again--not for the good of the current Democratic majority or some future Republican majority, but for the good of the United States of America. It is time to change. It is time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.

At the beginning of this Congress, the Republican leader pledged that, ``This Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress.''

We are told in the Scriptures--let's take, for example, the Old Testament, the Book of Numbers, that promises, pledges, a vow--one must not break his word.

In January, Republicans promised to work with the majority to process nominations in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances. Exactly three weeks later, Republicans mounted a first-in-history filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense.

Despite being a former Republican Senator and a decorated war hero, having saved his brother's life in Vietnam, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's nomination was pending in the Senate for a record 34 days--more than three times the previous average for a Secretary of Defense. Remember, our country was at war.

Republicans have blocked executive nominees such as Secretary Hagel not because they object to the qualifications of the nominee but simply because they seek to undermine the very government in which they were elected to serve.

Take the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There was no doubt about his ability to do the job. But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, went for more than 2 years without a leader because Republicans refused to accept the law of the land, because they wanted to roll back the law that protects consumers from the greed of Wall Street.

I say to my Republican colleagues: You don't have to like the laws of the land, but you do have to respect those laws and acknowledge them and abide by them.

Similar obstruction continued unabated for 7 more months, until Democrats threatened to change Senate rules to allow up-or-down votes on executive nominations. In July, after obstructing dozens of executive nominees for months--and some for years--Republicans once again promised they would end the unprecedented obstruction.

One look at the Senate's Executive Calendar shows that nothing has changed since July. Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no agreement had ever been reached. Again, Republicans have continued their record of obstruction as if no agreement had been reached.

There are currently 75 executive branch nominations ready to be confirmed by the Senate. They have been waiting an average of 140 days for confirmation.

One executive nominee to the agency that safeguards the water my children and my grandchildren drink and the air they breathe has waited almost 900 days for confirmation.

We agreed in July that the Senate should be confirming nominees to ensure the proper functioning of government.

Consistent and unprecedented obstruction by the Republican Caucus has turned ``advise and consent'' into ``deny and obstruct.''

In addition to filibustering a nominee for Secretary of Defense for the first time in history, Senate Republicans also blocked a sitting Member of Congress from an administration position for the first time since 1843.

As a senior Member of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Mel Watt's understanding of the mistakes that led to the housing crisis made him uniquely qualified to serve as Administrator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Senate Republicans simply do not like the consumer protections Congressman Watt was nominated to develop and implement, so they denied a fellow Member of Congress and a graduate of the Yale School of Law even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.

In the last 3 weeks alone, Republicans have blocked up-or-down votes on three highly qualified nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This does not take into consideration they twice turned down one of the most qualified people in my 30 years in the Senate who I have ever seen come before this body: Caitlin Halligan. So we have three more to add to that list.

The DC Circuit is considered by many to be the second highest court in the land, and some think maybe the most important. It deals with these complex cases that come from Federal agencies and other things within their jurisdiction.

Republicans have blocked four of President Obama's five nominees to the DC Circuit, whereas the Democrats approved four of President Bush's six nominations to this important court.

Today the DC Circuit Court--at least the second most important court in the land--has more than 25 percent in vacancies. There is not a single legitimate objection to the qualifications of any of these nominees to the DC Circuit that President Obama has put forward. Republicans have refused to give them an up-or-down vote--a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. Republicans simply do not want President Obama to make any appointments at all to this vital court--none, zero.

Further, only 23 district court nominations have been filibustered in the entire history of our country--23. And you know what. Twenty of them have been in the last 4\1/2\ years. Two hundred thirty-plus years: 3; the last 4\1/2\ years: 20. That is not fair. With one out of every 10 Federal judgeships vacant, millions of Americans who rely on courts that are overworked and understaffed are being denied the justice they rightly deserve.

More than half of the Nation's population lives in parts of the country that have been declared a ``judicial emergency.'' No one has worked harder than

the President pro tempore to move judges. The President pro tempore is the chairman also of the Judiciary Committee. No one knows the problem more than the President pro tempore.

The American people are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents-- are fed up with this gridlock, this obstruction. The American people want Washington to work for American families once again.

I am on their side, which is why I propose an important change to the rules of the U.S. Senate. The present Republican leader himself said-- and this is a direct quote--``The Senate has repeatedly changed its rules as circumstances dictate.''

He is right. In fact, the Senate has changed its rules 18 times, by sustaining or overturning the ruling of the Presiding Officer, in the last 36 years--during the tenures of both Republican and Democratic majorities.

The change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations an up-or-down vote on confirmation--yes, no. The rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court a majority threshold vote--yes or no.

The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change, as it has over the history of this great country. To the average American, adapting the rules to make the Senate work again is just common sense.

This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work--regardless of who is in the White House or who controls the Senate.

To remain relevant and effective as an institution, the Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of this modern era.

I have no doubt my Republican colleagues will argue the fault is ours, it is the Democrats' fault. I can say from experience that no one's hands are entirely clean on this issue. But today the important distinction is not between Democrats and Republicans. It is between those who are willing to help break the gridlock in Washington and those who defend the status quo.

Is the Senate working now? Can anyone say the Senate is working now? I do not think so.

Today Democrats and Independents are saying enough is enough. This change to the rules regarding Presidential nominees will apply equally to both parties. When Republicans are in power, these changes will apply to them as well. That is simple fairness, and it is something that both sides should be willing to live with to make Washington work again. That is simple fairness.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate right now?

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Millett nomination.

I move to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Millett nomination.

Are we now on the motion to reconsider the Millett nomination?

I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, what is the pending question before the Senate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to shine a light on what has happened in the development of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I rise today to talk about the fact that the chairman of our committee, of the Financial Services Committee, did not want, at one point, to reauthorize terrorism risk insurance at all, so he strung out the possibility of negotiations for months.

He had decided that he was not going to reauthorize terrorism insurance, and he will tell you that he offered to negotiate with me. The only thing that I ever remember about a conversation that we had was that my chairman said: I will only negotiate this once--starting out in bad faith.

Time went on, and at some point in time, somebody convinced him that to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program was an honorable thing to do, that it was an American thing to do, that it was an important thing to do. This program had been passed and signed on by the President of the United States after 9/11.

The insurance companies, which insure risk, basically said they cannot model terrorism acts. After 9/11, it was decided that we would mandate that they insure but that we would provide a backstop, that we would provide a backstop to ensure that we could rebuild our communities, that we could rebuild these huge venues--these important places in our lives--in the case of a terrorism attack.

When Mr. Hensarling finally decided that he would negotiate, he ended up in negotiations with Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer and the Democrats basically conceded and gave in on a lot of things. We supported, originally, the Senate bill. We thought the Senate bill was a fine bill that reauthorized terrorism risk for 7 years; and, of course, it had in it the backstop after $100 million was spent by the industry, and it basically did everything that we wanted it to have done just as it had started out to do.

Mr. Hensarling came along, and he decided that he wanted to reduce the time of the reauthorization. I don't know what he started out with, but we ended up with 6 years instead of 7 years. We gave in.

I remember that he wanted bifurcation in the bill. He wanted to distinguish between what kind of terrorist attack, how much it was worth, and whether some of it was worse than others. He talked about bifurcating in ways that you would distinguish between radiological, biological, chemical, and others. We negotiated and negotiated, and, finally, we got that out of Mr. Hensarling's mind about bifurcation.

Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said that we needed to reduce our backstop. And instead of backstopping after $100 million, first he talked about $500 million, secondly he talked about $250 million, and finally we got him down to $200 million. And it is over a 5-year period of time. So we said, okay. We negotiated in good faith. We will go along with the changes. We are willing to concede that you have some different thoughts, and that is okay. Let's come together in a bipartisan way and support the reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance.

I was informed later on that my chairman came back to the table with any number of things that had nothing to do with terrorism risk insurance but had more to do with Dodd-Frank because, unfortunately, my chairman and too many Members on the opposite side of the aisle are intent on dismantling Dodd-Frank in any and every way that they possibly can.

And finally, in those negotiations--the way it has been explained to me--they agreed that they would allow him to add just one aspect of the Dodd-Frank bill that had passed this House, to talk about how agriculture and some other industries could lock in some prices so that they could look forward to what a price would be on those commodities, et cetera, that they would have to purchase.

This had nothing to do with terrorism insurance. So I am not saying to the Members that you shouldn't vote for this bill. What I am pointing out is that this is just another attempt

for the chairman to indicate in every way that he possibly can and take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to get a little something in about Dodd-Frank.

What I worry about is not so much what he has put into TRIA; I worry about what is going into the omnibus bill. I worry about the fact that, in addition to this, there is an attempt--if it has not already been done--to place into the omnibus bill a repeal of part of Dodd-Frank that would prevent the biggest banks in America from taking advantage of our consumers by using their hard-earned money to do risky derivatives trading, which should be pushed out into their subsidiaries and not have the FDIC in any way protect them in doing this.

So what I say is this. We should know and we should understand exactly how the process works. We should know and understand what is being done and why it is being done. If, in fact, there is so much care and concern about TRIA reauthorization, we should have a clean bill with nothing else in it. If we want to debate Dodd-Frank--what we don't like about it, what we like about it--let's do it straight up. Let's not slip it in at the eleventh hour at a time when our backs are up against the wall, at a time when we are closing down this session. And that is what I am opposed to.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) who is inviting us to come on over.

We have been inviting them, from day one, to come up with a terrorism risk insurance bill reauthorization. So we have been inviting them to come on over. We have had Members on the opposite side of the aisle who have been pleading with them to come over. We have always had 100 percent support on the Democratic side for the reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance, and the Republicans have basically held us up and only negotiated at the last minute. Don't invite us to come over. They can come on over with us.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman and Members, a special appreciation to Mr. King who has worked very, very hard on both sides of the aisle to try and make sure that we did not abandon our citizens in this country and leave them at risk in case of a terrorist attack.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, my chairman held us up for a long time and would not negotiate. He finally came around, but this is typical. He mentioned the flood insurance bill. We never could get him to negotiate on that, and so we had to bypass him to make sure that we didn't put our homeowners at risk. As he mentioned the Ex-Im bill, he has only supported extension of that for a short period of time.

When it comes to helping our citizens and the least of them, it seems as if my chairmen have problems with providing for the average citizen on Main Street, but no problems when we talk about how we can enhance the ability of the biggest banks in America and others to get richer and richer. I thought it would be worthwhile to shed some light on those comments that he made about Ex-Im and about flood and now about

Mr. Chairman, as I said to you when I first got up, I said to you I wanted to shine light on the bill.

And I have done that.

Before I finish my remarks on this bill, I will tell you what my position is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased that I had an opportunity to be on the floor today managing this legislation on behalf of my caucus. I am pleased that I was able to shine some light and create some transparency on what has transpired over a long period of time. I am sorry that it had to take this long. I am sorry that my chairman at first refused to support reauthorization. He finally came around and that is good. The negotiations took place and there was a compromise. That compromise is not everything certainly that we would have wanted, but at least it is a compromise that will allow terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization. That is extremely important for all of the reasons that you have heard on the floor here today.

I want to say to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle--some of whom I talked with when it was unclear what the chairman was going to do--I am so pleased that we have been able to relieve your anxiety about what was going to happen. I know that many of you early on were in support of the reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance program just as it had been framed in the Senate.

So now we are at the point where we have flushed out the fact that this terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization is needed, that businesses and our citizens deserve it, and they should have it. We have also flushed out that adding to this legislation a Dodd-Frank concern was not necessary. It is this kind of interference with the process that oftentimes causes confusion. We would hope that this kind of legislating would not continue.

Let's take up these issues in a way that they are clear, that they can be debated, that we can hear from both sides of the aisle, we can hear the pros and cons, without having to drag it out until the last moment when we feel that you have the opposition up against a wall and they have no choice but to accept whatever you have done because you have a legitimate issue that is before us, even when that issue is attached to something that has nothing to do with that main issue.

Having said that, I am going to move on because we still have work to do as we move toward trying to make sure that we do not shut down this government, that we have the omnibus bill to fund the government and to keep it operating. I am going to move on to deal with the fact that just as this was inserted, the end user provision was inserted in this bill.

In the omnibus bill, we have an even more difficult situation to try and resolve. As a matter of fact, we know that our citizens are at great risk because there is an attempt to repeal an important part of the Dodd-Frank legislation. There is an attempt to make sure that somehow the biggest banks in America have an opportunity to use the taxpayers' dollars to do risky trading and put the taxpayers at risk one more time of having to bail out these institutions that have used the taxpayers' money that was protected by FDIC, have used their money to do this risky trading.

We simply ask in Dodd-Frank for some of these trades, for some of these derivatives trading ideas, not to be placed in such a fashion that they would cause us to have to say to our consumers and our taxpayers, once again, we are going to have to bail out some big bank because they have failed. We need to protect our consumers, we need to protect our taxpayers. All they have to do is push out, push out these derivatives into their subsidies where they don't have the taxpayers' protection.

So I am going to be working on that. I am going to stand here today and say to my chairman, I am going to ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, and I am going to vote for it. Will you work with me to pay attention to the omnibus bill and help me to negotiate tonight to get out of that bill the risky trading that is now being put back in the bill, the same bill that came through our committee, that was written by Citicorp, that would allow this to happen? Will you work with me to try and prevent this from happening and prevent another bailout of the biggest banks in America with taxpayers' dollars? I am going to support TRIA. Will the gentleman support me getting rid of that in the omnibus bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the answer.

The gentleman knows that he was involved in the negotiation for placing that in the omnibus bill. I have raised a question with you, even though you are saying you had nothing to do with----

Reclaiming my time, I simply asked the gentleman if he would join me in helping, whether he was part of the negotiations or not, as the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where this is one of the biggest issues that we have been confronted with. I know that you care enough about the consumers that you would not want them to have to bail out another AIG, another big bank. I know that you don't want that. I am simply saying that I am going to support the reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance. Will the gentleman support helping to get rid of that risky derivative trading opportunity that has been placed into the omnibus bill by your side of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 775, I call up the bill (S. 2244) to extend the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on S. 2244, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have an incredible opportunity before us in the House today, and that is to move significant bipartisan legislation that can accomplish a number of purposes and that will bring greater stability and certainty to the construction markets, to our insurance companies in dealing with the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. We can also bring greater certainty and stability to our small factories, to our farmers, and to our ranchers--those who are still suffering in this economy. We can bring them certainty and stability by taking care of an unintended consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act, something called the ``end user exception'' in the derivative title, which may just be, as interpreted, one of the most damaging regulations that many in this body, perhaps, have not heard of.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that has been worked on in a bipartisan manner, sometimes a little contentiously, but we have ended up in a place where, I believe, both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate should be able to come together.

I think it is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that, particularly as we go into the holiday season--as we go into Christmas--how many working men and women are still lying awake at night, wondering how they are going to be able to fund Christmas for their children at this time. Although we have seen some modest improvements in this economy, there are still over 9 million of our fellow countrymen who are unemployed. Of the number of underemployed--those who wish to have full-time work but who cannot find it--it is almost twice the number, at 18 million. We have 46 million of our fellow countrymen still on food stamps and 45 million at the poverty rate.

One of the most important things we can do here, Mr. Speaker, is to be able to make a positive contribution for financial stability on our household

economies, to give greater economic opportunity, particularly at this time, and that is one of the aspects of S. 2244.

We have had a debate about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in this body. I was authorized on behalf of the House to negotiate this particular part of this bill, along with Senator Schumer, the gentleman from New York, on the Senate side. Over the course of several weeks and several meetings, we have negotiated language on this. Certainly, it doesn't give everything the House wants, and it doesn't give everything the Senate wants. Such is the nature of negotiations in a free society with divided government. For those who care passionately about the reauthorization, this is a long-term reauthorization bill, which most Members have asked for. It is a 6-year reauthorization.

For those who care about taxpayer protections, as I do, there were improvements for taxpayer protection. The trigger level has been doubled before TRIA kicks in, meaning there is greater coverage by the insurance companies, a little less for the taxpayers. As for an artificial ceiling on what the industry will contribute, that artificial ceiling now ceases to be in S. 2244. For the first time, taxpayers will actually get some modest rate of return should they be called upon under TRIA to backstop. These are important improvements, and I think conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat, hopefully, will see something worthy here.

I will point out it is disconcerting--it is disturbing--that those who have backed so many other provisions in this bill now want to say ``no'' to being able to have a long-term TRIA reauthorization passed. This bill before us includes this end user exemption, which is so important. This isn't for Wall Street. This is for Main Street. It is for a cattle producer in Kansas, named Tracy Brunner, who said:

This mistaken language in Dodd-Frank may very well force me

out of the market, subjecting me to even greater risk. My

operation is family run. We are not responsible for the

failures that led to the passage of Dodd-Frank.

Yet his family-owned farm in Kansas--1,500 miles away from Wall Street--suffers.

Even the ranking member has acknowledged that there have been some unintended consequences to Dodd-Frank. Recently, she was one of 412 Members of this House to vote in favor of the end user exception, which she, herself, called a ``clarification''--not an amendment, not a change, but a clarification.

Mr. Speaker, even Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank of Dodd-Frank, over 4 years ago in colloquy on the House floor and on the Senate floor, said that these provisions were never meant to harm Main Street America; never meant to apply to end users; never meant to apply to the farmers, the ranchers, and the small factory workers.

We have an opportunity to do something very positive. Now, all of a sudden, some across the aisle have said: We can't do this. We believe this is unrelated to TRIA.

Why did the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, put in a provision that makes a radical change in the requirements to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve? What did that have to do with TRIA? The Senate put that in. NARAB, the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers--the Senate put that in. Two-thirds of this bill is about NARAB. The Senate put it in.

Mr. Speaker, I am not debating the underlying policy issues, but it is, at best, a little bit disconcerting, if not disingenuous, to say, my Lord, the House shouldn't put in an unrelated provision when the Senate just did it twice.

Then we heard the Senate will not open up Dodd-Frank. What is the Collins amendment? The Collins amendment was sent over by the Senate, not as part of this legislation. They opened up Dodd-Frank. Then again, to quote the ranking member, this is a ``clarification.''

We have an opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill not only to bring some stability and certainty to our insurance markets and to our builders, but to farmers and ranchers and small businesses and hurting families at this holiday season. Without any further delay, we should enact S. 2244, as amended.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to thank the ranking member for her fascinating, elongated narrative that proves just how reasonable House Republicans were in this negotiation.

I have to correct her yet again, though, and say that I have never said publicly or privately that we should allow the Federal backstop of terrorism to lapse. She is entitled to her own opinions. She is not entitled to her own facts.

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.

And previously she has said that she has been in favor of this provision. She has been in favor of the end user exemption and has said the bill would clarify the intent of the Wall Street Reform Act. I urge the committee to adopt the bill.

So she was for it before she was against it. But whether it be Biggert-Waters, whether it be Export-Import, whether it be end user, she has changed her mind frequently.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chief deputy majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, for her support.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chairman of the Financial Services Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, the champion and author of the House TRIA bill, and the author of the amendment here. I thank him for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say I heard so many kind words from my friend from Georgia that maybe I need to go back and reexamine the bill; but, indeed, compromise is not a vice, as long as you are advancing your principles, and both sides can advance their principles in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee, a tireless advocate--and occasionally tiring advocate--for TRIA reauthorization.

I yield myself 10 seconds for, Mr. Speaker, those who may be listening could be confused, as are those in the Chamber. I am very curious whether the ranking member is opposed or supporting this bill as amended. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Does the gentlewoman oppose or support?

It is obvious the gentlelady refuses to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a distinguished member of the House Financial Services Committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared a yield a small amount of time to any Democrat Member on the floor who intends to vote ``no'' on S. 2244, as amended, because I have not heard one say that yet.

Mr. Speaker, I have no takers.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the incoming chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the incoming chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), who for months has played a leading role in bringing both the TRIA title and the end user exemption title to S. 2244.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would point out to the gentlewoman, as I think she knows, it was the Democrat Senate who I believe is putting this in the bill, so perhaps she could negotiate that with Senator Schumer.

Will the gentlewoman yield on that one point?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I am glad that the ranking member has had yet another change of heart from her opposition to S. 2244, as amended, that she articulated last evening. It is fascinating to me that as she characterizes other Members of Congress as unpredictable, I guess it is somewhat predictable now that she will change her opinion. I am glad she did.

Rarely have I seen in my congressional career a Member of the House come to the floor quite so vociferous and quite so grumpy about a bill that they have previously supported and now ultimately choose to support. Regrettably, frequently when the ranking member comes to the floor, we enter into a fact-free zone.

I have not been involved in any of the negotiations on the omnibus. If I were involved, we would have far more Dodd-Frank relief in there, since it is a bill that was aimed at Wall Street, hits Main Street, and working men and women across our country are collateral damage. Our economy has slowed down, families can't find work, they have no financial security because of what Dodd-Frank is doing--the sheer weight, volume, complexity load of the regulatory burden. As unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats try to run this economy, they have run it into the ground.

Be that as it may, I look forward to working with the ranking member so that we can get more Dodd-Frank relief to Americans and get this country back to work.

Finally, I once again wish to thank and offer my gratitude to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Neugebauer, whose leadership in bringing this bill to the floor was indispensable. He has been a rock throughout these proceedings. Every Member who supports the end user exemption, who supports the TRIA compromise, owes an incredible debt of gratitude to Chairman Neugebauer of Lubbock, Texas. I am proud to serve with him on the House Financial Services Committee.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for all Members of Congress on S. 2244, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.