Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by proposals for arms control plans related to missile defense and outer space arms, including the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space activities, which the Obama administration has embraced. These plans were confirmed by Rose Gottemoeller, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, during a House subcommittee hearing last week. I firmly believe any international agreement on a code of conduct for space should be submitted for Senate advice and consent as part of its treaty powers, and not be an ``executive agreement'' that sidesteps that process.

I have engaged with the State Department to ensure that this agreement will not be a unilateral act and that it will be fully presented to Congress before moving forward. I strongly believe, given the importance of this issue, that the U.S. Senate should be consulted as part of their advice and consent role in any decision to move forward.

I ask to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks official letters and correspondence with the nominee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Frank Rose that demonstrate three important points. First, due to serious ongoing concerns related to national security, the administration has not pursued plans to propose the negotiation of a debris-generating ASAT testing moratorium at this time; second, that any decision to subscribe to a code in the future will not in any way constrain our national security-related activities in space or ability to protect the U.S. or allies; third, and most importantly, that the Senate will be given access to the details surrounding any plan once and if any format is determined, and again before any agreement is entered.

Space is vital to our national security, and we must maintain the ability to use satellites and various missile capabilities. In particular, space is of critical importance to our national intelligence and warfighting capabilities. The development of anti- satellite capabilities by countries such as China and Russia is well documented, as in the example of China successfully testing a direct- ascent, anti-satellite SC-19 missile against one of its own satellites.

It is vital that the United States ensure we are not restricting activity in ways that put our security at risk. Members of Congress have been clear in their view that they see ample disadvantage to such a code for the United States; according to assessments by the uniformed military, implementation of this code would result in real world operational impacts. Congress has previously voted to limit international agreements concerning outer space activities. Section 913 of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, states that any agreement will have no legally binding effect or basis for limiting the activities of the United States in outer space, and it requires certification that any such agreement will be equitable, enhance national security, and have no militarily significant impact on the ability of the United States to conduct military or intelligence activities in space.

There are several key areas that the administration must resolve before moving forward on pursuing any decision. Pentagon officials have long expressed concern that the arms initiative will be exploited by states such as China and Russia to constrain U.S. missile defenses, while both states continue to develop their own advanced missile defenses. In 2007, the Department of Defense concluded that the progress in addressing the vulnerability of U.S. space assets has not kept pace with growing threat capabilities; consequently, the vulnerability of our space assets continues to grow. Additionally, a previous U.S. Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization released a report that predicted that future warfare in space was a ``virtual certainty'' and urged the United States to begin to develop the means both to deter and defend against attacks on its space assets, and to mount offensive operations to deny the use of space to potential adversaries. To do otherwise, the commission warned, would invite a ``space Pearl Harbor.''

Further troubling, a 2014 Department of Defense report noted that China is ``developing a multi-dimensional program to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict,'' including ``destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors.'' To protect against these types of attacks, the Department of Defense's ongoing policy is aimed at retaining the capabilities to respond at the time and place of our choosing. Any effort to move forward must address our national security needs and Congressional concerns.

Therefore, any State Department effort to move forward with a code or a debris-generating ASAT testing moratorium should fully overcome existing concerns and ensure the plan does not undermine current Department of Defense policy, U.S. capabilities, or congressional concerns. Our growing dependence on space makes it fundamental to U.S. national security interests. I remain extremely concerned by what appears to be previous endeavors by the administration to avoid addressing space policy concerns and potential administration efforts to bypass Congress.

While I am pleased at the assurances that Mr. Rose has provided and that relevant offices will engage with Congress if a path forward is agreed upon,

I remain extremely concerned about the decision to negotiate a measure using past measures such as the European Union's Code of Conduct as a starting point. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to break its agreements, as seen with the ongoing violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We need to improve our capacity to understand what is going on in space, and we need to ensure we are adequately capable of deterring the growing number of countries that are pursuing weapons capable of targeting U.S. satellites.

While necessary, the development of transparency and confidence- building measures and behavioral norms promoting responsible space operations should not come at the expense of America's national security. The President's own Space Policy released in 2010 states: ``The United States will employ a variety of measures to help assure the use of space for all responsible parties, and, consistent with the inherent right of self-defense, deter others from interference and attack, defend our space systems and contribute to the defense of allied space systems, and, if deterrence fails, defeat efforts to attack them.'' With a growing number of states acquiring the ability to degrade or destroy U.S. space capabilities, the probability that space systems will come under attack in a future crisis or conflict is ever increasing. The State Department cannot have the attitude that they are going to go it alone. The United States cannot afford it.

The material is as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 12, 2014.

Mr. Frank Rose,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Space and Defense

Policy,

U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Rose: We write to

ask for your clarification regarding the Administration's

space arms control posture. Like you, we are deeply concerned

by the rising threats of anti-satellite weapons in the hands

of states like the People's Republic of China. That said, we

believe the Administration would do better to focus on real

solutions to these threats, as opposed to more feel good

measures like the European Union's (EU) Code of Conduct for

Outer Space activities or other similar measures.

We are concerned by proposals for outer space arms control,

including the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space activities,

which the Administration has embraced. We see no advantage to

such a Code for the United States; according to assessments

by the uniformed military, implementation of this code would

result in real world operational impacts. The product of this

equation demands the opposition of the entire United States

government.

With the languishing of that Code, we fear a new threat to

our ability to protect U.S. outer space capabilities, and,

perhaps even to develop our missile defenses. We seek your

understanding of the Administration's position on space arms

control, specifically, the ``debris generating kinetic energy

ASAT testing moratorium'' which, as we have been informed,

you proposed to U.S. allies. We are unfamiliar with any such

proposal having been coordinated with the Department of

Defense or the uniformed military, and therefore we ask for

your answers to the following questions:

1) Please indicate the date, and by which Department

official, the State Department Circular 175 request was

signed. What was the scope of this Circ-175 and has the

Department determined if this moratorium would be submitted

to the Senate for its advice and consent?

2) If this Circ-175 will not be submitted to the Senate, on

what basis would such an international agreement be

negotiated and to what end?

3) Please detail the potential implications for United

States space and missile defense activities. How would such

an agreement protect our ability to fully develop our missile

defenses, including our test and targets program?

4) Please further detail how such agreement will ensure

full freedom of action for the United States to take needed

defensive and other action in space.

5) Please provide the Joint Staff assessment of impacts to

military operations you obtained before discussing this

moratorium with our allies.

6) Please detail the specific allies with which you have

discussed this moratorium and the respective dates of

discussion. Please further detail which State Department

official authorized these discussions.

We appreciate your prompt responses to these questions.

Sincerely,

David Vitter,

United States Senator.

Doug Lamborn,

Member of Congress.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I object.

Mr. President, also on behalf of Senator Sessions, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4137; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination of Sarah Saldana to head ICE for a very simple reason: If confirmed as the head of ICE, Ms. Saldana would be a key player in the administration to help

President Obama further a very bad policy that is very unconstitutional and completely beyond the President's proper constitutional authority.

In my opinion, it all comes down to this very important issue of his Executive amnesty--his recent decision, without authority, to move forward on his own, without legislative approval and without congressional action, to grant about 5 million illegal aliens in this country an Executive amnesty.

I think that is a horrible and dangerous decision for two reasons.

First of all, I think the policy is wrong and is guaranteed--alas, even designed--to produce more illegal border crossings, which will increase the problem, not solve it. Some things are pretty simple, and one simple rule with regard to law enforcement is that when you reward certain behavior, you are going to get more of it, not less of it. Through his Executive amnesty, President Obama is clearly rewarding that behavior and rewarding illegal crossings. In every instance in our past when that has happened--including a 1986 amnesty that was at least passed through Congress--it produced more of that behavior, more of the illegal crossings, and more of a problem, not less of it. I think it is horrible policy from that point of view.

The second reason I am very concerned about this recent Executive action is even more fundamental, and that is because I think this is clearly beyond the President's proper legal constitutional authority. I think his actions are clearly unconstitutional, beyond that authority, and therefore a very serious matter for the country and the Congress to focus on.

I am the first to admit that every President has significant Executive power, and every President has the power to provide details when statutes are silent about them, to figure out necessary details in implementing and in executing statutes. His job as the Executive is to execute. But that is fundamentally different from taking action that is completely contrary to statute. Of course, that is what the President is doing in this case--granting amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens when the statute, properly passed through Congress, says these folks came into our country illegally, they are here illegally, and allowing them to stay here and work is contrary to law.

Again, it would be one thing if the President had to figure out details consistent with that statute, but instead he is taking action directly contrary to those statutes and that directive. It is not simply prosecutorial discretion. It is not simply saying, well, because of a particular circumstance, we are not going to prosecute that case or this case or that case over there. He is making a broad policy which will affect about 5 million cases, and he has gone way beyond saying: We won't prosecute these cases. He is having his bureaucracy--his administration--actually issue work permits by giving folks who cannot work legally in this country work permits. He is telling employers to hire them because they have this new work permit. He is giving them Social Security numbers and other affirmative identification. Again, that is not figuring out the details on how to execute law; that is not figuring out unspoken details about how to further law; that is acting directly contrary to our law and to our statutes on this very topic. Clearly, anyone in the position of heading ICE, including this nominee, Ms. Sarah Saldana, if she is confirmed, would be clearly and directly furthering that bad policy and illegal and unconstitutional action.

To the point of this being unconstitutional, don't take my word for it. There are a lot of authorities on the subject, a lot of legal authorities, such as professors and academic experts.

The Supreme Court directly recognized that on the policy of immigration in particular, Congress absolutely has clear authority to act in that area under the Constitution. In fact, in previous opinions, the Supreme Court has written that ``over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete'' than on immigration.

Another interesting expert and source on this topic is President Obama himself. Prior to taking this enormous action--in the years prior--President Obama said very directly to his supporters urging him in this direction: I don't have the authority to do it. He repeatedly acknowledged that.

He said:

This notion that somehow I can just change the laws

unilaterally is just not true.

He also stated:

For me to simply, through executive order, ignore those

congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate

role as President.

Well, President Obama was right back then. The problem is his recent actions--his Executive amnesty--constitute a complete turnaround on that by doing exactly what he himself previously said he doesn't have the authority to do.

Again, why is this pertinent? Because Sarah Saldana, if confirmed to head ICE, will be a key participant in the administration thereby furthering this policy that is a bad policy. It is a counterproductive policy that will make it worse, not better. Even more seriously, it will further this action, which is illegal, unconstitutional, and well beyond the President's constitutional authority.

This is serious stuff. This is serious constitutional business, and I urge my colleagues to look hard at these matters. After they do look seriously at these matters, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on this confirmation.

Again, the whole issue is serious. Illegal immigration is a vexing problem. Yes, we need to act. It is a complete straw man for the distinguished leader on the Democratic side to say that Republicans in the House--or anybody else--just don't want to act. Of course we need to act. Of course we have proposed actions.

The question is, what actions, in what order, in what time?

This action is wrong on so many grounds. It is wrong on policy because it is going to make the problem worse. It is rewarding illegal crossings, so we will get more of them. It is wrong, even more seriously, on constitutional grounds. It has gone well beyond President Obama's legal and constitutional authority. Based on those serious areas of concerns, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I speak today about an important provision in the defense bill. As you know, the maritime and shipbuilding industries are significant contributors to the economy in Louisiana and are important to our national security. In Louisiana alone, these industries employ thousands of hard-working Americans. I am pleased that the managers of this bill were able to include section 3502, dealing with floating drydocks that are owned or contracted for purchase by eligible United States shipyards or their affiliates prior to this bill's enactment. The term ``shipyard'' in section 3502 will apply to any facility owned by an eligible company in the United States that constructs or repairs commercial or government vessels, including, but not limited to, facilities that undertake alterations, conversions, installations, cleaning, painting, or maintenance work to such vessels. This provision will clear confusion regarding drydocks and will benefit American shipbuilders. I commend the managers for including this provision in the bill.

Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Landrieu for her tireless service in the U.S. Senate to our State and to the country. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mary for a long time. She was in her second year of service in the Senate when I first came to Washington to the U.S. House, but it is far longer than that, probably longer than anyone in this Chamber realizes. Both sets of my grandparents live all of 3 blocks from where Mary grew up, and I grew up all of 10 blocks from there. Mary and my brother Jeff were grammar school classmates starting at kindergarten.

Of course, here in the Senate I had the honor of working with Mary on so many important issues and challenges. From the moment we worked together on key Louisiana issues, we determined on those issues to put aside any partisan concerns when those crucial priorities were at stake.

As she alluded to, the most challenging and trying time in all of that experience was just a few months after I first came to the Senate when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck. Neither of us could have ever imagined facing the challenges our State and Mississippi and others faced and facing the challenges we faced in the Senate trying to respond in a robust and full and responsible way. I am sure it was the most trying work for both of us in our careers.

Louisiana faced unprecedented disaster and desperation, and that brought us together all the more to work for those crucial Louisiana needs and priorities. We traveled together, of course, to see the damage and meet with our neighbors and local leaders all around the State. Her staff and mine worked directly together around-the-clock, really, for months, sometimes in my office, sometimes in hers, always with the same goal of doing everything possible to help our neighbors and Louisiana citizens get through that disaster and get through to a full recovery.

Those trials, of course, didn't end with Katrina and Rita. There were other similar challenges which brought us together and on which Mary was a distinguished leader. She was always a champion for domestic energy production, and Louisiana will enjoy a far fairer share of oil and gas revenue under the legislation commonly referred to as Domenici- Landrieu.

After the infamous BP oilspill in 2010, Mary pushed for the RESTORE Act legislation to dedicate revenue from the fines to oilspill recovery in the affected areas.

As Louisiana fights continually against the loss of coastal wetlands, major restoration work is moving forward because of Mary's years of hard work directly related to that.

Due to Mary's strong support of our Nation's military, our fighting men and women are better off. The bases in Louisiana, which are important to our communities and to the Nation's defense, continue to have what they need for their vital mission. Our veterans face challenges and most recently faced the crying need for new health care clinics in Louisiana, and Mary helped make those finally happen, finally move forward, including pushing the case fervently and directly to administration officials.

In a very personal and dramatic way, Mary is enthusiastic in promoting children's welfare and supporting adoption. Her dedication internationally was recognized when Russia banned her travel after her direct and well-founded criticism of Russia's action to curb adoption by Americans.

In all of this work, one thing is always crystal clear--certainly crystal clear to me--with Senator Landrieu: Louisiana has always been first in her heart and her top motivation, and she has had a distinguished career of service in the Senate on all of those issues I mentioned and many more. All of us in Louisiana gives her our sincere thanks for that.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California and want to work with her toward a common goal. In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request and agree to the substitute amendment, which is also at the desk, which includes a 3-year extension of the vessel discharge moratorium.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to express strong concern and opposition to President Obama's Executive amnesty, which I think is clearly, flat-out illegal and unconstitutional.

I announce that because of that I will be voting ``no'' on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch to become Attorney General--because she would directly

help President Obama execute that illegal Executive amnesty, and she would be actively giving him legal cover, if you will--bad legal reasoning--used for PR purposes to further that illegal Executive order. I urge all my colleagues who share my concern about this illegal Executive amnesty to do the same.

I strongly oppose President Obama's recent action for two reasons. The first is I think it is a horrible policy that is going to take a desperate situation of illegal immigration into this country-- a situation that has truly reached crisis proportions, including over the last several months with these new waves, for instance, of illegal minors--and make that desperate situation much worse.

Why do I say that? Well, it is common sense. If you take a big action that is going to reward folks who have participated in that illegal crossing, what do you think you are going to get--more of it or less of it? If you reward behavior, you are going to get more of it; if you punish or stop behavior, you will get less of it. So on policy grounds, this Executive action--this illegal Executive amnesty for about 5 million illegal aliens in our country--is going to reward that behavior and produce more of it.

As we have proved, we don't have adequate protections at the border-- an adequate system of enforcement in place either at the border or just as importantly at the workplace. It is horrible policy that is going to make the situation worse.

But the second concern I have is much more fundamental, and it goes to the constitutional authority of the President and the fact that this is clearly beyond his authority because he is acting contrary to statutory law. The Congress and the President have acted together in the past and laid out statutory law about immigration. This is clearly directly contrary to statutory law because the President through this Executive action is not simply saying: I am going to refuse to prosecute this case or that case or even a broad category of cases. He is going even further and saying: I am going to issue work permits to affirmatively say that these people can work legally in our country, to affirmatively say that employers can hire these people, even though that is directly contrary to all sorts of statutory law on the books now.

Every President in the United States has significant powers, obviously, and Presidents have the power to fill in the details of legislation when those details are not clear and when they need to do so to properly execute the law. But that is completely different from doing something contrary to statutory law, and that is what President Obama is doing here.

Several people directly involved in this--including the Supreme Court, including President Obama, ironically--have made this clear: The Supreme Court in the past has recognized that ``over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete'' than over immigration. So the Supreme Court has said that in all subject matters of law across the board, immigration is squarely in the hands of Congress under the Constitution.

As I said, even more interesting, President Obama in the past, before this illegal Executive order, has said he doesn't have this power. He has repeatedly acknowledged that in the past before he took this action. He said: ``This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.''

Furthermore he said: ``For me to simply, through Executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.''

That is what he said when he was defending not taking action before, and he was right. Now he has done exactly what he correctly said before he did not have the power to do.

As I suggested at the beginning of my remarks, the Attorney General is directly related to this immigration issue and this legal constitutional issue. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer of the United States. The Attorney General is the top legal expert for the President and for the Federal Government. So I think if we truly believe--as I do and as certainly my Republican colleagues and as several Democrats do, based on their public statements--that this Executive action is wrong, is unconstitutional, is illegal, then we should not confirm an Attorney General who is going to further that illegal unconstitutional course of action. To me that is very straightforward. This is not just grabbing someone out of the blue. The Attorney General is directly--directly--related to these issues of the constitutional bounds of law, the constitutional lines between the executive and the legislative--and immigration enforcement. Based on that, I will vote no, and I will strongly push against the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

If you believe that President Obama's actions are illegal or unconstitutional through executive amnesty, then I think you need to reach the same conclusion, but the attorney general is directly related to these issues of both immigration enforcement and the Constitution.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I yield back and ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Madam President, I am truly honored to join my colleagues on the floor, Senators Warner and Begich. I am pleased to support Senator Warner's bill that he just described and also a second bill Senator Begich and I have been working very diligently on that will be part of the unanimous consent request. That is H.R. 5069, the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014. This bipartisan legislation is a real victory for sportsmen and for conservation. It is a straightforward bill that updates the fee paid by duck hunters for a duck stamp for the first time since 1991, and that is a big win for the hunters, it is a big win for conservation because the cost of the duck stamp goes directly toward conservation of waterfowl habitat. In fact, 98 cents on every $1 generated goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for ducks, and where you have more habitat, you have more ducks and you have a healthier environment. It is as simple as that.

I am very pleased to say our work on this bill is exactly how this place and American democracy is supposed to work. I first heard about this real need from duck hunters, from sportsmen who live this and breathe this every day. I am an occasional hunter, but these folks absolutely live it and breathe it every day and understand the critical need.

I immediately got very involved. I reached out to allies such as Senator Begich, who had a great interest in it. I met with the House sponsor, Representative John Fleming, also from Louisiana. We met with the House Natural Resources chairman, Doc Hastings. We got a strong version of the

bill that passed through the House recently and that now comes to the Senate. Today, by this consent, we will pass that House bill through the Senate and send it to the President.

As I said, that is the way the process is supposed to work, and this is a real win for hunters, for conservation, for the environment.

I thank my colleague and partner on this, Senator Begich, and yield the floor to him.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Did that unanimous consent agreement cover both bills?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object. There are major concerns, particularly about the NRC nominee. He has no technical or scientific background. He visited his first nuclear plant this summer.

Given that, and given that there is no precedent anywhere that I can find for a 4-year nomination to the NRC not to have a nomination hearing before the committee, all we are asking for is a normal, routine nomination hearing.

Given all of that, I object.

Recently the House of Representatives passed, on a bipartisan basis, H.R. 3522, the Employee Health Care Protection Act by Congressman Bill Cassidy. This bipartisan act that passed the House would keep the President's core promise throughout the ObamaCare debate when he told every American: If you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it--period, end of story. I am bringing this up in the Senate because it is vital that the President, and everyone who made that pledge, keep that promise, and the bill that was enacted into law would do that.

Again, the bill is limited, focused, and straightforward. It lets small businesses and workers keep their health care coverage if they like it. It provides more affordable health care options for American workers who don't want or can't afford the other ObamaCare mandated plans.

Again, the President and every Democrat who voted for ObamaCare promised that explicitly again and again and again. When that didn't happen--when millions of Americans were kicked off the plan they had and liked and wanted to keep--Americans rightly felt misled. In fact, that led to the President's promise and commitment ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' being labeled by nonpartisan sources in 2013 as the ``lie of the year.'' This bill would fix that and make it good. It would not repeal ObamaCare. It would fix that part of ObamaCare. It would make that promise good.

The keep your plan bill would let insurers continue to sell those plans that people want to keep that are less expensive and cover basic but crucial needs. At least 2 million people would likely sign up for these plans.

Last fall nearly 5 million Americans all across the country had their health

plans canceled even though they wanted to keep them--even though the President told them they could keep them. In Louisiana, 93,000 received cancellation notices after getting that clear pledge and promise from the President and other supporters of ObamaCare.

Sadly, that hurt isn't over because the employer mandate for businesses that employ 100 or more workers is still coming. When that mandate kicks in in just a few months, we are going to see the same thing happen all over again with millions upon millions of Americans in Louisiana and in every single State getting pushed off the plan they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep. Small businesses are losing the plans they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep.

The bill passed the House, as I said, on a bipartisan basis, 247 to 167, and over 2 dozen Democrats voted to support this bill by Congressman Bill Cassidy. Even Democrats on the House side see the importance of the legislation.

I ask all of us to recognize this is a crucial element of ObamaCare that needs to be fixed. It absolutely needs to be fixed. Thirty-nine Democrats in the House had previously voted for a similar bill to let Americans keep their plan in the individual market. Senate Democrats scrambled with the administration last year to find some way to let individuals who faced cancellations on the individual market keep their plan, but those cancellations are happening to a lot of folks. It has not been fixed for all those folks by a long shot, and more of those sorts of cancellations are on the way when the employer mandate finally hits.

I urge all of us to come together to pass this bill in the Senate as it has been passed on a bipartisan basis in the House.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3522, which was received from the House. I further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, reclaiming the floor----

I think this is very unfortunate. My distinguished colleague alluded to what I know. Let me tell you what I know. I know 93,000 Louisianians were forced off a plan they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep. I know the President of the United States promised them exactly the opposite. I know my Louisiana colleague in the Senate promised them exactly the opposite, and I know thousands of more cancellations are on their way when the employer mandate is enforced. That is what I know.

I hold hundreds of townhall meetings in Louisiana, and that is what I know from talking to Louisianians, and that is why I know this is the central problem of ObamaCare and it needs to be fixed.

The bill passed the House on a bipartisan basis. I find it very unfortunate that we can't bring it up in the Senate on the same basis and pass it expeditiously.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

We have a significant proposal. It is a constitutional amendment to rewrite the First Amendment to the Constitution, the first portion of the Bill of Rights, and it would fundamentally alter and take away certain free speech rights of millions upon millions of Americans--not a few, not a few ultrawealthy, but many Americans.

I have a real problem with that. I think it is misguided. Instead, I think we should focus on other proposals and other provisions that can address what we all see and feel and hear from our constituents. They see a huge gap between Washington and the real world, Washington and Main Street U.S.A.

It is also unfortunate that this is, I believe, the first time in Senate history that we are debating a constitutional amendment on the floor of the Senate with no opportunity so far--zero opportunity of floor amendments. That is unheard of, and that is unfortunate.

That is why I wish to bring up two proposed floor amendments that I will strongly support that go to the real problem in America-- Washington placing itself up here, separate and apart, higher than the American people in the real world.

The first idea was a floor amendment offered by my colleague Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I strongly support it. I have the leading bill regarding this proposal in the Senate--term limits for Members of Congress. I believe this is a significant step, but it is one, unfortunately, necessary and long overdue because of the separation I have described between Washington and the real world. Americans of all political parties, all backgrounds, all races think that Washington is on a different planet and Members of Congress just don't get it because they come here and ``go Washington.'' We need to get back to the best traditions of our democracy, which include having true citizen legislators, to come here, to serve, to represent their constituents, yes, but for a limited period of time, knowing absolutely they are returning home after significant but limited service.

I strongly support Senator Coburn's amendment. I strongly support the same provisions in my stand-alone bill. I urge Senator Reid to again open the floor of the Senate. Let's have the process the Founders intended. Don't be the first U.S. Senate leader in history to shut down all amendments under a constitutional amendment under debate on the floor.

The second proposal, which is a floor amendment I have at the desk, also goes to the same concern of Washington living on a different planet than real-world Americans, and it has to do with what I call the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. In the ObamaCare statute, we actually passed, through an amendment on the floor--through being able to pass a floor amendment--language that says every Member of Congress and all of our staff should be treated as all other Americans are treated, who are forced to go to the so-called exchanges. We will go to the exchanges for our health care--no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidy, no special carve-out. Unfortunately, after that floor amendment passed, after the overall bill passed, I guess some folks took Nancy Pelosi's advice that we have to pass the bill in order to read it.

So after the fact, some folks around here started to read it and they got to that provision and they said, Oh, you-know-what; how are we going to deal with this? So a furious lobbying campaign began which resulted in President Obama issuing an Executive order--a special rule which is clearly illegal, in my opinion, because it is contrary to the statute--to create special treatment, a special carve-out, a special subsidy for Members of Congress and our staff. That is not right. We should live by that original language passed right here on the Senate floor in a floor amendment.

We should say, The first rule of American democracy should be that what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself, and we should treat ourselves the same way as we treat other Americans who have to go to the exchanges under ObamaCare. That should be the first rule of American democracy: What we pass for America, we live with ourselves, because that is the right thing to do. That is the right principle. Also, for a very practical reason: Because sometimes the chefs in the kitchen should eat their own cooking, but sometimes that makes the cooking get a whole lot better. It is a very practical rule to follow.

I urge support for this proposal and I urge an open amendment process and a real debate which, unfortunately, heretofore has been completely shut down. I urge consideration of this amendment. I urge us to place ourselves along with everyday Americans in how we are treated under ObamaCare and everything else. I urge full debate and consideration of the measure, and then passage of it.

To further that, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S.J. Res. 19, that it be in order for my amendment No. 3786 to be called up.

Madam President, I think there was an objection to my unanimous consent request, and I wish to reclaim the floor.

Madam President, reclaiming the floor, as the Senator knows, it is simply not true that we are being treated on the exchange as other Americans are treated. That is flat out not true. No other American at our income level is getting the huge subsidy that Members of Congress are getting--I am not accepting it--but that Members of Congress are getting under the President's illegal rule. No other American in our country, no other American gets that deal, and that was nowhere mentioned and nowhere included in the amendment we passed on this topic during the ObamaCare debate. So what the Senator says is just flat out misleading. If he wants to truly be treated as other Americans are treated under the exchange, absolutely. That is what I am asking for. But don't pretend that

present practice does that. It does exactly the opposite.

The American people are sick and tired of it. The American people are sick and tired of being put down as second class and Congress and Washington lifting itself up as above them. That is a fundamental thing that is wrong with American democracy today. That is what my amendment goes to with regard to treatment under ObamaCare. That is what Senator Coburn's amendment goes to with regard to term limits for Members of Congress.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.