Floor Statements

Madam President, let me be clear that my amendment simply clarifies existing law. I am trying to provide some clarity that private flood insurance can be a viable option for homeowners and businesses. Private insurers are already subject to regulations in each and every State by their insurance commissioners, and those insurance commissioners are the best regulators for ensuring proper consumer protection.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Heller-Lee amendment so we can provide the American people with more competition, higher quality, and less cost when it comes to flood insurance.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 2700.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the Heller- Lee amendment to the flood insurance legislation we are currently considering. One of my core beliefs is that in order for Americans to succeed, regardless of the issue, we need more choices, we need higher competition, and we also need less cost. So let us talk about the NFIP.

Right now, the National Federal Insurance Program has a near monopoly on the flood insurance market. In fact, I think if you ask most Americans if they knew there were other flood insurance policies other than through NFIP, you would probably get a blank stare. What most people don't know is that since the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, private flood insurance has been understood to satisfy requirements and mandates to purchase flood insurance. In fact, when Congress passed the last flood insurance reform package under Biggert-Waters, Congress reaffirmed the intent that private primary flood insurance should satisfy requirements and those of mandatory purchase.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of legislative language, there have been pervasive rejections of private primary flood insurance by most lenders. This is due to the fact that lenders are unsure about the validity of private-issue flood insurance, despite the fact this insurance has been issued and accepted in the past. For this reason, I, along with Senator Lee, have worked on an amendment that would provide clarification and hopefully eliminate this uncertainty.

The Heller-Lee amendment provides a simple and clear definition of what is acceptable private flood insurance. Our amendment would define acceptable private flood insurance as a policy that provides flood insurance coverage issued by an insurance company that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the insured building is located.

Private insurers are already subject to statutes and regulations in each and every State. State insurance commissioners are the best regulators to allow and disallow any policy they deem proper or improper, and they have significant ability to assure fair and equitable settlements of claims.

Further encouragement of private sector participation in the flood insurance market will help reduce the risks to which U.S. taxpayers are currently exposed. In fact, I would like to share some statements I just received from FEMA, after I asked FEMA if private flood insurance is a viable tool for some consumers to find lower cost options. FEMA stated:

Private flood insurance would create competition. It is

possible some homeowners could find lower-cost options for

flood insurance as a result of privatized market competition.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Heller-Lee amendment so we can give the American public more choices, higher competition, and less cost when it comes to flood insurance.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate one of Nevada's own and four time Cy Young award winner Greg Maddux for being selected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Greg ``Mad Dog'' Maddux excelled at the major league level, not only with refined skills and superior pitching mechanics, but also a mental approach to the game that was unmatched. His pitching philosophy has made him one of the greatest pitchers of the ``live-ball'' era.

A 1984 graduate of Valley High School in Las Vegas, Greg Maddux excelled on the mound as a right-handed pitcher before being drafted by the Chicago Cubs in the second round of the 1984 Major League Baseball draft. Mad Dog then spent the next 23 seasons accruing 355 wins, 3,371 strikeouts, and an unrivaled record of 18 Golden Gloves for the likes of the Chicago Cubs, San Diego Padres, Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Atlanta Braves, a feat that still remains unmatched. Mad Dog's prolific major league career also led him to be the only player in history to record 17 straight, 15-win seasons. It is no doubt that these numbers and records led to his near unanimous vote for entry to the Hall of Fame.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Greg Maddux for a distinguished playing career. It is my hope that he will serve as an example of what great things Nevadans can accomplish when they work with commitment and determination.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember the life of my colleague, assemblyman Bernie Anderson, who passed on January 10, 2014. Serving with him as a fellow freshman in the Nevada Assembly was a privilege, and I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to know and work alongside such a dedicated public servant. As a longtime teacher, assemblyman, and member of the Nevada National Guard, Bernie honorably served the Silver State for decades. I am proud to join the citizens of Washoe County and the State of Nevada to remember his legacy of service to his community.

A native Nevadan, Bernie was a graduate of Bishop Manogue High School and University of Nevada, Reno alumni. From 1991 to 2010, Bernie served in the Nevada Assembly, representing Washoe County. During his time in the legislature, he served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, where he displayed a passion for the committee's work and often served as a mentor to his colleagues, offering invaluable advice and support.

Bernie was also a teacher in Sparks, where he taught government and history in the city's schools for 32 years. As a longtime educator and avid reader, Bernie dedicated his life and career to education. In October 1985, he received the Teacher of the Month award from the Reno/ Sparks Chamber of Commerce. Educators work tirelessly to ensure our Nation's students are prepared to compete in the 21st century, and I am grateful for Bernie's dedication on behalf of Nevada's youth.

Not only did he serve the citizens of Nevada as a legislator and a schoolteacher, Bernie was also a member of the Nevada National Guard. In 2007, he was honored with the Charles Dick Medal of Merit in recognition of his contributions to the National Guard. On behalf of all Nevadans, I thank Bernie for his many years of faithful, selfless service.

Today, I extend my deepest sympathies to Bernie's wife Clyda, their children, and family and friends. I would ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of a dedicated public servant who served the Silver State proudly. Nevada will miss him.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue that has been in the forefront of the minds of many Americans ringing in the new year; that is, extending benefits for the unemployed--something that is important, of course, for a lot of Americans.

Before I begin, I wish to thank my colleague, my friend from Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed, for his hard work and effort on this behalf as we and our staffs worked together to get this proposal moved forward for today's vote.

I hope that my friends and colleagues in the Senate enjoyed their holidays and that everyone returned refreshed and ready to tackle some of the tough issues we have here in 2014.

Unfortunately, while Congress was in recess, approximately 17,000 Nevadans greeted the new year not with optimistic expectations of a fresh start but with the anxiety of how they are going to feed their families and perhaps even pay their utility bills. When Congress left Washington, DC, in December, a lot of important matters were left undone and expired. As a result, millions of Americans were left with no idea whether their unemployment benefits were going to be fixed retroactively--something that has become, of course, all too common for this Congress to do.

Helping those in need should not be a partisan issue. Providing a limited social safety net is one of the responsibilities of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, instead of planning ahead and figuring out the best way to do that, we are now forced to decide whether to reinstate these benefits after they have expired.

We should provide some relief to the millions of Americans who were left hanging when Congress went home in December and temporarily extend unemployment benefits for the next 3 months. It is the right thing to do. That short period will help these families whose benefits expired abruptly while Congress works out a long-term solution that provides Americans with some certainty and is fiscally responsible.

I understand my colleagues' concerns about the cost and their desire to pay for this extension. I too want to see our Federal debt brought under control. I think my voting record is proof of that concern.

I too believe Congress should be more focused on passing laws that actually help create jobs. Growing our economy should be the primary focus and concern of this body. As a Senator of the State that leads the Nation in unemployment, believe me, I understand the importance of refocusing on jobs. I would rather be down here today discussing innovative ways to create jobs instead of the need to extend unemployment benefits yet again. But because of this administration and even some of the choices of this body, unfortunately, our economy is not growing quickly enough and many Americans are still hurting, including a lot of Nevadans.

My State is struggling. I have repeated often on this floor that Nevada consistently tops the chart in unemployment, bankruptcies, and foreclosures. The statistics are surely revealing. But more startling is the obvious increase in impoverished Nevadans whom I meet when I go home. I would like to share an example.

Every Thanksgiving one or two of my children join me in serving Thanksgiving dinner to folks in Reno who are in need and cannot cook a Thanksgiving meal for themselves. This year my daughter Emmy, who is in her freshman year in college, joined me in this experience. Every year that dinner sees more and more attendees. Every year the number of individuals and families who need help increases. This year the venue was absolutely packed. When my daughter and I arrived, the line outside the venue was four blocks long. It is such an obvious example of how so many Nevadans are unable to provide for their basic needs, and this cannot be ignored.

I know many economists point to a national unemployment rate that is improving, but at home we do not feel it. The unemployment rate in Nevada has consistently far exceeded the national average. In fact, the Silver State has led the Nation for the past 3 years in unemployment. The result is, of course, that people in Nevada are really hurting.

It is difficult to stand here in the Nation's Capital--an area that has largely felt little negative impact of the recession--and describe just how tough times are for so many of my constituents. At these Thanksgiving dinners, I hear about the choices individuals are forced to make--whether to buy gas for their car or pay for heat in the frigid northern Nevada winters or buy school supplies for their children or perhaps save for the future.

These are hard-working individuals who rely on these benefits. They are trying to find jobs. They want to provide for their children. But for these benefits to simply vanish without giving families the time to plan or figure out alternatives to help them get by is just not right.

I too understand the concerns about the cost of these benefits. I would prefer to see them paid for in a manner that does not burden our Nation with more debt. I have previously introduced legislation that would do just that, legislation that would extend unemployment benefits while still paying for them. At the time I introduced my legislation as an alternative to a more costly bill because I think it is important to bring down our Nation's debt.

I am ready to work with my colleagues to introduce similar legislation again this year, but in the meantime I propose that we pass this short-term extension now. That would allow Congress the opportunity to spend the next 3 months debating how to pay for these

benefits in the future or perhaps how much longer they should be extended. Those are important questions worthy of more debate. But in the meantime, Congress simply must provide some temporary relief for those who are unemployed.

Paying for these benefits would be the best approach. Congress could have taken the harder road to figure out the way to do that before departing for the holiday break and leaving millions of Americans hanging, but it did not. So let's pass this short-term extension and focus on a more fiscally responsible solution for the longer term.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to offer my condolences to my friend and colleague from Oklahoma Senator Inhofe and his family on the tragic loss of their son Perry. Both my wife and I will continue to keep their entire family in our thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time.

Health Care Reform

I rise today to talk about the President's broken promises on ObamaCare and its effects on the people of Nevada. For more than a month now, the American people have witnessed how poorly this burdensome law has been implemented. People all over the country are frustrated with the problems plaguing healthcare.gov, as they should be.

The government spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to overpromise and underdeliver on the signature legislation of this administration. But there are serious problems in addition to the Web site, and one glaring issue in particular I would like to focus on today. We have all heard from the law's supporters that ObamaCare would give uninsured Americans access to health insurance. Time and time again they promised that people who already had their health plan could keep it. In fact, President Obama made the exact promise on numerous occasions.

In a speech to the American Medical Association in June of 2009, President Obama said:

. . . no matter how we reform health care, we will keep

this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor,

you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like

your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health

care plan, period.

But one of my constituents sent me a letter last week telling me that that was not the case. Sunny from the Las Vegas area wrote, ``I wanted to tell you that we have lost our wonderful health insurance plan.'' Sunny's family received a letter from their insurance company telling them that their existing plan did not qualify under the Affordable Care Act. They were automatically reassigned to a new plan that cost about $400 more per month.

Let's remember what the President said, this time in August of 2009, during his weekly Presidential address about what he called ``phony claims'' regarding health reform:

If you like your private health insurance plan, you can

keep your plan. Period.

But yet another one of my constituents, Kirk from northern Nevada, was

just notified that his current health insurance has been cancelled. He went to the exchange to find a new policy and shared his story with me. He wrote:

. . . despite higher deductibles and higher co-pays, my new

insurance under this devastating law will be more than 250%

of what I am paying now.

Again, March 15, 2010, just a few days before the law was passed-- albeit unread--by a party-line vote and signed into law, President Obama said:

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like

your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

I wonder how President Obama and the law's supporters would explain that statement to Marc in Reno. Marc received a letter telling him that his current plan was no longer offered. The plan, the letter detailed, was cancelled in order to ``meet the requirements of the new laws.'' Marc was given the option to keep his plan for 1 additional year if he accepted a rate increase, even though he just saw a rate increase in September.

Mark goes on to tell me:

As an individual health care plan holder and a self-

employed individual, the ACA appears to punish me for doing

the right thing by having a health care plan for the past 10

years and rewards those who did not.

But yet as recently as this past July, President Obama promised:

If you already have health care, the only thing this bill

does is make sure that it's even more secure and insurance

companies can't jerk you around.

President Obama made this statement more than 2 years after his administration admitted in comments in the Federal Register that 40 to 67 percent of existing individual policies would lose their grandfathered status. The President knew millions of Americans stood to lose their existing policies but he repeatedly told the American public in no uncertain terms that they could keep their plan.

I think Steven from Washoe County would likely take issue with that promise. He told me that he now has health care that costs $293 per month. However, he just received a letter from his health care provider informing him that the cost of his health care would increase to $546 per month on January 1. That means his health insurance costs will nearly double next year.

There is nothing affordable about that. There is nothing secure about that.

On September 26, just days before the exchanges opened to a disastrous rollout, the President repeated yet again what the administration knew was not true:

. . . the first thing you need to know is this: If you

already have health care, you don't have to do anything.

Well, I have another letter here from a father from Reno. He writes:

I am writing to tell you that I'm now eating crow. A few

weeks back I wrote to you and expressed my support for health

reform and my dissatisfaction with the government shutdown.

Since then, I've received notification from my insurance

company informing me that my current policy is being

discontinued. I then began shopping for new policies for

myself and my family and have found that rates are two to

three times what I am currently paying and that my max out of

pocket will double, all for basically the same plan as what I

have now. In essence, I've been put into a situation where I

can either save for my kid's college education or buy

healthcare.

But this particular letter closes with something that really highlights the tough financial decisions facing the American people in these difficult economic times. This father says:

I'm unfortunately one of those people who makes too much

money to qualify for Federal subsidy, but not enough to sell

my house which is still underwater from the housing crisis of

2008.

This is the reality of the health care law. Now, in addition to trying to save for his children's education and attempting to recover from the housing crisis, a father has been forced off the plan he likes.

The options available are two or three times more expensive. These stories don't fit with the narrative we have heard for nearly 5 years. President Obama is now trying to backtrack on the dozens of times he made his promise to the American people. Only last week he said:

Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the

Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that

plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed

since the law passed.

That is just not true. That is not what he promised. Now my constituents are receiving cancellation notices for their existing plans.

The administration argues that even though many people are losing their existing plans, those plans were subpar policies and their new policies will be better, but that ignores the promise. My constituents liked their plans. They decided what was best for them, what plans fit their individual and family needs.

The President and the administration knew before the legislation passed that millions of Americans would lose their current plans. They admitted it in the Federal Register after the bill was signed into law, but the whole time they continued to promote this promise and dismiss any concerns as fearmongering or phony claims. That is unacceptable.

These personal stories are why I am proud to cosponsor the If You Like Your Health Plan You Can Keep It Act, introduced by my colleague Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. This is a simple but necessary bill to give Americans the ability to keep their health plans if they like them. The people of Nevada deserve better, and they deserve to have a government that keeps its promises.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor one of Nevada's own veterans, MSgt Michael Landsberry, who died a hero's death in Sparks, NV, on October 21, 2013. After spotting a student with a gun at Sparks Middle

School, Master Sergeant Landsberry moved directly into harm's way to protect his students and others from danger. He was fatally shot. This patriot leaves behind a legacy of self-sacrifice and service to his country and community.

Master Sergeant Landsberry was an Alabama native, a graduate of McQueen High School, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, a University of Nevada Reno alumnus, and a decorated master sergeant Nevada Guard airman. In 2001, Master Sergeant Landsberry enlisted in the Nevada Air National Guard and subsequently began working for the Washoe County School District. He began his teaching career at Trainer Middle School, where he spent 4 years teaching history, math, and science. In 2006, he started teaching math at Sparks Middle School. Throughout his tenure as a teacher, Master Sergeant Landsberry served as a coach in his community for middle school basketball, cross country, track, and volleyball, as well as high school soccer. He was a passionate teacher, coach, and mentor who touched the lives of his students and those in the community each and every day.

In 2006, Master Sergeant Landsberry deployed to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, where he performed duties as an airlift validator for the Central Command Deployment and Distribution Center. He deployed again in 2011 to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, executing air transportation functions for the 455th Expeditionary Aerial Port Squadron. Throughout his career, Master Sergeant Landsberry was extensively decorated, signifying his strong work ethic and commitment to service.

Today, I also want to recognize and express my gratitude to Master Sergeant Landsberry's family. The sacrifices of our servicemembers and their families are debts that can never fully be repaid. My thoughts and prayers continue to go out to his wife, Sharon, and his two daughters, Alisa and Andrea. This tragedy is one that all of us struggle to understand, but we will continue to remember Master Sergeant Landsberry as a great and honorable man and father. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the life of a courageous patriot whose act of heroism cost him his life but saved many more.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a true Nevadan, humble public servant, and dedicated family man, Wilbur Faiss. Believed to have been the Nation's oldest-living legislator, Mr. Faiss's passing is a great loss and his commitment to serving the Silver State will never be forgotten.

Representing Las Vegas, Mr. Faiss served 2 terms in the Senate from 1976 to 1984. During his time in the Legislature, he authored two important laws, including one allowing pharmacists to substitute affordable, generic brands in place of name brand drugs, and another to allow seniors to access State parks and campgrounds for free. Mr. Faiss was also a strong advocate for the Equal Rights Amendment in 1977 and has professed that voting in support of that piece of legislation was one of the proudest moments of his life.

On his 100th birthday, Mr. Faiss lent advice from his experience in the Senate, stressing the importance of compromise and a positive outlook, whether in your professional or personal life. It is clear that he practiced these sensibilities in the Senate and at home. His marriage of 79 years to his late wife, Theresa, is a testament to this philosophy. In 2012, he and Theresa were recognized as one of the longest married couples in the U.S.

The citizens of the Silver State were fortunate that such a dedicated and passionate individual called Nevada home. Mr. Faiss serves as an example for others who hold the role of public office. My thoughts and prayers go out to his three sons, six grandchildren, five-great grandchildren, and four great-great grandchildren. Today, I would ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the life of a devoted Nevadan and honoring his accomplishments.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to address the public revelations regarding classified government surveillance programs. But before I do so, I would like to take a moment to honor Mike Landsberry, who died a hero's death in Sparks, NV, last week.

After spotting a student with a gun at Sparks Middle School, Mr. Landsberry moved directly in harm's way to protect his students and others from danger. He was fatally shot.

Mr. Landsberry was an Alabama native, a graduate of McQueen High School in Sparks, a University of Nevada-Reno graduate, and a decorated master sergeant Nevada Guard airman.

To his students, he was a coach, a teacher, and also a mentor. To his community, Mr. Landsberry was a patriot, a father, and a friend. Master Sergeant Landsberry leaves behind a legacy of self-sacrifice and service to his country and community. He will continue to be remembered as a great and honorable man and a father.

I would also like to briefly discuss current National Security Agency practices, including its bulk data collection programs and the implication these programs have for the privacy of Nevadans and millions of other law-abiding citizens.

Due to published reports in newspapers around the world, Nevadans are well aware that the Federal Government has been collecting phone data of law-abiding citizens without their knowledge through a process known as bulk collection. These practices are mostly authorized by section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

Specifically, section 215 permits the FBI to seek a court order directing a business to turn over certain records when there are reasonable grounds to believe the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation of international terrorism.

``Relevance'' has been found by the courts to be a broad standard that, in effect, allows large volumes of data to be collected. These same records can be combed through in order to identify smaller amounts of information that are relevant to an ongoing investigation. In other words, it has been established that section 215 allows for massive amounts of data to be collected in order to find the tiny amount of data that would solve an investigation regarding international terrorism. The court's reasoning that this is permitted is because, when submitted, it is likely that the data will produce information that will then help the FBI.

Millions of Americans' call records are collected and stored by the NSA because a few numbers may solve an authorized investigation. Supporters of bulk collection practices have defended this program as an important tool in the fight against terror. They have said this is a mechanism to access the logs quickly, and they are not actually listening to the content.

President Obama even said:

When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to

your telephone call. Instead, the government was just sifting

through this so-called metadata.

The President is correct. They are not listening to the actual calls like the FBI conducting a wiretap, but let me outline that the government can figure out what is going on from those call logs.

For example, they will know that an American citizen in Ely, NV, received a call from the local NRA office and then called their Representative and Senators. But they claim that the content of that call remains safe from government intrusion or they will also know that a Nevadan from Las Vegas called a suicide prevention hotline and spoke to an individual for 12 minutes, but they will not know what that person discussed.

The question I have is this: Why does the Federal Government have to house this data? I believe it is because Congress has authorized a massive surrender of our constituents' privacy.

I want to be clear: I share the concerns of all Americans that we must protect ourselves against threats to the homeland. I also believe we must continue to understand that terrorism is very real and that the United States is the target of those looking to undermine the freedoms we hold as a core of our national identity. Are we sacrificing our own freedoms in the process? Are we sacrificing our constitutional rights that are afforded under the Fourth Amendment? If so, this is a steep price to pay to protect Americans from terrorism.

So the next question must be: If the price to protect Americans from terrorism is an incredible loss of individual privacy, what are the results of this program?

What has the bulk collection program provided in tangible results that justifies a privacy intrusion of this level?

The answer is that two cases have been solved in the collection of millions of records through the use of the program authorized by section 215. We know that because on October 2, 2013, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, asked the NSA Director Keith Alexander the following question:

At our last hearing, the deputy director, Mr. Ingliss,

stated that there's only really one example of a case where,

but for the use of Section 215, both phone records

collection, terrorist activity was stopped. Was Mr. Ingliss

right?

To which Director Alexander responded, ``He's right. I believe he said two, Chairman.''

Congress has authorized the collection of millions of law-abiding citizens' telephone metadata for years, and it has only solved two ongoing FBI investigations. Of those two investigations, the NSA has publicly identified one. In fact, that case would have easily been handled by obtaining a warrant and going to that telephone company. The case involved an individual in San Diego who was convicted of sending $8,500 to Somalia in support of al-Shabaab, the terrorist organization claiming responsibility for the Kenyan mall attack. The American phone records allowed the NSA to determine

that a U.S. phone was used to contact an individual associated with this terrorist organization.

I am appreciative that the NSA was able to apprehend this individual, but it does not provide overwhelming evidence that this program is necessary. As Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon noted, the NSA could have gotten a court order to get the phone records in question.

In essence, Congress has authorized a program that invades the privacy of millions of Americans with little to show for it. The results simply do not justify this massive invasion of our privacy, and that is why I want to end bulk collection practices authorized under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

I joined Senator Leahy to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral USA Freedom Act. This legislation, among other things, will rein in the dragnet collection of data by the National Security Agency. It will stop the bulk collection of Americans' communication records by ending the authorization provided by section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

Some in this Chamber will argue this removes a massive tool for the NSA to assist the FBI. I disagree with that. All this legislation does is shut down the collection of millions of Americans' metadata by the NSA. If the FBI needs a telephone number, they can go to a FISA judge and get a warrant. The phone company can still provide that data. Chances are a major phone provider will have that data as they keep all detailed records for at least 1 year.

When talking broadly about how certain technological developments should be incorporated in our justice system, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court William Douglas once said:

The privacy and dignity of our citizens are being whittled

away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually,

each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a

whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we

have seen--a society in which government may intrude into the

secret regions of a person's life.

Here in the Congress it is our responsibility to take great care to acknowledge each possible step that could whittle away our privacy. We must examine its necessity carefully and reasonably. In this case, I do not believe such practices are warranted.

We can continue to protect Americans from threats of terrorism without infringing on individual privacy that the Constitution protects under the Fourth Amendment. We should shut down bulk collection practices.

With that, I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on why I had a hold on this particular nomination.

Contrary to some who are speculating on this issue, I am not voting against this specific nominee. My concerns are with the way OPM determines who can ask questions and who can receive answers.

Imagine, there is a Federal Government agency which determines who can ask a question to them and who can get an answer. Whether a Member of the minority or majority, every Member should be able to ask questions and to receive those answers. Frankly, if you ask a question, you should be able to get an answer; and when you get the answer, it probably should be truthful. That is my argument, and that is the purpose I have this hold.

I want to be very clear that I am not voting against the nominee as an individual. I am voting against the agency itself.

OPM, in my opinion, has become one of the most politicized agencies in Washington, DC. I believe the Office of Personnel Management has refused to do its part to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly under ObamaCare. Specifically what I mean by that is I believe what is good for the American people should probably be good for Congress, and what is good for Congress should be good for the American people. I believe that is a standard which many of us in the Senate live by. I think there are some who don't, but I think the majority do. If something is good for the American people, it should be good for Congress. And I think ObamaCare is a good example of that.

For me, the most concerning issue is whether OPM engaged in negotiations with the Senate and House leadership to secure exemptions and subsidies for Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I wish to thank a colleague of mine from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, for his hard-fought effort on this particular issue.

I am not the only person here in this Chamber who can't get questions answered from OPM. I would like to walk for a minute the time line and the difficulty I have had with OPM over the last couple of months trying to get direct and truthful answers from this agency.

I will start on August 28. I wrote OPM asking specifically from the agency to ensure that all congressional staff, including leadership and committee staff, be fairly treated under ObamaCare.

This is what I said:

This is a missed opportunity for the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM), which currently administers and operates

Congressional health care, to ensure that all Congressional

staff, including Committee and Leadership, play by the same

rules as the American taxpayer.

I go on to say later:

As you issue your final rule in order to comply with

Section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act, I encourage you to

clarify this issue once and for all and require in addition

to Members of Congress that all Congressional staff--

Committee and Leadership--to go into the exchanges.

I wanted the dialog. I wanted this conversation. That is why I wrote to OPM. Of course I was looking to hear back from them, and I received no answer. I received no answer from the agency, so I followed up on September 13. From August 28 to September 13, I got no answer.

On September 13, I wrote:

I would like to first express my disappointment with your

agency's lack of response to my stated concerns. In addition,

I would like to reiterate my request that the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) clearly mandate in its final rule

that all Congressional staff, including Committee and

Leadership, be subject to the consequences of ObamaCare.

I think that is a fair dialog and a fair question to ask. That was on September 13. Finally, on September 18, I got the response. Not the response that I wanted, as you can imagine, but I did get a response. In their letter, it says:

In issuing our final rule, OPM will address this specific

issue as well as others raised by members of Congress and the

public at large.

So in this letter on September 18, I wanted to have a discussion with OPM, and OPM says: You can read the final rule. We are not going to have a discussion with you. We are not going to reach out. We are not going to come to your office. We just want you to read the final rule, like every other American, and we are not going to have a discussion prior to issuing the rule.

Obviously, I wasn't going to take that for an answer, so I reached out and I requested a formal briefing with the Acting Director. Sure enough, we had that meeting on September 26. So this is from August 28 all the way to September 26. I will tell you, frankly, it was a good discussion. They were frank. They had a couple of members of their staff there. I raised concerns about possible back door negotiations that would allow for special treatment under the law. I asked specifically whether OPM had engaged leadership on this issue. I asked that question: Have you engaged leadership on this issue? I asked the question three times: Did you engage with leadership on either the House side or Senate side on how you wrote these rules? Three times I asked that question and three times OPM had insisted that they had not, that the answer was no. So they said no three times. They formulated their proposal based on the advice of their lawyers.

I was OK with that. We had discussions on other principles of the bill itself, but that was the essence of the conversation I had and I was fine with that. Frankly, I was ready to release my hold. But what I did want was answers in writing. I wanted to memorialize the conversation that we had in my office, so I sent them another letter on September 28, formally requesting OPM to provide me with a detailed list of all conversations or negotiations that they had with staff members of the Senate or House leadership when crafting the proposed rule.

I want to be super specific. On September 28 we had numerous questions but question No. 4 that I had:

Provide me a detailed list of all conversations or

negotiations you had with any staff member of Senate or House

Leadership when crafting your proposed rule specifically, the

provision giving each Member of Congress the authority to

determine who on their staff goes to the Exchange. If you

engaged in any discussions--both formal and informal--with

Leadership staff was there any undue pressure received from

staff during these discussions? Do you believe this to be a

conflict of interest?

So that question, that letter, was sent out. We had a great discussion. Please memorialize, please respond, and I received none. That was September 28. Please respond to that. They refused to do that.

On October 1, I started reading press reports, press reports both in Politico and also in the National Review. After I asked OPM have you ever dealt specifically with leadership in either House on these proposed rules and they told me no three times, then we find out in Politico that leadership worked for months--months to save these very same longstanding subsidies, according to documents and emails provided to Politico.

I go back to the original question and my concern, if you talk to an agency, do you have a right, whether you are in the majority or minority, to talk to OPM? Do you have a right to receive an answer, and when you get an answer, should that answer be truthful? Three times they told me no, they had not dealt with leadership, and you can see in the press reports, the emails that were released that was not the case.

What was reported in these stories is directly counter to what OPM told me in our meeting. I followed up with another letter dated October 8. I asked for OPM to provide me with detailed lists of all conversations or negotiations that they had with leadership staff. So this is what I said specifically:

In light of recent press reports that Congressional

Leadership staff negotiated with the Office of Personnel and

Management (OPM) regarding changes made to the Federal

Employees Health Benefit Program, I respectfully reiterate my

request that you provide me with a detailed list of all

conversations or negotiations with any staff member of Senate

or House Leadership. These news reports run directly counter

to statements that you made with [me and] three other OPM

staff members during our meeting two weeks ago.

This time I got a response. I finally get a response. OPM told me they couldn't answer my question. They told me they couldn't answer the questions because the government was shut down.

Pretty convenient and, frankly, very disturbing. All I am asking is what OPM told me in our meetings--is it true or whether the press is reporting the truth? Where is the truth? Senators have a right to ask questions. They have a right to receive answers. Those answers should be truthful. That is why I put on the hold. That is why I voted against cloture on this nominee. This is why I will vote against the nominee, not because I have an issue with the nominee herself. I have a problem with this agency.

I want to reiterate and again express my appreciation with others in this Chamber who are as frustrated as I am with OPM--Senator Vitter being one of them--of not being able to get answers, to receive answers back from this particular agency. I want to say I still believe--and I think most in this Chamber believe this--that what is important and good for the American people should be good for Congress; what is good for Congress should be good for the American people. I stand by that and will be voting against final confirmation on this nominee.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize a dedicated public servant from my home State of Nevada, Helyse Turner. For the past several years, Ms. Turner has served as the Business and Community Liaison with the Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center. In this capacity, she has contributed to an organization whose mission is to assist young Nevadans obtain the skills they need to become successful professionals. She has worked closely with my Reno office and has been a resource to them as they work to meet the needs of my constituents.

Ms. Turner has an impressive record of public service in both the non-profit and government sectors. In addition to her community service while at the Sierra Nevada Job Corps Center, she has assisted the needy by working with the Food Bank of Northern Nevada, and she has helped to responsibly manage Nevada's vast public lands while serving with the Bureau of Land Management. She also volunteers on a number of local civic boards, including the local Chamber of Commerce Ambassador program and the Sierra Nevada Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America.

Ms. Turner exemplifies the values of philanthropy and community service, and in so doing she has had a profound impact on many Nevadans. I and my staff deeply appreciate her dedicated efforts and her years of service, and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing her the best of luck as she begins a new chapter with Utah's Clearfield Job Corps Center. She will be greatly missed in the Silver State.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the Missing in America Project's Veteran Recovery Program, which has coordinated a ceremony during which 18 Nevada veterans of the Vietnam and Korean wars will be laid to rest. On October 1, these fallen heroes who never received a military burial will finally be given full military honors at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley, NV.

These heroic Nevadans who will finally receive the honorable recognition they so rightly deserve, gave all that they could give in order to defend liberty and the American way of life. They were willing to put on a uniform, answer the call of duty, and sacrifice their very lives on the altar of freedom. There is no higher virtue than that which was displayed by these 18 brave Nevadans, and the thousands of others with whom they served. And although years have passed since these American warriors gave their lives, their selfless sacrifice is not forgotten, but lives on in the hearts of those whom they died to defend. The very least we can do is express our profound gratitude and appreciation for these heroes by giving them an honorable military burial.

We can never thank our veterans enough for the immeasurable sacrifices they and their families have made on our behalf. As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I can personally attest to the importance of providing every available resource and benefit to America's veterans. I applaud the Missing in America Project for helping to advance this effort by working diligently to ensure that lost veterans receive the honorable burial they deserve. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking this organization for its efforts, and I join my fellow Nevadans in remembering the 18 heroes

who will be laid to rest in a manner consistent with our Nation's high esteem for their valiant service.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Vitter amendment to the energy efficiency bill. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to recognize the horrific events that occurred yesterday, a little over a mile from here. Yesterday's tragic and senseless shooting devastated families and changed lives forever. We continue to hold the victims and their loved ones in our thoughts and we are deeply appreciative of law enforcement and first responders who helped save lives and prevent further violence.

Senator Vitter's amendment to the energy efficiency bill addresses a serious concern that I, along with many of my constituents, have expressed about ObamaCare. Specifically, this amendment seeks to eliminate special Washington, DC, exemptions in the current law. It requires congressional staff, including the committee and leadership staff as well as the President and the Vice President and all political appointees in the administration, to participate in the same exchanges ObamaCare forces on everyday Americans.

I have cosponsored this amendment with some of my colleagues, including Senators Vitter and Enzi, because I think it is clear the American people are fed up with the beltway mentality that the rules apply to everyone else but not Washington, DC. If you ask me, a law that applies to all Americans except those who wrote it simply does not pass the smell test.

By the way, I wish to note this elitist attitude is not anything new. In fact, America's second President, John Adams, warned against a legislative assembly that would ``in time not hesitate to exempt itself from the burdens which it will lay without shame on its constituents.'' It turns out this was a tragically accurate prediction.

Before ObamaCare was even passed into law, I argued that those who wrote the law should be beholden to it. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I introduced an amendment that would require all Members of Congress and their dependents to obtain their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act's health care insurance exchanges. But last month, immediately after Congress left for the August recess, the Office of Personnel Management announced in its proposed rules on ObamaCare that the government can continue to make employer contributions to the health plans of congressional Members and staff. This basically means Members of Congress and congressional staff will receive a taxpayer-funded subsidy for their health care insurance. Ultimately, these tax dollars will be used to protect Washington insiders from the negative consequences of ObamaCare's health exchanges.

Following OPM's announcement, I immediately wrote to them, asking that they clarify in their final rule exactly who is subject to the exchanges. Specifically I asked them to ensure that in addition to Members of Congress, all congressional staff, including committee and leadership staff as well as political employees, go to the exchanges. I have written a followup letter to OPM, and as of yet I have not received a single response for this concern.

If ObamaCare is such a good idea, why would those who helped write the law not stand proudly by it? The fact that ObamaCare protects a select few from participating in the exchanges is further evidence that the law never should have been passed to begin with. But now that it has been passed, upheld by the courts as a massive tax increase, those who put it in place should be subject to the same burdensome regulations, taxes, and mandates that everyday Americans are stuck with. If the President and Congress say it is good enough for the American people, then it should be good enough for the President, Vice President, political appointees, and all congressional staff too. So this amendment I have cosponsored ensures that there is no special fix or exemption for Members of Congress and their staffs. It ensures that they participate in the exchanges just as does every other American starting January 1 of next year. It also ensures that any type of taxpayer-funded subsidies offered to them are also available to the American taxpayers through tax credits.

As many of my colleagues did, I spent the August recess meeting with my constituents and listening to their concerns. It probably won't surprise anyone that the general public doesn't think very highly of Congress, and this exemption is a perfect example of why that is the case.

Unfortunately, in recent days the conversation about this particular amendment has taken an ugly turn toward personal attacks. Regardless of whether my colleagues support this amendment, we should be talking about this measure in the context of what is fair and what is best for the American public. I urge my colleagues to abandon threats and personal attacks and examine this legislation based on its merits.

Since the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare, its provisions have been repeatedly delayed by the administration, demonstrating that the Federal Government understands how bad the law will be for businesses and middle-class families. In fact, the Washington Times just reported that the Obama administration has delayed major aspects of the health care law no less than five times to date. And this latest move to insulate DC insiders from this unpopular law is more than enough evidence that ObamaCare is the wrong answer to the health care challenges in this country.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a reflection of a basic principle of our democracy: that equality under the law means the law applies to everyone. Serving the people of the United States is a privilege. It is about service. It is not about status. And if Congress is going to pass laws that are unpopular, we better be ready to live by the same rules as everyone else. This is what this amendment is about, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.