Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions, which were submitted earlier today:

I ask consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, there are four bills at the desk and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Madam President, I now ask for a second reading en bloc on each of these four measures, but I object to my own request en bloc.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 3, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 5 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Debo Adegbile with up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to the cloture vote on the nomination; and that for the purposes of rule XXII, Friday, February 28, 2014, count as an intervening day.

The next rollcall vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 2 hours. The Republicans will control the first half, the majority the final half.

Following that morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1982, the veterans benefits bill postcloture.

I hope we can reach an agreement to begin consideration of amendments on the bill today. I will have more to say about that in just a minute.

Mr. President, over the last many months millions of Americans have signed up for affordable health insurance, many for the first time ever, many for the first time in many years.

Millions of young people have stayed on their parents' insurance plans while they pursue higher education to start their first jobs.

Millions of senior citizens have saved money on prescriptions--these prescription bills, they average about $1,200 they have saved, each senior--and tens of millions of women have access to free preventive care.

Across the country, Americans who were once denied insurance because they suffered from something like cancer or something as simple as acne were able to buy affordable, quality health insurance they could afford and they could trust.

Despite all that good news, there are plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they are being told all over America.

The leukemia patient whose insurance policy was canceled and would die without her medication--Mr. President, that is an ad being paid for by two billionaire brothers that is absolutely false; or the woman whose insurance policy went up $700 a month--ads paid for around America by the multibillionaire Koch brothers, and the ad is false.

We heard about the evils of ObamaCare, about the lives it is ruining in the Republican stump speeches and in ads paid for by oil magnets, the Koch brothers.

But those tales turned out to be just that--tales, stories made up from whole cloth, lies, distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements.

Mr. President, these two brothers are trying to buy America. They not only funnel money through their Americans for Prosperity, they funnel money into all kinds of organizations to do the same thing that they are doing. They are trying to buy America. I do not believe America is for sale. But we will see. But do not take my word for all this. How about taking the word of a Noble Prize-winning economist who wrote last week in the New York Times:

What the right wants are struggling average Americans,

preferably women, facing financial devastation from health

reform. So those are the tales they're telling, even though

they haven't been able to come up with any real examples.

Paul Krugman writes, Republicans are ``just making [this] stuff up.'' It is easy to do if you have billions of dollars to spend and you are trying to buy America.

But, Mr. President, we have our own stories to tell--true stories-- true stories of average Americans whose lives have changed for the better because of the Affordable Care Act, true stories of families that can rest easier knowing insurance companies can never again put profits first and people second.

Take the story of a couple from Henderson, NV. I went to high school there. Their names are Jane and Brett Thomas. These are real stories. This story is true.

Jane wrote to me recently to say she is ``ecstatic''--that is her word--to be saving $1,200 every month on a top-of-the-line family insurance plan thanks to ObamaCare.

For years Jane was locked into her job as a school teacher because she, Brett, and their two teenage children needed guaranteed health insurance, and it cost a lot.

But Jane was able to quit her teaching job to spend more time with her children and help her husband at the family small business. Jane says the Affordable Care Act has literally changed her life and the lives of her loved ones. This is what she wrote:

Everyone on the news keeps talking of all the people the

law has hurt.

An editorial comment from me: Koch brothers' lies.

I will go back and start over:

Everyone on the news keeps talking of all the people the

law has hurt, but I thought I should share our joy. The best

part is our insurance covers so much more and pays better on

every front. . . . I can't thank you and your colleagues

enough for fighting for people like me and my family.

Republicans may need tall tales and outright lies to convince people that ObamaCare is bad for them, but Democrats do not have to make things up. We have the support of lots of people, including a Nobel Prize-winning economist, not ``OilCare'' magnets who are trying to benefit their businesses by spreading lies about things that do not matter to them.

Millions of real Americans, like Jane and Brett Thomas, are benefiting from ObamaCare every day. Their premiums are lower. Their prescriptions are cheaper. They cannot be denied a policy or discriminated against. Their benefits cannot be cut off because they get sick or reach some arbitrary cap that some insurance executive dreamed up. They are no longer locked into jobs they do not love or do not need because they cannot get insurance anywhere else.

The Koch brothers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling Americans that ObamaCare is bad for them. It is easy to do if you have no conscience and are willing to lie, like they are, through the ads they are promoting. But the Koches should stick to what they know--the oil business--the oil business--where they have made their multibillions of dollars. The truth is simply more powerful than any myth, any legend or any false political ad.

Mr. President, I said I would talk about what we are doing here today. You talk about ``Groundhog Day.'' This is groundhog year. The Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow anything to take place.

Prior to our noon break yesterday--every Tuesday Republicans meet and Democrats meet--one of the senior Republicans came to me and said: Harry, are you going to have amendments? I said: Of course we are going to have amendments. We have talked about amendments on the veterans bill. I have had Republicans come to me and say: Let's try relevant amendments. So I said: Fine. Come up with some. They said: How many? I said: I don't care.

The first amendment is what they have been doing all along. They offer an amendment that has nothing to do with this bill, the veterans bill. It is partisanship at its best. It is obstruction at its best.

We got cloture on this bill. Virtually everybody voted to allow us to start debate on this bill. But that is only a subterfuge. The Republicans obviously have no intent of doing anything for the veterans as outlined in this bill.

The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has worked for months coming up with a bill that is good--a bipartisan proposal. Republican proposals are in this bill.

One of the Republican Senators here came and talked for some length yesterday about ways he would like to improve the bill. Offer amendments. He is not going to be allowed to do that.

The bill advanced yesterday should be bipartisan--a measure that would help the veterans who have given so much to defend our country. As I indicated to my friend, the Republican Senator, before their lunch: Sure, let's look at relevant amendments. Why not? It is the right thing to do. But the first amendment the Republicans demand is an unrelated issue on Iran.

Everyone knows that there are negotiations taking place between the United States, the European Union, and others to prevent Iran from having a nuclear capacity. I have said many times--I will repeat it here today--we will not let Iran have nuclear capabilities. The sanctions that we have put in place have brought them to the bargaining table.

You would think that if there was any validity to what the Republicans are trying to do, the organization that is more supportive of Israel than any organization I know--AIPAC--said publicly they do not want a vote on this now--publicly. They do not always put stuff out in the press, but that is what they said.

The audacity of what they are doing is an effort to stall, obstruct, as they have done. This is, I repeat, not ``Groundhog Day,'' not groundhog month--groundhog year. The Republicans have been doing this on every issue. It does not matter if it is an issue that 90 percent of the American people support.

Republicans say they want to help veterans--a strange way of showing it. We introduced a bill that would do just that. Republicans immediately inject partisan politics into the mix, insisting on amendments that have nothing to do with helping veterans.

So I am terribly disappointed again--not surprised. What are we doing here today? Nothing, nothing.

Under the rules, they have 30 hours postcloture and they can sit around and do nothing. That is what they do all the time. We have spent months and months sitting around doing nothing because of procedural roadblocks put up by the Republicans.

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

Mr. President, this morning when I came to the Senate floor, I talked about how it is groundhog year, not ``Groundhog Day.'' What is going on here today is an example of what has been going on with the Republican-driven direction of this Congress for several years.

What are we doing here today? Nothing. Under the rules of the Senate, cloture was invoked 99 to 0. The purpose of that vote was to get on a bill. It is a shame we had to even file cloture on it, but we did, and that takes a couple of days. Everyone should understand that after cloture is invoked, there is 30 hours. It is a waste of time.

Why are they doing that? Why are they causing this? Because they don't want to legislate. They want to do anything they can to stop President Obama from accomplishing anything.

Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has dedicated his heart and soul to something he, his committee, and the veterans community believes in--improving the lives of veterans. We have millions of people who have come home, and are coming home, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve a lot.

The legislation that is on this floor is terrific. It is supported by 26 different veterans organizations, including the largest, the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Here is what the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said earlier today:

American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger said

Wednesday--

That is today--

that sanctions against Iran have no place in a U.S. Senate

debate over legislation that aims to expand health care,

education opportunities, employment and other benefits for

veterans.

I ask unanimous consent that his complete statement be printed in the Record.

It goes into detail as to how wrongheaded this is, that the Republicans are trying to divert attention from an issue that is so very important to the American people, and why their continued obstruction has been so detrimental to our country.

Koch Advertizing

Mr. President, I can't say that every one of the Koch brothers' ads is a lie, but I will say this: The vast majority of them are. Now, enough editorial comment. I am going to read verbatim a column that appeared in today's The Hill magazine--newspaper, I should call it-- here on the Hill. It is entitled ``Koch brothers' ads shameful.'' Let me read this:

Having a right is not the same thing as being in the right.

In some instances, we have the right to behave immorally.

For example, the First Amendment gives some people, in some

circumstances, the right to lie.

Let's set aside for a moment whether the billionaire Koch

brothers have the right to run a flurry of dishonest ads

about ObamaCare and ask instead whether spending millions of

dollars to mislead and even lie to the American people is the

right thing to do.

There is no legitimate debate about the integrity of the

ads. In Louisiana, the Kochs' political front group placed an

ad that, to all appearances, features a group of Louisianans

opening letters from insurance companies informing them about

the problems they face as a result of the Affordable Care

Act.

Except that, as ABC News has documented, the individuals in

their ad are not Louisianans. They are paid actors who are

not reading actual letters sent by any real insurance

company.

In other words, nothing about the ad is true.

The response from the brothers' organization: ``The viewing

public is savvy enough to distinguish between someone giving

a personal story and something that is emblematic.''

A little editorial comment before I continue with this op-ed piece: How about that for a response? That is code word for ``we have a lot of money, and we will run ads about anything we want to run ads about.''

I continue the column:

Were this an ad for Stainmaster carpet, a Koch product,

Federal Trade Commission guidelines would require the ad to

``conspicuously disclose that the persons in such

advertisements are not actual consumers.''

That is from the FTC.

Moreover, the FTC would require them to either demonstrate

that these results of ObamaCare are typical or make clear in

the ad that they are not.

Needless to say, the ad meets none of these requirements,

thereby conforming to the legal definition of false

advertising.

Not all Koch ads feature actors. Even those with real

people, though, are not necessarily factual. Witness the

attack on Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)--

Who, by the way, is running for the Senate--

in a Koch-funded ad featuring a Michigan leukemia patient.

Everyone sympathizes with her struggle, as well they

should. But neither her bravery nor her suffering makes the

words she utters true. They aren't.

In the ad, the patient claims, with ObamaCare ``the out-of-

pocket costs are so high, it is unaffordable.'' The Detroit

News reports the ``ad makes no mention that [the patient]

successfully enrolled in a new Blue Cross plan where she's

been able to retain her University of Michigan oncologist and

continues to receive the life-saving oral chemotherapy. . . .

The ad also does not mention that [her] health care premiums

were cut in half.''

The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler did the math. She saved

$6,348 a year on premiums. And because ObamaCare caps out-of-

pocket costs for plans at $6,350, she will be paying, at

most, $2 more this year for her care.

It's hard to call that an unaffordable increase.

If it were just these two egregious examples, someone might

suggest I'm picking on the Koch brothers. Now, I do not

always agree with the fact checkers, who are sometimes wrong.

But it is striking that PolitiFact reviewed 11 ads placed by

the brothers' organization, and not a single one was rated

``true'' or even ``mostly true.'' Nine were rated ``false''

or worse.

So, I return to my original question. Whatever their

constitutional rights, are the Koch brothers right to degrade

the Democratic process with lies? Are they right to use

tactics that are, by legal definitions, deceptive and

dishonest? Are voters choosing a candidate due any less

respect and honesty than consumers buying carpet?

We in the consulting profession--

This column is written by a nationally known pollster by the name of Mark Mellman--

We in the consulting profession need to ask ourselves hard

questions about where the line is that we won't cross. When

does the pursuit of victory at any cost exact too high a

price? When does dishonesty distort democracy?

Politicians, political parties or media that fail to

condemn these tactics, as well as broadcasters that air these

ads, and the consultants who make them, are all complicit in

the Kochs' immorality.

Mr. President, this is the truth. This is the truth. What is going on with these two brothers who made billions of dollars last year and attempted to buy our democracy is dishonest, deceptive, false, and unfair. Just because you have huge amounts of money, you should not be able to run these false, misleading ads by the hundreds of millions of dollars.

They hide behind all kinds of entities. It is not just their front organization, Americans For Prosperity. They give money to all kinds of organizations--lots of money. When you make billions of dollars a year, you can be, I guess, as immoral and dishonest as your money will allow. It is too bad they are trying to buy America, and it is time the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty and about these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine.

I sure do.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time postcloture be yielded back.

On behalf of Senator Sanders, I have an amendment at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a motion, cloture in nature, at the desk.

I have a motion to commit S. 1982. It has instructions, and that is also at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

I have an amendment to instructions at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum for both cloture motions required under rule XXII be waived.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 309.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, February 27, during the Senate's consideration of S. 1982, but no later than 2 p.m., Senator Sessions, or his designee, be recognized to raise a budget point of order against the bill; that if such a point of order is raised, it be in order for Senator Murray, or her designee, to move to waive; that if a motion to waive is made, the vote on the motion to waive occur at 2 p.m. tomorrow; that if the motion to waive is successful, the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 2747; that if cloture is invoked on the amendment, all postcloture time be yielded back, amendment No. 2766 be withdrawn, and the Senate proceed to the vote on amendment No. 2747; that upon disposition of the amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1982, as amended, if amended; that if cloture is invoked on the bill, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; if the motion to waive is not successful, then the cloture motions be withdrawn; finally, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to S. 1982 be at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday and the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to amendment No. 2747 and S. 1982 be 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 251, S. 1752; that if a cloture motion is filed on the bill, there be 2 hours of debate on S. 1752 and S. 1917, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate immediately proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate immediately proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that no amendments, points of order or motions be in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage; that if the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1752 is not agreed to, the bill be returned to the calendar; that upon the conclusion of the consideration of S. 1752, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 293, S. 1917; that if a cloture motion is filed on the bill, the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate immediately proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that no amendments, points of order or motions be in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage; that if the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1917 is not agreed to, the bill be returned to the calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 363.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.