Floor Statements

Mr. President, tonight, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 782, the Economic Development Act. I hope it is not necessary that we vote to invoke cloture on this matter on Wednesday, and I hope we can get to it tomorrow. If we cannot move to it under consent, then we will have the cloture vote Wednesday morning.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Brown of Ohio.

Mr. President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur in the House message to accompany S. 990, which is the legislative vehicle for the PATRIOT Act extension. The filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to the PATRIOT Act is at 9:40 this morning. At 10 a.m. there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to concur with respect to the PATRIOT Act.

We are confident additional rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the PATRIOT Act are possible and likely will occur during today's session.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I appreciate everyone's patience. We are working toward the end, but we are not there yet.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Paul to offer two amendments en bloc and no other amendments be in order: Amendment No. 363, firearm records, and amendment No. 365, suspicious activity reports; that there be 60 minutes of debate prior to votes in relation to the amendments, with the time equally divided between Senator Paul and the majority leader or their designees; that neither Paul amendment be divisible; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the majority leader or his designee be recognized for a motion to table; if there are not at least 60 votes in opposition to a motion to table the above amendments, the amendments be withdrawn; further, upon disposition of the two Paul amendments, amendment No. 348 be withdrawn; that all remaining time postcloture be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 990 with amendment No. 347; that no points of order or motions be in order other than those listed in this agreement and budget points of order and applicable motions to waive.

Madam President, I propounded this unanimous consent request: I would comment to my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, this amendment he has suggested has bipartisan support. He has worked very hard on this. It is an amendment that we hope sometime the content of which can be fully brought before the American people because it is something that is bipartisan and timely. I would hope we can get consent to include his amendment.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I renew my request.

Madam President, in this editorial to which the chairman of the Judiciary Committee refers, there are four very strong paragraphs indicating why his amendment is important and necessary. But in keeping with the kind of Senator we have in the senior Senator from Vermont-- the final paragraph is also quite meaningful and it is meaningful because that is the kind of Senator we have from Vermont by the name of Pat Leahy. This is the last paragraph:

At this late hour, it is most important to ensure that the

provisions do not lapse, which would happen as a result of a

dispute between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator

Rand Paul over procedural issues.

Here is the final sentence, which demonstrates why Pat Leahy is a friend of the United States and is a legend in the Senate:

If time runs out for consideration of the Leahy amendment,

Mr. Leahy should offer a stand-alone bill later to make the

reporting requirements the law.

So I appreciate very much Senator Leahy being his usual team player.

Madam President, this is an extremely important plateau we have reached. It has been very difficult for everyone. But now this bill can go to the President of the United States if these amendments are defeated, which I hope they are. It will go to the President tonight before the deadline of this bill, so this bill will not lapse. Even though the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, and I have had some differences, what we have done on this legislation has at least helped us understand each other, which I appreciate very much, and I appreciate his working with us. It has been most difficult for him and for me.

Madam President, although the PATRIOT Act is not a perfect law, it provides our intelligence and law enforcement communities with crucial tools to keep our homeland safe and thwart terrorism. While I am disappointed we were not able to include any of the sensible oversight and civil liberties protections included in the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, I strongly support the Senate's effort to ensure that these important authorities do not expire.

The raid that killed Osama bin Laden also yielded an enormous amount of new information that has spurred dozens of investigations yielding new leads every day. Without the PATRIOT Act, investigators would not have the tools they need to follow these new leads and disrupt terrorist plots, putting our national security at risk.

Finally, we have worked expeditiously to pass this legislation to reauthorize these critical intelligence tools. If for some reason this bill is not enacted before May 27 and there is a brief lapse in the authorities, there should be no doubt that it is Congress's intent that this bill reauthorizes the authorities in their current form and does so until June 2015.

How much time remains, Madam President?

Who controls that time?

I yield back the majority time.

Amendments Nos. 363 and 365 to Amendment No. 347

Madam President, I move to table the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 363 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am not sure I was heard earlier. I ask unanimous consent that this vote be 15 minutes and the rest 10 minutes.

Is amendment No. 365 pending?

Madam President, I move to table the pending Paul amendment No. 365, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, there will be no more votes today. That was the last vote for this week. We will have a vote on the Monday we get back in the evening at around 5 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 8 p.m. tonight, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that Senator Murray now be recognized to speak for 4 minutes, and following her remarks, Senator Inhofe be recognized until 6:15 p.m., Senator Durbin then be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and following that Senator Coburn be recognized for up to 45 minutes.

I think that may get us past 8 o'clock. I have not done the math but however long that takes.

Madam President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour, with the majority controlling the first half, Republicans controlling the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur in the House message to accompany S. 990, which is the legislative vehicle for the PATRIOT Act extension.

I filed cloture on the motion to concur with respect to the PATRIOT Act extension last night. Under the rule, the cloture vote will occur 1 hour after we convene tomorrow. Additionally, we are working to reach an agreement to vote on the House Republican budget. We will notify Senators when an agreement is reached and votes are scheduled.

Madam President, S. 1057 is at the desk. It is due for a second reading.

I would object to any further proceedings with regard to this bill at this time.

Madam President, for weeks Americans old and young have been speaking out against the Republican plan to kill Medicare. It is not just Democrats. Republicans have been speaking out against it too.

Newt Gingrich called it a radical plan and ``right-wing social engineering.'' Several Republican Senators have similarly spoken out, calling it what it really is, a plan that would shatter a cornerstone of our society and break our promise to the elderly and to the sick.

Last night, though, the most important voices were heard. American voters had their first chance to do something about it. They went to the polls and resoundingly rejected that plan and the candidate who ran on that plan's promise to dismantle Medicare.

In a special congressional election in upstate New York, the Republican plan to kill Medicare was the No. 1 issue. It was the No. 2 issue. It was the No. 3 issue. It is what the voters most cared about and were most scared about, as well they should be.

Here is what it would do: It would turn over seniors' health to profit-hungry insurance companies. It would let bureaucrats decide what tests and treatments seniors get. It would ask seniors to pay more for their health care in exchange for fewer benefits. That is a bad deal all around.

What is telling is not just that the voters rejected this plan, it is that the Republican candidate pushing the Republican plan to kill Medicare was rejected in a very Republican district.

The district, which stretches from Buffalo to Rochester, has been in Republican hands for four decades. It produced influential Republicans such as Jack Kemp, whom I served in Congress with. He served in the Cabinet. He ran on the Presidential ticket as a vice presidential candidate.

Last night's special election was held to replace a Republican Congressman who won that seat by a 3-to-1 margin. John McCain won the district in 2008. George W. Bush won the district 4 years earlier. Last year's Republican candidate for Governor in New York lost in a landslide. But he won big in that district. That is how conservative it is.

Democrats in Congress and even some candid Republicans know the Republican plan to kill Medicare is irresponsible and indefensible. Last night voters showed the country and the Congress that they know it too.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republicans have 2 additional minutes.

Mr. President, I am going to use my leader time, and I ask unanimous consent that time not take anything away from the debate on the budget.

Mr. President, the national security of the United States is at stake, and the junior Senator from Kentucky is complaining that he has not been able to offer amendments.

Let me take a moment to set the record straight. As all of us and the Senator from Kentucky are well aware, we have worked long and hard in good faith to get an agreement to consider amendments. In fact, I offered him a solution that is more than fair. I proposed a consent agreement that would have brought before the Senate six amendments, more than half of which--specifically four--were written by the Senator from Kentucky.

Unfortunately, in order to continue his political grandstanding, he rejected that offer.

It is unfortunate because the inability to reach an agreement has serious consequences. At midnight tomorrow, the PATRIOT Act will expire. Unless the Senator from Kentucky stops standing in the way, our law enforcement will no longer be able to use some of the most critical tools it needs to counter terrorists and combat terrorism.

If they cannot use these tools--tools that identify and track terrorist suspects--it could have dire consequences for our national security.

When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected. In the last several years, the government has stopped dozens of would-be terrorists before they could strike. Now the Senator from Kentucky is threatening to take away the best tools we have for stopping them.

Does this mean the PATRIOT Act is perfect? Of course not. Today, the Republican leader and I received a letter from James Clapper, a three- star retired general from the U.S. military, the Nation's Director of National Intelligence. He knows better than any of us the real effects of letting terrorist-fighting tools expire. In his letter, he wrote about our ability to conduct surveillance on foreign radicals, to track purchases of bombmaking materials, and other classified programs. All of these would expire with the PATRIOT Act, if we let it.

This is a particularly bad time to shut down electronic surveillance activities. As has been widely reported in the press, we recovered thousands of documents, photos, videos and other materials from Osama bin Laden's compound. This material has opened dozens of investigations and leads to new terrorist suspects and terrorist activities directed toward the United States of America. It continues to yield more and more information every day.

If the Senator from Kentucky refuses to relent, the government will be unable to fully pursue these leads. That would increase the risk of a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland and hamper our ability to deal a truly fatal blow to al-Qaida.

I repeat, Director Clapper, a retired three-star general, asked us not to allow a moment's interruption in the intelligence community's ability to protect the American people.

Some may be asking: Then why is the Senator from Kentucky holding out? What is keeping him from accepting an agreement to move forward-- one that I think is more than fair to him and the Senate? We could have a couple of strong Democratic amendments and his amendment--four in

number. The reason is, he is fighting for an amendment to protect the right of terrorists, not of average citizens, to cover up their gun purchases. It is all dealing with a gun amendment.

We all remember the tragic Fort Hood shooting less than 2 years ago. A radicalized American terrorist bought guns from a Texas gun store and used them to kill 13 innocent soldiers and civilians. It is hard to imagine why the Senator from Kentucky would want to hold up the PATRIOT Act for a misguided amendment that would make America far less safe.

The Senator from Kentucky also complains that the Senate has not had a week of debate. We all would like to have more debate on this issue. The Presiding Officer would. We would like to have a lot of debate on other things. The Presiding Officer is one of the Senators who led an effort earlier in this session to make sure we have more robust debate. We made a little progress but not enough.

The Senator from Kentucky, who is complaining that we haven't had a week of debate, better come up with something a little better. Here is why. This matter has been before the Senate for 1 week now. I moved to proceed to the PATRIOT Act last Thursday. Today is Wednesday. As of today the Senate has been working toward passing this measure for 6 or 7 days. There is no question that Senators have had the opportunity to debate. The only question has been how Senators have chosen to use these last 6 days.

The bottom line is that no matter how long it takes to get there, we are going to have this vote, and the vote will win. We will pass the PATRIOT Act and do everything we can to keep the American people safe. It is up to the Senator from Kentucky whether those national security programs will expire before we get a chance to vote. That expiration date is important. If he thinks it is going to be a badge of courage on his side to have held this up for a few hours, he has made a mistake. It will set this program back significantly, and that is too bad. The clock is ticking, and the ball is in his court.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and, of course, as the Senator knows, I have given a statement on the floor that one amendment I understand is in his consent makes this whole arrangement impossible, and so, therefore, I object.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 5 minutes. I will take that time.

Mr. President, the vote we are going to have shortly is about more than just public policy; it is about priorities, about whether we hold fast to our values or break our promises.

There is a lot wrong with the House Republican budget on which Senators are about to cast their vote. But the most irresponsible and indefensible is a radical plan to end Medicare as we have known it. Doing so would break a solemn promise between our society and our seniors. It is a promise that for more than four decades has saved seniors from poverty, illness, and worse.

The promise of Medicare is this: If you work hard and contribute, America will make sure you are protected in your golden years from the hardships of affording health care. The Republican budget would break this promise. It would make life significantly more difficult and painful for America's seniors. It is as simple and as serious as that.

The Republican plan would kill Medicare. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal admitted this, even though most Republican U.S. Senators still refuse to face this reality; that is, as the Wall Street Journal said, the Republican plan would kill Medicare.

Here is what it would do. It would turn over seniors' health to profit-hungry insurance companies. It would let bureaucrats decide what tests and treatments seniors get. It would ask seniors to pay more for their benefits, for their health care, charging every senior $6,000 more every year in exchange for fewer benefits. That is a bad deal all around.

Those voting for this Republican plan would be forcing seniors in Nevada to pay more than twice as much as they pay today in out-of- pocket costs. Sadly, that is just not a Nevada problem, it is an Alaska problem, too, and a problem that faces every State in the Union--$6,000 more for every senior.

Those voting for the Republican plan to kill Medicare would be voting to reopen the doughnut hole we closed to help seniors afford expensive prescription drugs. Opening the doughnut hole would send drug prices literally through the roof, costing, for example, 27,000 seniors in Nevada and every other State thousands of dollars more between now and the year 2020.

Those voting for the Republican plan to kill Medicare would also be forcing our seniors to pay almost a million dollars more for annual wellness visits that we put in our health care bill, and it would make it harder for seniors to access nursing home and long-term care. It would make at least 34 million more Americans uninsured.

The Republican plan to kill Medicare was written in the name of saving money. Listen to this, Mr. President. It costs seniors so much money that it doesn't do anything they said it would do. One study found that seniors would spend $14 more for every dollar the government saves. That is 14 to 1 in the wrong direction. That is not effective economics anyplace. It is certainly not worth endangering the health of our seniors.

The Republican plan is a plan that tries to balance the budget literally on the backs of America's seniors. This is a clear window into the other party's priorities, though. While it asks seniors to pay more and more, it allows the wealthiest to pay less and less. It gives even more tax breaks to those who need it the least--oil companies, billionaires, and multinational companies that ship jobs overseas.

It comes down to this: The Republican plan to kill Medicare is a plan to make the rich richer and the sick sicker. A well-worn metaphor characterizes the Senate as a saucer, a deliberative body that cools the intense heat and occasional zeal of the House of Representatives. In voting down the radical Republican House-passed plan in Medicare, and keeping our priorities straight, and keeping our promise to our seniors, we are bringing that image to life that our Founding Fathers had of this great body, the United States Senate.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 36, H. Con. Res. 34, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only for 2 hours; that Senator Sessions control the first hour and Senator Conrad control the second hour.

Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived and that the cloture vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 990 with an amendment occur at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 26, without intervening action or debate; further, that if cloture is invoked, the time postcloture be counted from 1 a.m., Thursday May 26.

So, in short, we do not have to have the vote at 1 o'clock. Everyone has been most cooperative in getting past that point. We will come in tomorrow, we hope early in the day, to have good news on how we are going to go forward to make, hopefully, virtually everybody happy.

Mr. President, Mary Jane McCarthy will retire at the end of May after more than 23 years of service to the U.S. Senate. As one of the official reporters of the debate in the Senate, Mary Jane and her colleagues ensure that the debates and votes of the Senate can be read by future generations.

Mary Jane started her professional career as a free-lance reporter in 1972 by recording government hearings at the Federal Trade Commission. Since that time, she has reported hearings and proceedings at the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Labor Relations Board.

In the Senate, Mary Jane developed a reputation for understanding the intricacies of this legislative body. With her years of experience, Mary Jane knows the nuances of the parliamentary procedures so well that she is often asked to train new reporters when they enter the Senate. I am sure many of her colleagues have benefitted from her instruction.

I am proud to have worked with Mary Jane and I appreciate her important contributions to the Senate. I know I speak for the Senate family as we wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 13 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and I further ask unanimous consent that all Senators be listed as cosponsors of this resolution.