Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are in day number 7 of this government shutdown. As was pointed out by the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Oregon, we started with a continuing resolution of $1.058 billion. That was compromised down, with the expectation that there would be a clean CR, to $986 billion--over a $70 billion reduction. That wasn't good enough because there were some who wanted to add different amendments to deal with the affordable health care act. The bottom line is that we are in the throes of a governmental shutdown.

It is interesting that since the government was shut down--midnight tonight will be a solid week--we have seen bills come over from the House that would fund the VA and the National Park Service. The Senator from Alaska is on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We both work very hard for rural veterans in this country, but we both know the VA can't do their job unless the IRS has funding and CMS has funding. So it is great to put that political gesture out there, but the truth is that they can't do their job until we have more than just the VA funded.

Then there was a story of childhood cancer, so the House came across and said: Maybe we ought to fund the National Institutes of Health.

Then there was the terrible scene last week where Capitol police officers--who are actually working without pay--had to address a lady who drove up here by the Hart Building. Since those officers responded, maybe we should pay them. So they came across with a bill for them. They should be paid all the time, I might add.

Then there is the issue of Hurricane Karen, so we need to fund FEMA. So they came across to fund FEMA.

Then they thought, all these furloughed Federal employees, we should pay them. And I agree, we should. The fact is that they do a great job and they should be back here working, and every one of them wants to be back here working to get that backpay.

Then they decided to fund things such as food inspectors because they understand our food security is at risk.

These guys can't see past their political noses. The bottom line is, as the previous speakers talked about, if the Speaker of the House put the clean resolution up with $986 billion, it would pass the House. He said it wouldn't this weekend. OK. So if it doesn't, put it up anyway. Prove us wrong. The bottom line is that it would pass and this senseless shutdown would be over.

There are plenty of things out there that continue to hamper this country's moving forward economically due to this economic shutdown. We have talked about Head Start. We have talked about the Forest Service suspending logging contracts. The Senator from Alaska talked about drilling permits. Montana is an outdoor State, and people live for this time of year. It is called hunting season. Access to a lot of the hunting, camping, and fishing sites has been severely restricted. This weekend the National Guard furloughed its drill for 3,500 guardsmen. Communities around our national parks are being severely impacted, losing literally millions of dollars, which is real money.

So how do we get out of this? It is pretty simple: If the Speaker would put the bill on the floor, it would pass. He refuses to do that. I think he refuses to do it for another reason, and that reason is that I think a lot of his Members want to cater to the tea party movement but go back home and want to appear as if they are moderates. If they had that vote, it would certainly point out who stands for what in that body. That is why he needs to have the vote.

As was said by the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Alaska, we have had votes on everything they sent over here, just about. The fact is they need to do the same. We sent a clean CR to them. Unless they want this shutdown to go and on and on for some unknown reason, they would vote on that clean CR.

Then we are rapidly approaching the debt ceiling, which puts the full faith and credit of this country at risk if we do not increase it. I might add this is not money that is yet to be spent, this is money that has been spent. It is not unlike the mortgage on your house or your credit card bill. If you do not pay them, interest rates will go up. If we do not increase the debt limit, interest rates and our national debt will go up. Those who are concerned about the debt and the deficit, as I am, and others on both sides of the aisle, we will see our national debt increase, not decrease, by doing something as silly as not increasing the debt ceiling.

I know there are some in this body who would love to put issues on the debt ceiling, and they are playing with fire. We saw what happened in 2011 when our credit rating was downgraded because some were just talking about not increasing the debt ceiling.

The truth is I will be the first to work with anybody in this body to try

to reduce the debt and deficit by reducing spending, by removing tax loopholes in the code. We need to do that at the front end, not the back end. The debt limit is dealing with the issue at the back end. If we do not do it, if we do not increase the debt ceiling, we will see the economy spiral down out of control, potentially even putting us into a depression.

I don't say that to scare people. I say that to make the point that we should not be fooling around with this issue. We are adults here. We need to get together and realize that the debt ceiling is too important to play politics with. I know since I have been here--and this government shutdown issue is a prime example--politics has trumped policy nearly every time. It is time to endorse the right policy and get a long-term comprehensive deal that is not a patch, that doesn't add to the uncertainty, yet gets us by the continuing resolution, gets us out on the debt ceiling so we do not have to deal with this every 45 or 90 days and do not have to deal with the debt ceiling just about every year.

I think if we were to do that and cooler minds prevailed, we could see this country start to grow economically. We would see unemployment drop even more than we have seen previously. We would see this country go on to have an opportunity to pay down our debt and deficit in a way that makes sense for our kids and grandkids.

I do not know where this is going to end. I can tell you the folks back home see it for what it is, and they are tired of foolishness and they want to see it stopped. I can tell you what makes it particularly frustrating for me is that as I see businesses start to expand, as I see entrepreneurs ready to take chances, they look at what goes on in Washington, DC, and: Whoa, this is not worth it. We don't know what the future is to bring because of the uncertainty of not only the continuing resolution, keeping the government open, but also the talk that has been revolving now around the debt ceiling talks.

I hope this body will do the right thing, and that it would push the House to do the right thing; that is, put the clean resolution on the floor in the House. Let's get the debt ceiling behind us. Let's talk about debt and deficit reduction in a meaningful way.

Yes.

MR. BEGICH. The Senator had at the beginning some good numbers there. If I do the math right, when the Senator from Oregon was here and from what I saw, we hear over and over there are not negotiations or compromise going on. But if I hear my colleague's numbers right, there were negotiations, there was compromise. As a matter of fact, there was so much compromise we went to the House number--not our number, we went to their number. We actually reduced the budget on an annualized basis $70 billion. Isn't that what the Senator's numbers are? He is on the Appropriations Committee, I am on the Appropriations Committee. There is one thing we do know a lot about and that is numbers.

It is. It is a much lower number. I will tell the good Senator from Alaska this: That is what happened in the negotiations. The upshot of all that is that we would get a clean CR coming back if we would negotiate it back down to that figure; there would not be a bunch of games being played.

Absolutely. And we should debate them later. But the bottom line is it is important that we keep our government open. Why? Because we are wasting a ton of money the way it is being done now, and this piecemeal funding, trying to get a political advantage, is crazy. People see it for what it is: Political gamesmanship.

Why don't we have them come back? We know the value of work to their self-esteem.

We know those folks are important to my office. If they were not important to my office, they would not be working for me. They tell folks what is going on, help constituents when they have problems with some of the agencies around.

But the bottom line is they are sitting at home. These are not rich folks. A lot of them are hand to mouth. They don't know how long this government shutdown is going to go on and they want to go back to work.

My last point would be this. If we are going to get the debt and deficit under control, one of the things we have to do is grow the economy. By stopping government with this continuing resolution, by talking, simply talking about increasing the debt limit, it does not do good things for our economy. In fact, it takes it in the wrong direction. We see businesses contract when they see what is going on here in Washington.

It is time to start using some common sense. There are folks who claim to be business representatives out there. I talked to a bunch of businesses this afternoon.

I am. Every one of them said they ought to quit messing around, get to an agreement, have the debates on debt and deficit we need to have, because they are important, but don't hold up the debt limit and don't hold up the government funding in the process.

I thank my friend from Alaska.

Madam President, people all around this country--and Montana is no exception--are looking at the actions in Washington, DC, and they are shaking their heads in disbelief. They are shaking their heads in disbelief because the government has shut down, but yet a bill has passed the Senate. If the Speaker of the House would offer it on the House floor, it would pass the House and the government wouldn't have to be shut down.

Then all the resolutions put forth on the other side, and some on this side, quite frankly, about opening different areas of the government, would all be settled because government would be open.

A previous speaker this morning said: We shouldn't be dealing with overall government. We should be dealing with this in piecemeal fashion.

Really? Who determines who gets help and who determines who doesn't? The fact is the government provides some pretty essential services to folks across the board. To stand on this floor and cherry-pick certain pieces of the government to fund and not to fund is totally unfair. Quite frankly, those groups know they are being used as political pawns in this process.

We started out these negotiations with a CR that was at $1.58 trillion. We compromised that down to a point of $986 billion, somewhere around a $70 billion reduction. This is real money, a significant compromise.

The House came back and said: No, that is really not good enough. We want that $986 billion figure, and then we also want to defund the Affordable Care Act.

Why? Because, my goodness, it is the most terrible thing. There are all sorts of reasons given on the floor why the Affordable Care Act is so terrible.

For example, I had a flat tire on my truck last week--it was the Affordable Care Act. I ran out of fuel in my fuel tank--that doggone Affordable Care Act.

Let's get the Affordable Care Act implemented and all of these bogus excuses about why it is so bad will go away. People will get the advantage of affordable insurance once again, not government health care, but affordable insurance so they can afford to get sick.

Aside from that, the repeal of it was turned back. Then they came back with a delay of 1 year and said: Oh, by the way, if you work for Congress or you are a Member of Congress, we are going to take away any sort of insurance benefits you get whatsoever.

This was interesting. Because, quite frankly, if Members of Congress don't want that benefit, they will turn it back, and I anticipate some will after the Affordable Care Act is put into place. I doubt that very much.

Instead, what happened was we turned that back, and now we are in a situation where we sent back a clean continuing resolution at $986 billion. In the House, if the Speaker would put that bill on the floor, it would pass and we could start doing the business of this country once again rather than sitting here in a government shutdown where things aren't working and we are not addressing the issues that need to be addressed.

But when we take a look at whether we are going to fund certain programs, I want to talk about a few very briefly before I kick it over to the Senator from Colorado.

We have intelligence folks who are not on the ground, but we have folks fighting in theater right now who need that intelligence. Whether they get it is up in the air. The folks who protect our clean water and air are off the job. Clean water is our most important resource, and they are not there to make sure it remains clean. Kids on Head Start, food inspectors, research into energy so we can have a 21st-century economy and affordable energy in that 21st century--they are all off the job. Domestic violence and folks who are impacted by domestic violence--there are shelters that are determining right now whether they will turn away those victims of domestic violence.

The list goes on and on and on. Whether we are talking about the Centers for Disease Control or we are talking about logging and salvage sales or talking about allowing wells to be drilled in the Bakken--that has all stopped. Why? Because of a Speaker of the House--who, by the way, a previous speaker just said they were very proud of. But why has it stopped? It is because of a Speaker of the House who doesn't have the internal guts to put this on the floor and let it pass the House of Representatives. That would put this country back to work so we could start doing the things we need to do in the halls of the Senate and the halls of the House that are important for this country, whether it is the farm bill or housing reform or a defense authorization bill--the list goes on and on. Instead, we are dealing with a totally self- inflicted crisis supported by people who want to shut this government down. Regardless of what they say on this floor, they are very happy because this government is shut down.

It is time, Members of the House of Representatives, that you demand that the Speaker put that bill up so you can vote on it and we can get back to doing the business of this country.

With that, I yield the floor.

I object.

I object.

Madam President, I object.

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

Mr. President, as we inch closer and closer to potentially shutting down this government, I rise to remind my colleagues what a shutdown would mean for our constituents. I also want to remind my colleagues it doesn't have to be this way.

Budget battles and debt ceiling debates are the norm in Congress right now, but there was a time--there was a time--when both parties worked together and the American people benefited.

It hasn't always been rosy. The budget battles of the mid-1990s shut our government down for nearly 1 month. Personal insults here in the world's greatest deliberative body used to be common. And back in the 1850s, a Senator was beaten on the Senate floor. But through it all, Americans trusted their government to meet its constitutional responsibility and keep the lights on. After all, if we couldn't agree on anything else, at least we could agree on keeping the lights on.

Today, constant political brinkmanship and grandstanding replace commonsense compromise and actual governing. This is taking a toll on all Americans, and Montanans are no exception.

With a government shutdown once again a real possibility, America's frustration is reaching new heights. For some folks a shutdown is another opportunity to shake their heads and bemoan the state of affairs right here in Washington, DC. They are the lucky ones. For others, a shutdown will hurt their health, their wallets, and their bottom lines.

I am talking about a veteran--a veteran who could be anywhere in this country--whose disability case appeal could and probably will be delayed if we have a government shutdown; a senior citizen waiting for a Social Security check; a small business owner waiting to get a potential contract that could fix a decaying road infrastructure.

Hotels and other businesses around our national parks, which would be closed if we have a government shutdown, are also holding their breath to see what we are doing here these days. If the parks close because of a government shutdown, the money coming in and out of the wallets of those businesses and those folks who not only drove to the park in anticipation of being able to utilize it but the businesses around the park would be impacted very negatively.

Everybody knows about the Bakken oil plate that is driving the economic growth in North Dakota and eastern Montana. But if the government shuts down, the Bureau of Land Management's permitting office would be shut down too. That means wells would be delayed and the jobs that come with it.

Since the House Republicans have been unwilling to begin negotiations on a new farm bill, farmers and ranchers are going to have a lot of questions come October 1. On that day, not only will the government shut down but the farm bill will expire as well. So not only could some folks lose critical nutrition assistance, but farmers and ranchers would have no place to go to get their questions answered about the fact there is no more farm bill for a commodity type; no more ability to get questions answered about conservation, which needs to be planned far ahead of time. Why? Because their local farm service agency office will be closed. Like the other government offices, nobody is going to be there to answer the phone.

In Montana, Washington now is shorthand for uncertainty, Congress is shorthand for dysfunction, and faith in government is being eroded because some folks around here are more concerned about raising money on C-SPAN than the people of this great country and the American economy. It needs to stop.

The American people expect Members of Congress to make smart, responsible decisions based on the best information we have. That means advocating for issues that matter but compromising to get something done. That means giving a little and getting a whole lot in return. It is called governing. That is a lesson some folks around here need to learn.

I would have thought flirting with a government shutdown and costing taxpayers billions of dollars in 2011 would have been sufficient enough a lesson or maybe coming within a few hours of falling off the so- called fiscal cliff in 2012 would have been a sufficient lesson. I would have thought that causing an unprecedented credit downgrade 2 years ago by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling would have knocked some sense into some folks. And I would think the American people's overwhelming desire not to shut the government down come October 1 would cause my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to use common sense. But here we are, playing politics once again as regular Americans twist in the wind.

There is a way forward, and it doesn't have to start with political games at the eleventh hour. It starts with working through the regular budgets and appropriations process and not proposing amendments just to slow the process down.

But funding the government is the easy part. In less than 1 month, we will once again be reaching a debt ceiling--a much more serious issue. If we don't raise it before then, we will not be able to pay our bills and the economy will be devastated. Crashing into the debt ceiling will cause our credit rating to drop, increase the interest rates not only on our government debt but for anybody who has debt.

If you don't believe a farmer from Big Sandy, MT, maybe you will believe a guy by the name of Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised Presidents, Presidential candidates, and Fortune 500 companies. He said that failing to raise the debt ceiling will hurt consumer and business confidence, force businesses to stop hiring, and raise borrowing costs for average Americans.

He is far from alone. Former Republican Senator Judd Gregg says failing to pay our bills would ``lead to job losses and more debt.'' He calls failing to raise the debt ceiling a ``terrible policy that would produce difficult times for people on Main Street.''

Senator Gregg, whom I had the opportunity to serve with, spent 18 years here in the Senate. He knows as long as Congress fails to provide the American people with political and economic certainty by funding the government and raising the debt limit, we will not be able to tackle other important issues, such as replacing the sequester the Senator from Alaska talked about, and replacing it with smart budget cuts or striking a long-term budget agreement that will put this Nation on solid economic footing.

A government shutdown would be irresponsible and it would be unnecessary. Congress needs to do its job by finding a way to responsibly keep the government running. We cannot keep holding businesses, seniors, working families, veterans, students, and our military men and women hostage to the political whims and aspirations of a select few.

When I was a member of the Montana Senate, my colleagues and I knew what we had to get done every session. Passing a budget was at the top of the list. Even if we didn't agree where to cut or where to spend, we worked together to figure it out. And just like my former colleagues in Montana did this spring, we passed a budget and kept the State government running. Here in Washington there are a lot of pressures we don't face at the State level. There are news channels that give any Senator a chance to get on TV, and every issue has an advocacy group fighting for its share of the pie. But real leaders make tough decisions. Real leaders work together to find common ground and move our Nation forward. Real leaders put their constituents first.

It is not too late. It is not too late for us to regain the trust of the American people. But it is going to take some work. We won't be able to do it right away, but we ought to start this week, and we can start by responsibly funding the government, providing our economy and our Nation with the confidence they need. That is what we did in Montana, and that is what we need to do here in Washington.

The American people are calling for an end to the brinkmanship and an end to the gridlock, and it is time we start to listen to them.

I also want to thank Senator Mikulski, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, for agreeing to end a special-interest provision that was included by the House of Representatives in last year's government funding bill a few months ago and the one that was sent over here recently.

A few years ago the committee voluntarily agreed to match the House's earmark moratorium, and I think it is interesting our friends in the House make very serious statements about the need to get rid of earmarks, then stuffed a few items in the spending bill last year that directly benefited a couple of the biggest multinational businesses in this country. I spoke to Chairwoman Mikulski about this issue this spring and she was very gracious and listened to my concerns. I am pleased to see she and Senator Reid have eliminated one of those corporate earmarks, and I want to thank them for that. It will make this bill a lot cleaner.

In closing, I know there are people in this body who want to work together to make this country all it can be. I also know there are people in this body who would love to see a government shutdown because they might be able to pad their own PACs or political coffers. And maybe it would take a government shutdown to make them understand how bad this would be for the American people, its businesses and its working families. But I certainly hope that doesn't happen. The American people don't deserve it. This country doesn't deserve it, as it comes out of one of the worst economic times since the 1930s. Quite frankly, being a businessman myself, I look at what goes on in Washington, DC, and all the challenges businesses have in this country, and the biggest challenge we have right now is Washington, DC.

Let's start moving the country forward by working together. Let's fund the government. Let's not shut it down. And let's do what is right when the debt limit debate comes around.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 196, S. 1348.

I ask unanimous consent that the Carper amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 261, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 262, submitted earlier today by Senators Donnelly and Isakson.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 27, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 59, the continuing resolution, under the previous order.

And that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to the joint resolution be 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.

There will be up to four rollcall votes at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to invest in research to fight pancreatic cancer.

Just six percent of Americans diagnosed with pancreatic cancer live more than 5 years--6 percent.

Sixty-five percent of folks with colon cancer survive that long; 90 percent live 5 years with breast cancer and nearly every man diagnosed with prostate cancer is still living after half a decade.

Why is pancreatic cancer a different story? It is because we do not have a reliable way to detect this deadly disease in its earliest stages.

As a result, nearly 40,000 Americans will die from pancreatic cancer in 2013. But despite being a leading cause of cancer death, pancreatic cancer receives far less support--and far fewer research dollars--than other forms of cancer.

This must change because support for cancer research saves lives.

Supporting pancreatic cancer research will lead to breakthroughs in treatment. It will lead to needed advances in early detection. And it will show the American people that we are serious about saving the lives of their closest family and friends.

For Leigh Enselman, it will make it clear that we are standing with her and her mother.

Leigh lives in Bozeman, MT while her mother, who suffers with pancreatic cancer, lives in Seattle.

Leigh works hard to support her mom during chemotherapy and radiation treatments. She also volunteers her time to support pancreatic cancer patients and raise awareness about the disease.

But Leigh worries what is in store for her and her mom. She prays every day that her mom will be among the 6 percent of pancreatic cancer patients who survive.

Myra and Ed Pottratz from Great Falls, MT know what Leigh and her mom are going through. Together, they are fighting Ed's cancer. Ed recently had surgery, but the tumor spread to his liver. He now faces painful chemotherapy treatments, something far too many cancer patients experience.

Supporting pancreatic cancer research will also honor the life of Lanny Duffy of Darby, MT.

Lanny and his wife Deborah were not born and raised in Montana. They came west from Chicago so in retirement Lanny could be closer to his beloved fly fishing. But Lanny was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and he only got to enjoy the State he loved for a year before the disease took his life.

Congress took a big step forward last year to support folks such as Leigh, Ed and Lanny. We passed the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act. This bill--supported by a bipartisan majority--increased research into pancreatic cancer. It gave the National Cancer Institute the tools it needs to tackle this lethal disease.

But the sequester is taking back our promise. The sequester cut funding to the National Institutes of Health--which does most of our country's research into this form of cancer--by 5 percent.

That 5 percent cut eliminated 250 million dollars-worth of funding for cancer research.

Talk about sending mixed messages. One moment, we are telling Leigh and her mom that we're fighting cancer with them. The next moment, we are telling them they are on their own.

Just last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee restored the funding that was cut by sequestration so NIH could beat pancreatic cancer. This is my first year as a member of the subcommittee that funds the NIH. It has been an honor to work with Chairman Harkin to ensure that the NIH and medical research all over the country is well funded by this bill.

But this measure--which I wholeheartedly support--has a long way to go before becoming law.

We need to rein in our spending. We need to get our budget in order. But we cannot hurt our neighbors in the process. We owe that to people like Leigh, and Ed and Deborah. For their sake, we need to find a responsible solution to our budget problems.

Folks around the country are skeptical right now in Congress' ability to make smart, responsible decisions.

And cutting funding to fight deadly diseases like pancreatic cancer only adds to their frustration. That is because they know it will slow down the progress we have made toward detecting pancreatic cancer early on and saving lives.

This disease touches me and my office personally. Two members of my office have lost relatives to pancreatic cancer. Chances are I am not alone in this regard. Chances are each of my Senate colleagues knows a Leigh, an Ed, or a Deborah.

In support of those we know, those we've met, and those we love, I urge my colleagues to support increased research into pancreatic cancer, to support the Appropriations Committee's recent NIH budget plan, and to stand for smart and responsible measures to balance our budget.

Government Surveillance

I also want to talk about the need to protect our civil liberties and our Constitutional rights. When I joined the Senate in 2007, I was a bit of an outlier. But I am not referring to my status as the only working farmer in the Senate or to my haircut.

I am referring to my opposition to the Patriot Act.

Montanans elected me to the U.S. Senate after I made it clear that I didn't just want to fix the Patriot Act, I wanted to repeal it. I still do. But recent events have focused many of us in the Senate on my concerns with the Patriot Act and some parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA.

A recent national survey reveals Americans are shifting in favor of reining in government surveillance programs. In fact, since 2010, nearly twice as many Americans say government spying is going too far and restricting our civil liberties.

Folks like me are now mainstream. Support for repeal--or at least changes--to the Patriot Act is up among both Democrats and Republicans.

As a result, more Members of Congress are expressing their concerns about the extent of the government's spying programs, and the Nation is finally talking about how to fundamentally balance our civil liberties with our national security.

Of course, the recent NSA scandal is at the heart of Washington's newfound interest in standing up for our civil liberties. And lawmakers should be outraged, because the secret collection of our phone and internet records is a perfect example for what happens when government ignores our Constitutional rights. We didn't need Edward Snowden to tell us the Federal Government is circumventing our Constitutional rights.

Whatever one thinks of Edward Snowden--and I think what he did was wrong and hurt our country--the reality is that he was not blowing the whistle on illegal activities. He disclosed information about programs that were perfectly legal.

And that is the problem. The NSA is using bad laws to undertake massive data collection on American citizens.

Just over 2 years ago--here on the Senate floor--I said the Patriot Act is compromising the very liberties and rights that make our Nation great and respected around the world.

At that time I said the Patriot Act gives our government full authority to dig through our private records and tap our phones-- without even having to get a judge's warrant.

It did not take rocket science to figure it out, it is in the law.

And now it is time to have a full, open debate about the Patriot Act and the FISA amendments.

The Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy. The FISA Amendments Act is no better.

Both are an affront to our freedoms, and--to me--they raise constitutional questions. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if they are unconstitutional. But I can tell you that they do not represent the values and the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans.

That is why I have voted to repeal it. And it is why I voted against extending the FISA Act in December.

But we can not go back in time. We can only move forward and take action now to better balance our civil liberties with our national security.

To get our intelligence policy back on track in a way that is true to our values, here is what we need to do:

First, we have to fix our laws. We need to do more than just put the government's spying programs under the microscope and we need to rein them in.

That is why I am also supporting a bill that makes it harder for the government to obtain phone call records and forces Federal officials to prove that sought-after records can be linked to a foreign terrorist or group.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote this bill. I certainly would not call the senior Senator from Vermont an outlier.

We must have increased transparency and accountability about how these programs are being implemented and why they are being run the way they are.

That is why I joined with one-quarter of the Senate to call on the Director of National Intelligence to justify the collection of Americans' phone and personal information. It has been 3 weeks, and we have not gotten a response yet.

We need answers, and they need to be truthful.

That is also why a bipartisan group of Senators has once again introduced legislation to declassify important Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions.

Americans deserve to know what legal arguments the government is using to spy on them, and this bill will do just that.

We need a functioning Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is charged with making sure national security measures do not violate the rights of law-abiding Americans. For years, seats on the panel sat empty.

But soon after I called on the panel to investigate the NSA, board members found themselves at the White House meeting with the President.

That is a good thing. And they need to continue to have the access and the ear of the President to do their job effectively on behalf of the American people.

It is a new day. Times are changing. The American people are taking a hard look at what Federal officials are doing in the name of national security, and what it means for them and their families. The question is whether this body will live up to the American people's new expectations.

After the attacks of September 11, Congress approved the PATRIOT Act and our Nation went to war. We stamped out Al Qaeda cells and put terror on its heels around the world.

Then and now, our military and intelligence communities performed bravely. They are better trained, stronger, smarter, and more effective than any other force on the planet. I thank them for their service. From top to bottom, I thank each and every one of them for doing their difficult jobs each and every day.

Congress did not give our intelligence community a blank check to walk all over the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans and Montanans. I am confident American citizens can be kept safe without snooping around in our private lives.

Americans and Montanans are concerned about the government right now. They have seen the recent news about the government missteps, overreach and scandals and wonder where Washington's priorities lie. They wonder whether anyone is looking down the road to see where this country is going.

Every measure I have outlined today will help restore the balance between national security and privacy, and every one of them has strong bipartisan support.

I will keep working with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and anyone else to defend our civil liberties and for the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Freedom, privacy, and a government controlled by the people are the principles on which our forefathers founded our Nation, and they are the principles that led Montanans to send me to Washington and represent them.

Our constitutional rights are what make us the greatest country in the world, and we cannot let them be taken away one new law at a time.

Pancreatic Cancer

Madam President, today I wish to honor the life and legacy of Gordon Belcourt, the executive director of the Montana- Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. Gordon passed away on July 15 in Billings, MT.

Gordon was a tremendous leader and advocate for Indian Country. A trusted and experienced voice, Gordon could always be counted on to use common sense to get to the heart of the issue and find a solution. He leaves big shoes to fill, and he will be missed by all Montanans. Sharla's and my heart goes out to all of Gordon's friends and family who are mourning his loss.

Gordon grew up on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and graduated from Browning High School. He attended the University of Santa Clara in California, where he participated in the ROTC Program, before becoming a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He earned a master's degree in public health from the University of California at Berkeley and returned to the Big Sky State to attend law school at the University of Montana. He also served as president of the Blackfeet Community College. Gordon, who was honored by the State of California and the University of California Berkeley as a Public Health Hero, received an honorary doctorate from the University of Montana for his work to improve Native American health.

Gordon built the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council from the ground up, serving as executive director beginning in 1998. He gave the council a powerful voice--both throughout the region and across the Nation. He worked tirelessly to improve life in Indian Country through infrastructure projects, the permanent reauthorization of the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, and the creation of the Tribal Law and Order Act. He also created the regional Tribal Institutional Review Board for the protection of the rights of Native Americans.

Gordon was a courageous leader on issues of alcoholism and suicide in Indian Country. Due to Gordon's leadership, the Tribal Leaders Council received $5 million in 2009 to combat alcohol abuse among American Indians. His extensive knowledge of the issues facing the community and his commitment to doing what was right made him an outstanding advocate for Native Americans.

As we bid farewell to Gordon, we recognize that he was a true warrior for Indian Country. His given Blackfeet name, Mixed Iron Boy, was in remembrance of the combat his uncle endured in World War II, and it will serve as a reminder to all of us of Gordon's remarkable strength, unwavering courage, enduring compassion, boundless vitality, and lasting legacy.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Gordon's widow, Cheryl, and all of his family and many friends.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio.

I just want to say this: I am not going to speak a lot about the amendment. I think Senator Portman has laid it out very well. I just want to say that we have immigration problems in this country that need to be fixed, and they have needed to be fixed for some time.

I think the Gang of 8 has done a great job coming forth with a good- faith effort, with a good bill that heads us in that direction. I think this amendment makes a good bill even a better bill.

I thank Senator Portman for his work in a bipartisan way to put forth an amendment that makes the bill better, that makes the bill work better.

I will tell you, at some point in time there will be a unanimous consent request offered on this amendment to get a vote on it, and I will hope that both sides agree that we can get a vote on this amendment. I will tell you why. It makes the bill better, and it will pass. That is what we are here to do.

So I thank my friend from Ohio, and I will encourage, as he did, both sides to come together to make a good bill an even better bill so we can pass it through Congress and get it to the President's desk.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about amendment No. 1634 very quickly. The good Senator from Ohio has talked about it and explained it very well, but I wish to talk about a few things.

This amendment substantially improves privacy protections in the E- Verify Program. That is a good thing. It ensures no Federal database will be created using the Photo tool or other data from a State DMV database. That is a good thing.

It ensures no other Federal Government agency can access information made available under E-Verify. That is a good thing.

It increases privacy protections using established techniques, such as requiring an individual to be notified when

their Social Security number is used for purposes of employment verification in a manner that is potentially fraudulent. That is a good thing.

It requires new regular reporting of suspected fraudulent use of the E-Verify process.

This is a good amendment. It will make a good bill better.

For that reason I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1634 be in order for the purpose of a vote on the Senate floor.

I yield to the Senator.

I thank the Senator. I want to get back to the amendment for a second here since it was objected to.

We wonder why we have a single-digit approval rating in Congress. The people out here that I represent aren't Democrats first, they are not Republicans first, they are Americans first.

This amendment was objected to by somebody who actually agrees with the amendment. If you are home watching this on TV, you are saying what is going on in Washington, DC? We have an amendment that people agree is going to make this bill better, but yet it is objected to. Why? Is it because there will be one or two more votes for this bill in the end? Is that why? If it is, that is not a good reason.

Look, we all live in this country. We all want this country to work. We all want it to continue to be a leader in the world. This amendment makes a good bill better.

I want to kick it to the Senator from Ohio for his closing comments on this amendment.