Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about longstanding rules of procedures and traditions of the Senate.

I have watched with interest over the past few weeks as members of the majority have continued to threaten to break the Senate rules in order to impose a majority rule at the expense of minority rights. We continue to hear threats of the nuclear option by which the majority would break the rules to change the rules.

Despite past assurances from the majority that rules changes would only occur through regular order, they continue to threaten the exact opposite. Make no mistake, this is not some inside-the-beltway squabble over parliamentary procedure. The longstanding rules allowing for unlimited debate and amendment protect every American whose voice is represented by the minority in the Senate. These protections are especially important for Americans who live in rural and less populated States. That would include my home State of Nebraska.

The Constitution specifically designed the Senate to function in a manner that was very different and very distinct from the House of Representatives. The threat of the nuclear option clearly abandons this intent. The majority leader has affirmed the importance of filibuster rights to small States, arguing they are ``a unique privilege that serves to aid small States from being trampled by the desires of larger States.''

I continue to be astounded by the insistence by some that we trample over these rights, especially given the significant nominations and legislation the Senate has recently considered.

It has been noted by many metrics the Senate has more rapidly confirmed President Obama's Federal judicial nominations than it did during the time of President Bush's administration. In addition, over the past few months the Senate has passed significant pieces of legislation: the farm bill, the Water Resources Development Act, and the Marketplace Fairness Act. We have considered bills I have supported and bills I have opposed. But the fact is we have given these pieces of legislation due consideration that would be required of the world's greatest deliberative body.

At the beginning of this Congress, the Senate agreed to a new standing order to expedite Senate consideration in extraordinary circumstances. But the majority leader has not even attempted to use the expedited procedures--not once. So I ask why, then, threaten the very fabric of how this institution was created?

I have served in the Senate just 4 years, all of which I have been a Member of the minority. I would caution my colleagues whose experiences have been conversely limited to serving only in the majority that should the majority go down the road of the nuclear option, there is no turning back. There will come a day--perhaps soon--when control of this Chamber will shift, and the current majority will not like what it sees when it is in the minority.

My colleague, the senior Senator from Tennessee, recently outlined a number of priorities he would pursue should we find ourselves in that situation where a Republican-controlled Senate could use majority rule.

I am not going to be here in the 114th Congress, but I thought I would outline some policies I would support should the current majority take us down that road. Perhaps my list of priorities will give some ideas to my colleagues who will be serving in the next Congress. Here are just a few policies I would highlight, many of which have already received majority support in the Senate but have fallen short of the 60-vote threshold.

First, and most important, the repeal of the health care law that promised the world but delivered only chaos, confusion, and higher costs. You can bet the Senate would repeal all 2,700 pages with one 15- minute rollcall vote. In addition, without having to worry about the opposition of the current majority, we can enact responsible reforms to rein in debt and deficit. Reforming our entitlements would, of course, need to be center stage since that is where the money is spent.

Another priority would be to prevent regulatory overreach by heavy- handed

executive agencies, such as the EPA. Very specifically, we could overturn the EPA's pursuit of cap-and-trade through the regulatory process just announced today by the President and force EPA to back off regulations with more costs than benefit.

Next, we would promote investment and job growth by immediately approving the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We can further support energy independence by continuing development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository which has been stalled by the majority leader despite substantial support. This is critical to nuclear plants across this Nation, including two plants in Nebraska.

Another focus would be to provide transparency and reform at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I would require legislative oversight of its budget and replace the unelected head of the CFPB with an accountable board. Why stop there when we could repeal the entirety of the Dodd-Frank Act and replace it with a more responsible approach?

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which the Senate would essentially mirror, passed 270 bills that the current majority leader declined to even consider last Congress. Should the current majority irrevocably alter the rules of the Senate, a new Senate majority could just railroad all 270 bills through the process, and all those treasured policies the majority puts in place will get repealed-- perhaps before they ever get implemented. Ping-ponging from the whims of one 2-year cycle to the next is not a way to govern. It is the very reason our Founders designed the Senate as a counterweight to the House.

I say to those colleagues who would so quickly disregard the Senate rules: Be careful what you wish for. Under this approach, your procedural right to debate, to amend, to raise points of order, all of that would be useless. Your vote, your voice, and the voice of your constituents would be effectively silenced. That is not the Senate the Framers envisioned when they brokered the agreement that established our constitutional approach. I will leave with the words of Senator Robert C. Byrd, with whom many of us had the pleasure of serving and whose love and knowledge of the Senate remains unsurpassed to this day.

The Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights

and freedom of speech in the Republic for more than two

centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before

ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political

priority of the moment.

I hope the majority heeds his call to place history and tradition and our Nation over the political priority of the moment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Pryor for bringing this amendment forward. I very proudly support it and concur that it can be voice voted.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we yield all time on our side.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the issue before us, gun violence and the Second Amendment to the Constitution. We have all been enormously saddened by the recent senseless acts of violence that have affected our Nation. In Congress, we have all been deeply moved, and we are all motivated by the tragedies.

However, unfortunately, the legislation currently before the Senate would do virtually nothing to address the causes of this violence. This legislation, in my judgment, would take us down what I would regard as a dangerous path. Rather than focusing on the underlying causes of gun violence, this legislation would place onerous restrictions on law- abiding Americans, who have a right and are exercising their Second Amendment rights.

It should trouble us that the first response to recent tragedies is to curtail the Bill of Rights. These rights were so incredibly vital to the birth of this great Nation. The Founders specifically limited the power of the government to restrict these rights. But this legislation, in my judgment, goes beyond and pushes beyond those constitutional limits. The bill before us would have a number of adverse effects.

For example, it would prevent a Nebraskan from using a neighbor's shotgun to go trap shooting on a nearby farm or an uncle from giving a niece a hunting rifle as a birthday gift without receiving FBI approval. As my colleague from Iowa has pointed out, the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written that universal background checks can only be enforced if coupled with national gun registration.

This legislation--I agree with the Senator from Texas--would be a first step on the path toward a national gun registry, a far cry from the vision of our Founders, who exercised this very fundamental right to secure our freedom.

The fact is, had this legislation been law, it would not have prevented any of the recent atrocities that have affected families in our Nation.

We will also have the opportunity to vote on a series of amendments. One such amendment we will consider is the so-called assault weapons ban, which would prohibit law-abiding citizens from possessing certain firearms based upon cosmetic characteristics. Once again, this ban would do little to prevent future gun violence.

Furthermore, I find it so incredibly ironic that its proponents think these weapons are a problem in the hands of law-abiding citizens but apparently see no problem with the same weapons being glorified in Hollywood movies and video games. Apparently we should ban these devices in rural Nebraska where we grow up around firearms but allow our children to idolize Hollywood

stars committing mass shootings on the big screen and then try it out for yourself in a graphic video game where the game is interactive, violent, and you are literally shooting at people.

At the end of the day, this legislation is so incredibly flawed that no amount of tweaks or changes can ever possibly improve it. That is why I am a cosponsor of the alternative of the Senator from Iowa, a complete substitute which seeks to address the root causes of gun violence and correctly balances the need to secure our Second Amendment rights.

This amendment focuses on adequate enforcement of the gun laws currently on the books, as well as the mental health needs of our country. We owe it to the victims of gun violence to pass legislation that will actually address the causes of these tragedies; otherwise, it will not stop. As Senators who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, we owe to it all Americans to protect this fundamental right, this right contained in the Bill of Rights that is so vital to the very freedom we enjoy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Nebraskans have every reason to be proud of Senator Fischer and her very impressive start here in the Senate. She has proven herself to be a thoughtful leader in our State, a reasoned voice in our legislature which listened to her and followed her leadership. She has been firm in her principles, while also demonstrating a serious commitment to reaching across the aisle to solve problems. From successful legislation encouraging rural broadband to visiting our troops in Afghanistan, Senator Fischer has had a very active first few months.

Her experience as a State Senator undoubtedly helped her to hit the ground running here in Washington and also grounded her in the principles which are so important to Nebraskans, the people she and I represent. I am proud to say I look forward to teaming up with Senator Fischer in the weeks and months ahead.

In view of the fact I have announced I won't be seeking reelection, she will soon be the senior Senator from the State of Nebraska, and I have no doubt whatsoever she will do a great job. I am proud to be her colleague and congratulate her on her maiden speech.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to seek support for an amendment to the budget resolution that would discourage aerial surveillance of farms by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Last year, we learned that EPA had been conducting aerial flyovers of livestock operations in Nebraska, Iowa, and other states. Needless to say, farmers and ranchers were not excited about EPA flying over their operations and taking pictures of their farms and homes, which are often the same thing. I tried to get straight answers from EPA about what they were doing, but they were never willing to be forthcoming about this program.

In an age when satellite imagery allows us to see the cars parked in our driveways, one might be tempted to ask, what's the big deal? Well, the problem is EPA's recent track record on agriculture and what they may do with this information. In spite of several high profile outreach events to farmers, I continually hear about EPA's dismissive attitude towards the people who work hard every day to put food on the plates of millions of people.

Some members of this Administration and the media have mocked us farm state Senators for ``crying over spilled milk'' and fretting about ``phantom dust rules.'' But we were not using these fears to whip up farmers into an anti-EPA frenzy. Yes these rules were far-fetched, but what had farmers justifiably worried was that EPA was actually considering them.

It took months and several votes before EPA backed off on its attempt to regulate milk spills like oil spills. It's the same story on farm dust. Harvesting crops and driving down country roads is dusty work, especially when we have persistent drought like much of the country is in now.

But EPA still took months to decide that it would not regulate dust. Internal policy documents at EPA recommended that particulate matter standards be revised to include coarse particulate matter, also known as dust. We should have had a final answer from EPA right away that they would not regulate dust, but it took the threat of legislation to force their hand.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. I've heard many stories of overly aggressive enforcement by EPA where they don't even need new regulations. Regulated entities can find themselves slapped with multiple fines with a time-consuming appeal process, in spite of their best efforts to comply with the numerous regulations we place on them.

The last EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, said that her biggest regret was her poor relationship with rural America. Well, that was certainly frustrating to me as well. But she found an odd way of expressing that regret. In the waning days of her tenure, she released private information on thousands of farms to several environmentalist groups.

It's no secret that environmental groups based in New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco don't always get along with farmers and ranchers in states like Nebraska. These groups do not regulate pollution. Congress has not told EPA to release information to them.

Their only interest in agriculture is in radically reinventing crop and livestock production based on idealistic notions and not on the reality of what it takes to feed the world. Why EPA decided it was prudent to release farmers' and ranchers' personal information to these groups is beyond me.

Is it really any wonder why farmers and ranchers don't believe EPA supports agriculture? They don't trust EPA . . . and they sure don't want them doing low-altitude surveillance flights over their private property.

These concerns are bipartisan--last year we voted on an amendment to stop this surveillance and it received fifty-six votes from members of both parties. Yet, EPA has not been forthcoming about this program and has never been willing to answer basic questions about the number of flights they conduct.

In fact, we never received any information from EPA headquarters-- only from a regional office--despite multiple requests. The public deserves open and honest information about the agency's use of aerial surveillance across the country.

So, until EPA takes a more common-sense, transparent approach, we need to stop the EPA's aerial surveillance of our agricultural operations that has raised significant privacy concerns. This amendment does that, yet it does not hinder the use of traditional on-site inspections to ensure our waterways are clean.

I ask my Colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, every Senator supports expanding access to health care. We may have strong differences on the best way to do it, but no one should doubt that commitment. However, we must also ensure that we protect deeply held religious beliefs of our citizens.

In this regard, the Shaheen amendment--and the new health care law-- gets it all wrong. In addition to growing government and slowing the economy, the law tramples on the rights of individuals.

Later this afternoon, Senator Fischer will offer a side-by-side to this amendment.

I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Shaheen amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment restores a family's ability to plan ahead for health care costs and afford care. It eliminates a cap on flexible spending accounts.

It also eliminates the silly requirement that Americans get a doctor's prescription to purchase over-the-counter medications with their FSA or health savings account.

In addition, the health savings account can be used for people who have disabilities, so this eliminates the possibility of doing that beyond the cap.

I ask my colleagues to support me in eliminating the cap and eliminating this crazy requirement about getting a doctor's prescription to use a common medication.

It is supported by the National Downs Syndrome Society, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and the Chamber of Commerce. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for a nice introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the budget that has been proposed by the majority party.

If I might lay a little groundwork, in addition to what the Senator from South Dakota said about me, my time in elected office dates back to 1983. I was first elected to be a county commissioner in Lancaster County. After that, I went to the Lincoln City Council, where I served for a couple of years, primarily because I had concerns about where the budget of the city of Lincoln was headed. I ran for mayor of Lincoln, and I served two terms as mayor of the city of Lincoln in a strong mayor form of government. From there I went to the Governor's office of the State of Nebraska, and from there I went on to become Secretary of Agriculture in the Bush administration, and 4 years ago I joined the Senate after running for election.

I have dealt with government budgets all of my career. I worked on my first budget when I was 32 years old. The one thing I knew was that it had to be balanced or it was not going to work. I have submitted budgets over and over again through those years, all balanced.

But let me focus a little more intently on the State of Nebraska and my time as Governor there. Nebraskans have a very practical approach to spending money. It is very straightforward. If you don't have the money, you don't spend it. It is that straightforward. You see, in our constitution, when the founders of our State wrote our State constitution, they worried about the very thing that is happening with this budget being presented by the majority. They worried that there would be politicians who would figure out that if they just kept borrowing and spending, they could get themselves reelected over and over. But they also realized that was no course for a State, so they put into our constitution that the politicians could borrow $100,000. I suspect that when our constitution was written over 100 years ago, many at that time looked at $100,000 and said to themselves: That is a handsome amount of money. Obviously, in today's world, $100,000 doesn't get you very far. In those years--post-9/11, I might add, when the economy had tanked because of what happened on 9/11--we were not only balancing the budget, we were not borrowing money to do it.

The other thing I would say is this. The Presiding Officer understands this as a former Governor. There was always a day of reckoning for the Governor. It was called the State of the State address, when you would walk into a chamber like this and you would lay out your plan for the State, and every media outlet in the State was there examining every word of the budget you submitted, every single senator was listening to every word you had to say, and if you laid out a plan that did not work or was filled with gimmicks, then the editorials the next day were devastating. You could never do that.

Let me compare that experience over those many years doing those many things with what I am faced with today as a Senator. This is what I am faced with. In order to support this budget, I, a former Governor, mayor, county commissioner, city council member who has balanced every single budget I ever submitted, would have to go home to Nebraskans and say this: My fellow Nebraskans, I just supported a budget that has over a $1 trillion tax increase. I would have to go on to say: That would be on top of the $600 billion tax increase last year. That would be on top of the $1 trillion of new tax increases in ObamaCare, and that is what I would have to say in order to support this budget to the citizens of Nebraska. I would also have to say to them that notwithstanding the fact that I have balanced your budgets for over 30 years in every budget I ever submitted, our Nation's debt in this budget will grow by $24.4 trillion by the end of the 10-year budget cycle. That is $7.3 trillion in new debt.

Let me just offer a thought on that. One could argue that at my age, age 62, maybe that doesn't mean a lot. After all, the Good Lord willing, I am probably not going to be on this Earth forever. It is just the way it works for human beings. Let me look around and see who is going to pay for this. Well, I know this weekend when I go back home--if we get back home--I am going to see my kids and grandkids. My kids are in their thirties. I am going to see my grandkids who range in age from 5 to 13. I am not going to have to look very far because if I vote for this budget, I am saying to my kids and my grandkids: I hope your life turns out OK because you are taking on, at the end of this 10-year budget window, $24.4 trillion of debt.

Now, let me compare that to how I started my adult life. When I was 20 years old, this Nation owed $380 billion of debt. So what I am saying to my kids and grandkids is I supported this budget, because here is where you are going to end up. You are going to end up starting your adult life with about $25 trillion of debt. I started my life with $380 billion. So when there is a war--which I wish I could say it will never happen, but it does--when there is a flu pandemic, when you want to do something more to educate your children, you are going to be hampered.

They are going to be paying back the debt I ran up during my life if I support this budget. This budget balloons the debt by 42 percent. That is what I will tell my kids and grandkids when I go home this weekend if I vote for this budget.

Net interest on the debt over the 10 years will total $5.2 trillion. What do we get out of that? What can we tell our kids and grandkids they get out of that? Well, they get to pay China back for lending us money. No schools will be built, there are no new teachers who will be hired, and there is no better health care which will be provided. That is just to service the debt our generation is running up.

Our debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product under this budget, never goes below 90 percent of our economy. Actually, for 4 out of the 10 years it is over 100 percent. Every economist will say if we get into that stratosphere, the warning lights will be going off, the flags will be waving--stop, stop, stop borrowing the money. If I would have suggested anything like this as the Governor of Nebraska or the mayor of Lincoln, I would have been laughed out of the chamber.

Annual deficits. Even with all of the tax increases and gimmicks under this budget, we never get under $400 billion a year in new debt we are taking on. It ranges between $891 billion annually--on top of the nearly $17 trillion we owe today--to $407 billion annually. We never get close to a balance.

Senator Sessions says it so well: Balanced? What is balanced about this? I have been balancing budgets my whole life. This is not balanced. This is crazy. This is insane. This is adding debt to the shoulders of our children and grandchildren who are already up to their eyeballs in debt because of the spending that is going on.

Looking at the spending, it actually increases. Today's budget is $3.6 trillion. Under this budget--if I vote for this--it will go to $5.7 trillion in 2023, and that is a 60-percent increase.

Entitlements. You know what. I am 62 years old and in June I will be 63. Two more years until Medicare, and a little bit after that I will receive Social Security. People have talked about this great benefit that Senators get. Well, I said to a group back in Nebraska, at 65 I am going to get this great benefit. I am not going to have to pay much for it, and it is going to pay for my health care costs until the moment of my death. Everybody was looking at me. Wow, what is that plan? I said: Ladies and gentlemen, it is Medicare.

I said: At a point in my life where I could afford to pay something for it--and I would be happy to do that. I am not the richest person in the Senate, but I am not the poorest either. So I am going to go on this program and pass it on to my kids and grandkids. Is there anybody here who wants to get up and say: My gosh, that is fair.

That is not fair. We should not be doing that. It is not right. What does this budget do to address that problem? Nothing.

In a townhall meeting I was at in Lincoln recently, I said: If you are 62 years old, it is probably going to work out for you. We will probably borrow enough money to get Medicare and Social Security throughout my life. For those 40-year-old Members in the Senate or citizens who come to my townhall meeting, I am sorry, but I cannot make that promise to them. The trustees are telling us we cannot make that promise.

We waited 4 years for a budget from the majority. Year after year the majority leader would come down, stand right there and say: We are not going to be doing a budget this year. I wonder what the city council meeting would have been like if I would have gone down in Lincoln, NE, and said: I have been thinking about this, and I will not be doing a budget this year for the city of Lincoln. As Governor, I cannot imagine walking into our chamber back home and saying: I have been thinking about it, and I will not be doing a budget this year. Justifiably so, the people of the great State of Nebraska would have been looking for a new Governor and trying to figure out how to run the existing Governor out of office. Yet that is what we have been doing for the last 4 years.

We have waited 4 years, and we finally get a budget that does nothing for this country except increase taxes, increase the debt, increase spending, increase borrowing, and lay it off on our kids and grandkids with whom we will all go home and spend time this weekend--if we get out of here. It is not right.

Even the newspapers have figured it out. USA Today says:

Disappointing . . . namby-pamby plan that underwhelms at

every turn . . . neither balances the budget or reins in

entitlements.

Now, I read the Washington Post, but I have to say, they are not always the most favorable to Republicans, and that is the understatement of the day. Here is what the Washington Post said: ``Gives voters no reason to believe Democrats have a viable plan.'' Boy, talk about a condemnation of a plan.

The Wall Street Journal said: ``Much higher taxes to fund much higher spending to finance a much bigger government.''

The Hill said: ``The Murray budget does not contain net spending cuts with the sequester turned off.''

I talked at length today about going home and explaining what a ``yes'' vote would mean on this budget. I am not going to do that. I am not going to go home and tell people I voted for this budget. I just want people to know right now that I will be a ``no'' vote on this budget. I will be a ``no'' vote because somebody has to stand for the people who are ultimately going to pay the bill.

We cannot pull the wool over the eyes of Nebraskans. They are just too darn discerning. They do not believe for a moment that all of this debt and spending and taxation is going to be financed by the rich guys. They realize that at the end of the day, this is going to visit home, and this is going to hammer the very people who are out there ranching, farming, running small businesses, and trying to pay their bills and educate their kids so maybe even they can leave a little something behind for the grandkids. That is what we are facing.

We are facing literally a situation where if we don't stand up to this, the day is not very far off where people's Social Security is in jeopardy, their Medicare is in jeopardy, Medicaid is in jeopardy, and we leave our children and grandchildren with this massive pile of debt. There is just no way to deal with it unless we just slam their standard of living and tax the living daylights out of everybody, and that is where this is headed. There is no way I could justify this vote back home.

I proudly announce that today I will be a ``no'' vote on this budget resolution, and I will do everything I can to stop it. It is the wrong course for our country.

I yield back to the Senator from South Dakota.

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

I ask for 3 minutes to speak on the Cruz amendment.

Madam President, today I rise to speak on behalf of the Cruz amendment. I want to spend a couple of minutes explaining my thoughts behind the amendment and why I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

All across Nebraska I do roundtable meetings, where I sit down with hospital communities, I sit down with medical professionals, I sit down with small businesses. I have done this for years and years.

Over the last couple of years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, I have had a number of opportunities to sit down with small businesses. Invariably the first issue that comes up is the crushing effect of the regulatory environment. Businesses will tell me they simply are afraid to grow or cannot grow because of what Washington is burdening them with. More specifically, they talk to me about the Affordable Care Act and the toll it is taking on their businesses.

I will give you a perfect example: a small business, a franchise business. They have a franchise in Lincoln, they have a franchise in Omaha. The owner of that business said to me: You know, my business is not too bad. We could actually grow this business. We look out there in the future and see some opportunities to grow this business.

They went on to say: We have about 48 employees now, and we are not going to grow. I said: Why would that be? Why have you decided you are not going to grow this business? Their answer was straightforward. They said: When we grow to over 50 employees, we become subject to the requirements that are impossible for a business our size to meet under the Affordable Care Act. The owner said to me: Mike, I met with the accountants and the lawyers. We have looked at this in every possible way we can, and we decided we are going to stay a business of this size.

It was not isolated to that business. I went down the interstate and sat down with another business in a different community and the story was the same. I was told business was pretty good and that business was there for them to grow. They had about 47 or 48 employees, and they made the decision they will not grow. This is at a time in our Nation's history where we are desperate for employment in the United States.

In Nebraska, we have been fortunate. We pay our bills. Our unemployment never got over 5 percent because we are a conservative State. Having said that, when we hear businesses say the greatest impediment to their growth is not the competition down the street or across the street, the greatest impediment to their growth is the Federal Government, when we hear that, we have to realize we have done something very seriously wrong.

I want to wrap up with another thought, and it is on a different area of the Affordable Care Act.

Madam President, I ask for an additional minute to finish this thought.

Madam President, I met with a group of young people today. They have their whole lives in front of them. They are talking and thinking about what they are going to do in terms of going to college and what their careers might be. They

asked me about the Affordable Care Act. I said: One of the things that is important to point out is that my generation is going to do very well under this act. We have caps on how much our premiums can go up, and we have Medicare out there. Then I said: Your generation is not going to do well. Why? Because your premiums are going to go straight up and you are at a point in your lives where you are not going to use a lot of health care. I am at a point in my life where I will use a lot of health care.

This imbalance is going to be devastating to the younger generation. When they start thinking about starting their families, buying their first home and making an investment, what is the Federal Government going to do? It is going to place a crushing blow upon them in terms of higher premiums, and that is the reality of the situation.

I will wrap up with this thought; I could go on and on. As a former Governor, I can tell everyone that adding 24 million people to Medicaid is such a flawed policy approach. I could talk about the impact this is going to have on accessibility for care by people who desperately need that care, but the bottom line is this: This was a flawed policy. I was here when it was passed. It is a policy that needs to be defunded. We need to do the right thing with health care, and this is not it.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss changes needed at the Environmental Protection Agency to rebuild public trust and transparency.

The reviews of this agency are almost unanimous from my constituents in Nebraska. Quite frankly, my constituents are frustrated, and sometimes just plain angry. While the details and specific issues will vary from one industry to another, the theme seems to always be the same: Nebraskans think EPA doesn't understand domestic businesses, nor do they understand job creation--from specific industries, to their employees, to their customers. They think the agency is not transparent, is arrogant, and oftentimes unresponsive. I hear this from ag producers, I hear it from the construction industry, I hear it from electricity providers, I hear it from city managers and mayors.

Do you know what else. These folks don't speak with an R or a D beside their name but, rather, an A for American. Their message is loud, it is very clear, and it is unmistakable: EPA is overreaching, overbearing, and overstepping boundaries that have long existed. The request is always the same. They ask: Senator, what can you do? What can you do to change how they act?

Nebraskans' frustration is driven by both what EPA is trying to do-- meaning the content of their rules and standards--as well as how the agency is making its decisions. So today I will be introducing several proposals to address these two areas.

My first proposal addresses how EPA conducts business by increasing transparency in policy decisions. I am introducing a bill that brings agency guidance documents under the coverage of the Congressional Review Act. As currently written, the CRA covers only substantial agency rules. Meanwhile, EPA has made use of what they call guidance documents to simply circumvent the accountability that comes with the rulemaking process, while still making major policy changes. Using guidance documents also shields the policy change from being reversed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.

Perhaps, though, the most obvious example was the use of a guidance document to expand the regulatory reach of EPA and the Corps of Engineers over bodies of water not currently covered. They did this by expanding the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. The changes are extremely controversial, so the agencies chose a path that intentionally minimized oversight and legal responsibility. In other words, they did an end-run around us--they did an end-run around the American people and Congress.

My bill closes this loophole by ensuring that guidance documents are covered by the Congressional Review Act just as similar regulations would be.

Senators Barrasso, Grassley, Paul, Coats, and Fischer have agreed to cosponsor this commonsense change, and I want to say thank you to them for this critical support.

The idea behind this is simple and straightforward: Major policy changes pursued through the use of guidance documents need to come here. They need to have our scrutiny, the scrutiny of the public, and the congressional oversight rules need to apply. It is that straightforward.

My second proposal likewise promotes transparency by addressing how the agency responds to our States. It says simply this: If a State is developing its plan to implement a rule or a standard established by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, any reasonable request that a State makes to the agency for technical support, data, or modeling must be honored.

Here is why this is important: State governments are equal partners in much of the work the EPA does. That is the law. In fact, the law specifically recognizes the prominent role States have. Section 101 of the Clean Air Act, for example, notes that:

. . . air pollution control at its source is the primary

responsibility of States and local governments.

The law further declares that its purpose is, in part:

. . . to provide technical and financial assistance to

State and local governments in connection with the

development and execution of their air pollution prevention

and control programs.

Also, section 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares:

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve,

and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States

to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .

Unfortunately, the EPA is not honoring that language--although it is abundantly clear--and is instead treating State agencies as second- class citizens. For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the text of a recent court opinion.

In a case last year involving the Clean Air Act, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down an EPA rule known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or the transport rule. Here is what the court said:

(t)he Federal Government sets air quality standards for

pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for

determining how to meet those standards and regulating

sources within their borders.

Well, the trouble, according to the opinion, is that the EPA ignored the law. That is truly what the court ruled: EPA snubbed their nose at us, Congress, and therefore the law. It did not give the States the time needed to develop a plan to meet the standards. Instead, EPA tried to force-feed States the implementation plan EPA developed.

I can say with some certainty that my home State of Nebraska is much better off when allowed to develop a plan tailored to our State, rather than to accept a ``one size fits all,'' ``my way or the highway,'' overreaching Federal plan.

The court explained it this way:

. . . (t)he Clean Air Act affords States the initial

opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the

good neighbor provision. But here, where EPA quantified

States' good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the

States the initial opportunity to implement the required

reductions with respect to sources within their borders.

The court's conclusion in turn was absolutely and abundantly clear:

. . . EPA's Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore,

the rule must be vacated.

That is the holding of the court.

My bill targets the relationship between EPA and the States, and takes steps to restore the equal footing that has been eroded over the past several years by the EPA. My bill says, very simply, if a State has a question about the data or the modeling driving a standard, the EPA cannot shut them out or slow-walk their request. They have to be responsive. So no more hiding the ball, as the saying goes, just simple transparency and a true partner working relationship.

The third good government bill I am introducing addresses broad frustration with what I would call the EPA bombshells. By that I mean the agency's failure to obey current law directing them to publish regulatory agendas. This is remarkable. It is remarkable that EPA continues to struggle with telling the public what rules are coming. But they do.

As a child, I always enjoyed birthday parties and all the surprises. But EPA regulations are no party for people, and they shouldn't come as a surprise.

Well, it turns out that several executive orders and existing statutes instruct EPA to tell the public what exactly is on its regulatory agenda. Section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, for example, requires the agencies to publish:

During the months of October and April of each year . . . a

regulatory flexibility agenda which shall contain a brief

description of the subject area of any rule which the agency

expects to propose . . .

Also, Executive Order 12866 requires the EPA to update its regulatory agenda twice a year.

These updates are supposed to be published in a document known as the Unified Agenda. It seems clear to me; unfortunately, not clear to EPA. EPA has ignored these requirements. It failed to publish an agenda in the spring of 2012, it published nothing in October, and then waited until December 2012 to publish anything at all. That is not acceptable. The administration simply played hide-the-ball until after the election.

My bill instructs the EPA Office of Inspector General--known as EPA's OIG--to assess whether EPA obeys the law and publishes its regulatory agenda according to deadlines. The OIG is tasked with reviewing what EPA does and reporting on problems, abuses, and efficiencies. My legislation simply directs the OIG to include in its reports a tally of whether EPA has met its legal requirements to publish planned regulations.

My point here is that EPA simply needs to meet its legal requirements. It needs to be transparent, which means simply to be honest with the American people about new regulations it is planning.

My fourth and final EPA bill puts some teeth behind my request that the agency deal with the American people in an honest way. It shouldn't be needed, but it is. It simply says we will reduce EPA's budget if the agency fails to meet its legal deadlines for regulatory agenda setting. If a deadline passes and the agency has not published its agenda, then the Office of the Administrator loses $20,000 per week until the deadline is met. If this approach sounds familiar, that is because this bill is modeled after a provision in the highway bill that passed with substantial bipartisan margins in both the Senate and the House last year. Section 1306 of the highway bill authorizes the rescission of $20,000 per week from agencies that fail to complete documents required by transportation projects. The rationale is straightforward and accepted by Congress: If an agency does not complete its work according to reasonable schedules, then the budget gets decreased.

I have outlined four commonsense solutions designed to respond to reasonable concerns of real people and to respond to their heartfelt frustration with this agency. But, above all, they promote transparency and they promote responsible government.

I urge my colleagues to assist and cosponsor these proposals that bring transparency and a dose of reality to an out-of-control Federal agency.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss changes needed at the Environmental Protection Agency to rebuild public trust and transparency.

The reviews of this agency are almost unanimous from my constituents in Nebraska. Quite frankly, my constituents are frustrated, and sometimes just plain angry. While the details and specific issues will vary from one industry to another, the theme seems to always be the same: Nebraskans think EPA doesn't understand domestic businesses, nor do they understand job creation--from specific industries, to their employees, to their customers. They think the agency is not transparent, is arrogant, and oftentimes unresponsive. I hear this from ag producers, I hear it from the construction industry, I hear it from electricity providers, I hear it from city managers and mayors.

Do you know what else. These folks don't speak with an R or a D beside their name but, rather, an A for American. Their message is loud, it is very clear, and it is unmistakable: EPA is overreaching, overbearing, and overstepping boundaries that have long existed. The request is always the same. They ask: Senator, what can you do? What can you do to change how they act?

Nebraskans' frustration is driven by both what EPA is trying to do-- meaning the content of their rules and standards--as well as how the agency is making its decisions. So today I will be introducing several proposals to address these two areas.

My first proposal addresses how EPA conducts business by increasing transparency in policy decisions. I am introducing a bill that brings agency guidance documents under the coverage of the Congressional Review Act. As currently written, the CRA covers only substantial agency rules. Meanwhile, EPA has made use of what they call guidance documents to simply circumvent the accountability that comes with the rulemaking process, while still making major policy changes. Using guidance documents also shields the policy change from being reversed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.

Perhaps, though, the most obvious example was the use of a guidance document to expand the regulatory reach of EPA and the Corps of Engineers over bodies of water not currently covered. They did this by expanding the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. The changes are extremely controversial, so the agencies chose a path that intentionally minimized oversight and legal responsibility. In other words, they did an end-run around us--they did an end-run around the American people and Congress.

My bill closes this loophole by ensuring that guidance documents are covered by the Congressional Review Act just as similar regulations would be.

Senators Barrasso, Grassley, Paul, Coats, and Fischer have agreed to cosponsor this commonsense change, and I want to say thank you to them for this critical support.

The idea behind this is simple and straightforward: Major policy changes pursued through the use of guidance documents need to come here. They need to have our scrutiny, the scrutiny of the public, and the congressional oversight rules need to apply. It is that straightforward.

My second proposal likewise promotes transparency by addressing how the agency responds to our States. It says simply this: If a State is developing its plan to implement a rule or a standard established by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, any reasonable request that a State makes to the agency for technical support, data, or modeling must be honored.

Here is why this is important: State governments are equal partners in much of the work the EPA does. That is the law. In fact, the law specifically recognizes the prominent role States have. Section 101 of the Clean Air Act, for example, notes that:

. . . air pollution control at its source is the primary

responsibility of States and local governments.

The law further declares that its purpose is, in part:

. . . to provide technical and financial assistance to

State and local governments in connection with the

development and execution of their air pollution prevention

and control programs.

Also, section 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares:

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve,

and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States

to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .

Unfortunately, the EPA is not honoring that language--although it is abundantly clear--and is instead treating State agencies as second- class citizens. For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the text of a recent court opinion.

In a case last year involving the Clean Air Act, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately struck down an EPA rule known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or the transport rule. Here is what the court said:

(t)he Federal Government sets air quality standards for

pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for

determining how to meet those standards and regulating

sources within their borders.

Well, the trouble, according to the opinion, is that the EPA ignored the law. That is truly what the court ruled: EPA snubbed their nose at us, Congress, and therefore the law. It did not give the States the time needed to develop a plan to meet the standards. Instead, EPA tried to force-feed States the implementation plan EPA developed.

I can say with some certainty that my home State of Nebraska is much better off when allowed to develop a plan tailored to our State, rather than to accept a ``one size fits all,'' ``my way or the highway,'' overreaching Federal plan.

The court explained it this way:

. . . (t)he Clean Air Act affords States the initial

opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the

good neighbor provision. But here, where EPA quantified

States' good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the

States the initial opportunity to implement the required

reductions with respect to sources within their borders.

The court's conclusion in turn was absolutely and abundantly clear:

. . . EPA's Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore,

the rule must be vacated.

That is the holding of the court.

My bill targets the relationship between EPA and the States, and takes steps to restore the equal footing that has been eroded over the past several years by the EPA. My bill says, very simply, if a State has a question about the data or the modeling driving a standard, the EPA cannot shut them out or slow-walk their request. They have to be responsive. So no more hiding the ball, as the saying goes, just simple transparency and a true partner working relationship.

The third good government bill I am introducing addresses broad frustration with what I would call the EPA bombshells. By that I mean the agency's failure to obey current law directing them to publish regulatory agendas. This is remarkable. It is remarkable that EPA continues to struggle with telling the public what rules are coming. But they do.

As a child, I always enjoyed birthday parties and all the surprises. But EPA regulations are no party for people, and they shouldn't come as a surprise.

Well, it turns out that several executive orders and existing statutes instruct EPA to tell the public what exactly is on its regulatory agenda. Section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, for example, requires the agencies to publish:

During the months of October and April of each year . . . a

regulatory flexibility agenda which shall contain a brief

description of the subject area of any rule which the agency

expects to propose . . .

Also, Executive Order 12866 requires the EPA to update its regulatory agenda twice a year.

These updates are supposed to be published in a document known as the Unified Agenda. It seems clear to me; unfortunately, not clear to EPA. EPA has ignored these requirements. It failed to publish an agenda in the spring of 2012, it published nothing in October, and then waited until December 2012 to publish anything at all. That is not acceptable. The administration simply played hide-the-ball until after the election.

My bill instructs the EPA Office of Inspector General--known as EPA's OIG--to assess whether EPA obeys the law and publishes its regulatory agenda according to deadlines. The OIG is tasked with reviewing what EPA does and reporting on problems, abuses, and efficiencies. My legislation simply directs the OIG to include in its reports a tally of whether EPA has met its legal requirements to publish planned regulations.

My point here is that EPA simply needs to meet its legal requirements. It needs to be transparent, which means simply to be honest with the American people about new regulations it is planning.

My fourth and final EPA bill puts some teeth behind my request that the agency deal with the American people in an honest way. It shouldn't be needed, but it is. It simply says we will reduce EPA's budget if the agency fails to meet its legal deadlines for regulatory agenda setting. If a deadline passes and the agency has not published its agenda, then the Office of the Administrator loses $20,000 per week until the deadline is met. If this approach sounds familiar, that is because this bill is modeled after a provision in the highway bill that passed with substantial bipartisan margins in both the Senate and the House last year. Section 1306 of the highway bill authorizes the rescission of $20,000 per week from agencies that fail to complete documents required by transportation projects. The rationale is straightforward and accepted by Congress: If an agency does not complete its work according to reasonable schedules, then the budget gets decreased.

I have outlined four commonsense solutions designed to respond to reasonable concerns of real people and to respond to their heartfelt frustration with this agency. But, above all, they promote transparency and they promote responsible government.

I urge my colleagues to assist and cosponsor these proposals that bring transparency and a dose of reality to an out-of-control Federal agency.

Madam President, I rise today, first of all, to say thank you to Senator Barrasso and Senator Alexander for speaking so forcefully on this issue. All of us in this body are elected officials and we take an oath. In that oath, we raise our right hand and we promise our Nation that we will uphold the Constitution of the United States, this very sacred document that has so soundly guided our great country from one decade to another, one century to another, one generation to another.

In fact, many of my colleagues in Congress took that oath earlier this month. Just 10 days ago, President Obama took the Presidential oath of office with great pomp and circumstance. We were all on the platform with him. He promised the Nation that he would preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. But I fear that now what we are seeing is a flaunting of that very document.

You see, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that the President violated the Constitution with his appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board. I read the opinion. I saw no other solution than to ask these individuals to leave. The truth of the matter is they are not constitutionally there and need to leave.

This request was not about a personal preference or an attitude about any one individual. It was not about their qualifications. It was about the oath of office we take. And that oath of office says we will uphold the Constitution. The NLRB appointments were unconstitutional because the President only has the power to bypass our advice-and-consent role here in the Senate under the language of the Constitution. The court unequivocally found that the appointments were made last January while the Senate was not in recess, and were therefore void. Therefore, the President could not use the recess appointments clause of the Constitution to appoint these individuals. The ruling correctly concludes: ``Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers.''

The separation of powers is a critical safeguard to ensure that one branch of government does not overstep the other. The court goes on to say that allowing these nominations to stand ``would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers.''

Additionally, because these appointments were unconstitutional, the board lacked the quorum necessary to make decisions over the past year. This calls into question over 200 rulings of the board since last January. I personally believe that there is no doubt, if they are not constitutionally there, if they are there violating the Constitution, then all of their rulings, all of their regulations, all of their actions as a board are invalid and void.

That is why I wrote last Friday to the Government Accountability Office asking them to report to us every single decision they had made that was in excess of their powers to be there. You would think it would be common sense that the board would suspend all further action. You know, as a former member of the Cabinet, it never occurred to me that I had the right to ignore court decisions. I cannot imagine. The Chairman of the NLRB said this, ``The board respectfully disagrees with the decision.'' The Chairman indicates they will continue to conduct business as usual, even though a unanimous appeals court has deemed the appointments of all but one member of the board to be unconstitutional. I find their action absolutely appalling. Decisions by the NLRB are felt across the country.

It is not fair for the Board to say to the court: Go pound sand, which is exactly what they are telling this court. It is already awful that 200 litigants now have to go through the time and expense to appeal their rulings. Instead of continuing business as usual and issuing more bogus rulings, the Board should recognize that it is time to leave and to honor the Constitution.

I will wrap up with this. The D.C. appeals court ruling was a victory for our system of government. I believe it was a victory for the Constitution. It ensures that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the Constitution. I simply ask the NLRB, its members who were unconstitutionally appointed, to recognize the sanctity of our Constitution and vacate their offices immediately. Leave. Let us in the Senate have the powers granted to us by the U.S. Constitution to offer advice and consent to the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague Ben Nelson. In fact, when we visited with each other last night, I said to Senator Nelson that I have spent a significant part of my career following jobs he had done. I was the mayor of Lincoln when Ben Nelson was the Governor of Nebraska, I became the Governor of Nebraska as he was completing his two terms, and then I joined him in the U.S. Senate. Before all of that, I worked with Ben as the Secretary of Agriculture.

I can say from first-hand experience that Ben Nelson always had the best interests of our State at heart. He was enormously hardworking. In fact, I don't hesitate to admit for a second that when I came to the Governor's office, I found the State to be in excellent shape. He often joked about how he was tighter than three coats of paint, and I think that is absolutely true.

He tended to business, balanced the budget, and made sure that money was set aside in the rainy day fund because we in Nebraska know there are going to be days where it might rain. He did a great job as Governor. We worked hand in hand on a number of issues when I was Governor and he was a U.S. Senator. When we became colleagues in the Senate, that working relationship continued.

I am very pleased to rise today and say to the people of Nebraska that there was never a time where partisan differences ever impacted or interfered with our ability to work together. Senator Nelson was always looking for a way to move the State forward and move our country forward.

I just wanted to come to the floor today and thank my colleague Ben Nelson for his service. We appreciate everything he has done. We wish the Senator the very best, and I have a sense we are going to have an opportunity to work together in future years.

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

Mr. President, the Founders of this great country clearly wanted the Senate to serve as a deliberative body anchored with the ability to fully amend and to fully debate issues. Yet there has been a lot of talk lately about Senate rules changes to limit Senators' ability to make their voices heard.

To many, this may sound like inside baseball, limited to the concerns of just a handful of Senators. But let me assure you this issue is so much more than that. The changes that are being contemplated would significantly impact everyday Americans, especially those who live in rural or less-populated States.

Take Nebraska, for example. We do not necessarily consider ourselves small. We have almost 2 million people and several Fortune 500 companies. But we also do not like the idea of getting steamrolled by high-population States; for example, California, New York or Illinois. But that is exactly what these Senate rules changes would allow.

This is not just some wild supposition on my part. The majority leader himself said the filibuster ``is a unique privilege that serves to aid small States from being trampled by the desires of larger states.'' He went on to say it is ``one of the most sacred rules of the Senate.''

Of course, that was a few years ago, before he proposed to do the very thing he has criticized. He now appears ready to undermine the most important rule, not by a two-thirds vote, as clearly required by Senate rule XXII, but by a simple majority fiat. This contradicts longstanding practice and disregards the 67-vote threshold President Lyndon Baines Johnson said ``preserves, indisputably, the character of the Senate.''

This is the same so-called nuclear option Democrats previously decried as breaking the rules to change the rules. For example, the senior Senator from New York previously opposed such a blatant power grab saying:

The checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake.

The idea of bipartisanship, where you have to come together

and can't just ram everything through because you have a

simple majority, is at stake. The very things we treasure and

love about this grand republic are at stake.

Those are pretty powerful and unequivocal words, but it does not stop there.

The senior Senator from Illinois called it `` . . . attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship.'' So that reflects a trifecta of the Democratic leadership saying it is a bad idea. Yet they keep pushing it like it has somehow magically been transformed into a good idea.

But it does not matter how long we polish the tin cup; it will not magically become the golden chalice. Again, you do not have to believe me. One of the Senate's great historians, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was very clear on this issue. He said: ``Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights.''

When faced with the idea of limiting these basic underpinnings of the Senate, he concluded: ``We must never, ever, tear down the only wall-- the necessary fence--this nation has against the excesses of the Executive Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.''

I had the great privilege of working with Senator Byrd when I first came to the Senate. We offered an amendment together which would have prevented the majority from stretching the Senate rules to enact Draconian cap-and-trade legislation on a simple majority vote-- interestingly enough, a situation not so different from today's proposals.

Senator Byrd was very wise in these matters, serving as his party's leader in both times of majority and minority. He had seen both sides of the fence, if you will. He had studied the Framers and had determined that such a blatant power grab could not stand. In fact, the vast majority of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, agreed and our amendment passed on a vote of 67 to 31. That is exactly what should happen. If changes are needed, a bipartisan supermajority should approve them, not a simple majority changing the rules to break the rules, not a simple majority steamrolling the Nation.

Senator Byrd left no doubt about his opinion of the so-called nuclear option when he implored us: `` . . . jealously guard against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by a simple majority, circumventing Rule 22 where a two-thirds majority is required.''

He concluded with a statement more eloquent than any original words I might speak. So allow me to once again quote him. I implore my colleagues to listen carefully:

. . . the Senate has been the last fortress of minority

rights and freedom of speech in the Republic for more than

two centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect

before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the

political priority of the moment.

It is often said those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. I hope my colleagues will study this history, discover the wisdom of Senator Byrd, and decide to abandon this ill-advised hostile takeover of the Senate, this attempt to put a gag on the minority.

One of my favorite statements on this subject from Senator Byrd is: ``. . . before we get all steamed up, demanding radical changes of the Senate rules, let's read the rules.''

Let's do that. Senate rule V clearly states that ``the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.''

Rule XXII is very clear. It unquestionably says the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to change the Senate rules.

Again, very clearly, this is all about breaking the rules to change the rules.

The sad thing for our Senate and our great Nation is that once the bell is rung, it cannot be unrung. Simple majority votes to change our Senate rules, I guarantee you, will become commonplace. Whenever a new party takes control, they will change the rules by a majority vote. Whoever occupies the majority at the moment will then run roughshod over the minority party, the laws they passed when they were in the majority, and their constituents. It is absolutely inevitable.

Today's assurances that it only applies to motions to proceed will eventually ring hollow when it extends to judges, to bills, and then to conference reports. There will be nothing to stop it.

One day we will awaken with a Senate that basically is the House of Representatives, where majorities rule and only their leadership decides what amendments will be considered and what votes will occur and when they will occur. We will have a legislative branch that does not resemble even faintly what the Framers of our great Constitution envisioned.

But maybe, just as important, we would find entire states of constituents who have no voice in the policies that affect their daily lives. That would be a travesty.

I implore my colleagues one last time to listen to the wisdom of their leaders of today and throughout our history--people such as our majority leader, who said: ``For more than 200 years the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so,'' and Senator Byrd, who said: ``As long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.''

But, unfortunately, this great institution has evolved into a constant cycle of bringing flawed legislation to the floor, filling the amendment tree to prohibit all amendments, daring the minority party to vote no to protect the rights of their constituents, and when they do so, claim they are filibustering and obstructionist.

If we could fix this one basic problem, if we could return the Senate to its most basic principle of open debate and opportunity for amendments, maybe we would realize the folly of these proposed rules changes and we would get back in the business of being Senators again and working together again.

This quick fix is not the answer. I hope between now and January cooler heads will prevail, and we will put ourselves back on a path to finding bipartisan solutions to our Nation's most pressing problems.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, the Constitution would always trump, but that is a misinterpretation of what we are doing here. Let me play this out, because I am pretty confident I know how this is going to work if this is pursued. What would happen in January is there would be a request for a ruling by the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian would correctly rule that in order to change the rules you need two- thirds of the Senate. Then they would use the procedure of overruling our Parliamentarian with a majority vote. That will then stand as the ruling for the Senate. Very clearly what you are doing is you are skirting both the Constitution and the rules of the Senate.

Let me, if I might, take the Senator's question and show the shocking result we are going to end up with. Do you realize there was a day in this body where judges were not filibustered? We can look at Supreme Court judges who might be controversial to one side or the other who were approved by a majority vote.

So what happened? My friends on the other side of the aisle sat down, they brought in some constitutional scholar. He said: Well, why are you not filibustering judges? And now it is very routine and very common-- and both sides do it. So here is what is going to happen. Every time you have a majority that comes to power--and we all know the pendulum swings. In our lifetime we will see Republicans returned to the majority. That is how elections go--once this is cracked open, then they as the majority party can come in to change the rules and basically say: It is open season. We will get a ruling from the Parliamentarian just as the Democrats did. We will overrule that ruling of the Parliamentarian by a 51-vote majority or 50, if you have the Vice President in the chair, and then Katy-bar-the-door. All laws passed by that majority are now subject to being repealed by a majority vote.

If you can do it on the motion to proceed, there is not any reason you cannot use this very flawed procedure to do it on every other piece and step along the way. That is what Senator Byrd was warning us about. He was basically saying: Members of the Senate, once you crack this door open, there is no turning back. And there will not be any turning back.

So what happens to our country? Well, No. 1, the minority becomes powerless in the Senate. As a Member of the minority, I could come down here, I could offer an amendment. I could join forces with Senator Byrd on using reconciliation on climate change, and we could get 67 votes. But all of a sudden what is going to happen here is your minority is going to be basically

without a voice in the Senate because the majority rules. That was never intended. That has not been part of our history.

So I think to directly answer the question, you are misinterpreting what this is all about. The net effect of where we are going to end up, if we go in this direction, I guarantee you, in our lifetime we will look back at that moment in history and we will say that changed the operation of the Senate forever.

As I said in my comments, once the bell is rung, it is impossible to unring the bell. We will not have stability in our laws and we will not have stability in our Senate and we will have a minority that is absolutely powerless. I do not believe that is what was intended.

I yield the floor.