Floor Statements

Mr. President, the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border seems to be getting worse by the day. Large numbers of foreign nationals are unlawfully entering our country, and it is mainly due to the administration's failure to enforce immigration laws and secure the border.

This is a real crisis. So we are taking a hard look at the proposal the President sent over, but we want to make sure we actually get the right tools to fix the problem, and that is not what we have seen so far from the President. What he appears to be asking for is a blank check--one that would allow him to sustain his current failed policy.

Last night in a speech that attempted to shift the blame from his failed approach, he doubled down on a blank check, which is what he has asked for. He led Americans to believe that the problem could be solved if only Congress would pass his last-minute request, but it is not that simple. Much more needs to be done, and the President certainly knows it. His original letter to Congress called for reforms we all know are needed to address the crisis. Under pressure from the left, he has since backed away from these critical reforms, but lawmakers in both parties have not. So he needs to work with us to get the right policy into effect, not just throw money at the problem--get the right policy into effect.

He needs to halt this endless campaigning, at least for a moment. With the President actually in the region right now, one would think he would be able to carve out just a few minutes to view the situation on the border for himself. Apparently, though, he has decided there are more important things to do--such as campaigning with Gary Hart and practicing his bank shot.

All this continues to make the President look detached from the ongoing crisis on the border. Even a Democratic Congressman has called it ``bizarre.'' Honestly, this is just the latest example of a much broader pattern he has displayed, a pattern that makes him appear disconnected from the day-to-day concerns of most Americans.

The fact is on issue after issue--but especially on issues affecting the middle class--instead of addressing the huge problems his policies have created, the President keeps retreating into the bubble with his favorite leftwing pals--the kind of folks who always tell him what a great job he is doing, and of course that is what they do. Unlike most Americans, these are not generally the kinds of people who worry about car payments or utility bills or tuition or medical costs.

When the President does try to prove he is willing to listen to the concerns of average Americans--as he did this week--it is usually little more than a photo-op. But if the President is truly serious about helping the middle class, he will stop trying to convince everyone of that. He will join Republicans to actually do something about it because we have been asking him to join us for a long time now. It is about time he took us up on the offer.

We have already introduced a number of bills aimed squarely at addressing the squeeze our constituents are feeling. One of our bills would restore the 40-hour workweek and reverse a pay cut that is built into ObamaCare. Others would do things such as increase educational opportunities and put an end to policies that prevent women from getting pay raises when they outperform their male colleagues.

One bill I introduced with Senator Ayotte--the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act--would allow workers to take time off as a form of overtime compensation. It is an idea that is tailored to the needs of our modern workforce. It is something a lot of working men and women say they want, and there is no reason not to provide a little more flexibility to working families.

Another bill I introduced would reduce the cost and hassle of childcare for working parents by allowing them to write off a home office, even if they happen to have a crib in the room. Current law prevents working moms and dads from taking that deduction if they care for a child while working at home. This is simply unfair.

Making that change is just common sense, and so are all of the bills we have introduced.

Our middle-class agenda is not built around creating massive government bureaucracies or taking from one struggling neighbor to give to another. It is about identifying smart, commonsense fixes that can have a significant impact on the lives of the people we represent-- middle-class Americans who have never felt more squeezed.

There is no reason the President and his Democratic allies should not be able to embrace such commonsense ideas too. Unfortunately, President Obama's Democratic majority in the Senate has blocked just about everything we have proposed--just as they blocked the dozens of bills that have already passed the House of Representatives.

As just about everyone acknowledges at this point, the Democratic-run Senate has become the place where good ideas go to die. The Democratic leadership will not even listen to its own Members anymore. So it is no wonder that one Democratic Senator remarked that he has never experienced a less productive time in his life than right now in the Senate. That was a Democratic Senator saying that--never experienced a less productive time in his life than right now in the Senate.

Well, it is time for Washington Democrats to stop obstructing jobs and opportunity for the middle class. They need to understand that their powerful pals on the left will continue doing just fine in the Obama economy. It is time to stop worrying so much about them and to start paying more attention to the vast American middle class, to the people who feel Washington has not been listening to them over the past few years.

I am talking about people whose wages are stagnant, people who are either unemployed or cannot find work

to match their skills, and people who feel the burden of outdated policies that are diminishing opportunities in the workplace and leaving them torn between the demands of work and family.

Republicans are committed to doing everything we can to deliver relief and innovative new ideas to help these Americans. I hope President Obama and Washington Democrats will at some point here finally join us in the effort.

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

Mr. President, earlier this week I hosted a tele- townhall with people from across western Kentucky, from places such as Lyon County and Webster County. These constituents shared their thoughts on a range of issues, from ObamaCare to taxes, but one issue kept coming up over and over again. The Kentuckians I spoke with were truly worried about the Obama administration's war on coal jobs. They have seen the devastation in eastern Kentucky, and they know what the President's newest regulations will likely mean for middle-class families such as theirs: skyrocketing utility bills, higher prices, fewer jobs. They know the administration's war is an elitist crusade that threatens to shift good, well-paying jobs overseas, splinter our manufacturing base, and throw yet another load onto the backs of middle-class Kentuckians who have already struggled so much.

The hard-working people I represent are worried enough just about making their mortgage payments and paying for car repairs and coping with energy bills and summer vacations. These are the people whom President Obama and his Washington Democratic allies should be listening to--not to liberal elites who have been begging the President to go after the coal industry and the people whose livelihoods depend on it. But President Obama does not seem terribly interested in those folks or their problems. Once again he will be off campaigning this week. He will huddle with more leftwing ideologues--the folks who love to make a buck off of coal and then attack coal families with ego- driven political crusades, such as the ideologue the President rolled out the red carpet for just a few weeks ago down at the White House.

Meanwhile, here in the Senate the Democratic majority will continue to block and tackle for the President and his anticoal offensive. Senate Democrats block basically every attempt--every attempt, however small--to inject congressional oversight into the administration's energy regulations. They shut down votes. They obstruct the committee process that should be at the heart of our work. They even gag their own Members.

They blocked commonsense legislation such as the Coal Country Protection Act. What that bill--my bill--would do is require the administration to certify that jobs will not be lost and utility rates will not go up as a result of the President's energy regulations. That is not too much to ask. But Washington Democrats are blocking my bill because they know the President's regulations will cost jobs and will raise utility rates, and they are more interested in protecting the President's ideological agenda than jobs.

In other words, Senate Democrats block and tackle and obstruct--all to defend the President's war on coal jobs. It is a clear case of extreme devotion, and it makes sense because the Democratic majority really only has one mission these days: Protect the President and the left at all costs. That is why the average Democratic Senator has almost no power anymore. Our friends on the other side of the aisle do not ever get to do anything. They are just another backbencher fortifying President Obama's Senate moat--the place where good ideas go to die. It is a shame.

The Senate used to be a place where big ideas were debated and serious solutions were explored. Committees operated and amendments were offered. I remember a time not too long ago when there was even such a thing as an independent-minded Senate Democrat. But today's Democratic leadership has put an end to all of that.

It is about time our Washington Democratic friends open their eyes to the true cost of the President's policies, both in my State and in theirs.

It is time for these Washington Democrats to stop pretending they are not complicit in the administration's war on coal jobs or in the harm it is causing to our constituents because there is real pain out there. Beyond the Democratic echo chamber, there is real pain out there, out in the real world, in places such as Pike County.

Washington Democrats need to understand that Kentuckians are more than just some statistic on the bureaucratic balance sheet. These are real Americans who are hurting, and they deserve to have their voices heard. One way to do that, as I have suggested, is for the administration to hold some listening sessions on its new energy regulations in the areas that stand to suffer the most from them, in places such as eastern and western Kentucky. I have already issued multiple invitations for the President's people to visit places in my home State. I am issuing one again today.

The sad truth is that officials in Washington do not want to come anywhere near coal country. They just want to impose their regulations, hear some ``feedback'' from the echo chamber in order to check a box, and then move right along to the next front in their war on coal. They do not even want to talk to the very people they intend to put out of work. Well, several tele-townhall participants want to know why the President will not come down to see the mines and the coal families themselves. I am wondering too.

Mr. President, the campaign trips can wait. You recently expressed an interest in hanging around middle-class Americans for a change. What I am saying is, here is a perfect chance. Come on down to Kentucky and talk to some coal miners.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of one soldier from Kentucky who gave his life in service to our country. SPC Kevin J. Graham of Benton, KY, was killed in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on September 26, 2009, when the enemy attacked his vehicle with an IED. He was 27 years old.

For his service in uniform, Specialist Graham received many medals, awards, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Expert Marksmanship Badge, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon.

Soldiering was not simply a vocation to Specialist Graham; it was a way of life and it was a calling. From a young age, friends and family recall his strong desire to become a soldier.

``Before he went into the Army, he would see guys in uniform and say he needed to be doing something like that,'' says the Reverend Jonathan Goodman, Kevin's pastor from Benton's Calvary Baptist Church. ``He felt like it was his life's work, and he was honored to serve his country.''

Kevin was born in 1982 in Illinois and raised in Wisconsin. He moved with his parents to Marshall County, KY, about 5 years before his death. As a child Kevin received his education through Christian Liberty Academy as a homeschooler. He was a member of Paddock Lake Baptist Church in Wisconsin, where he was involved with the youth group and assisted the youth pastor.

As a young boy Kevin and his best friend used to dress up in Army fatigues and patrol the neighborhood. Neighbors would say they felt safe because they knew someone was watching out for them. Kevin's interest in the military also included a love of military history. He would read endlessly about the Civil War and World War II and talk often with his father, grandfather, and others who had served about their experiences. Kevin collected memorabilia from different conflicts, including some given to him by veterans. His interest in military aviation led him to spend his summers at an airfield in Kenosha, WI, to see hundreds of World War II planes gather in formation.

Kevin also learned to shoot at an early age. By the time he was 16, he had earned a job overseeing the skeet range at the local shooting facility. He

earned many badges for his marksmanship, including one for hitting his target 73 out of 75 times.

Kevin also had a love for old cars. He bought a 1965 Pontiac Le Mans and rebuilt it from the ground up. He attended countless car shows and won several trophies.

In July 2007 Kevin fulfilled a lifelong goal and honored the service of his father Daniel, who earned a Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam, by enlisting in the U.S. Army. He completed basic training that November.

One of Kevin's closest friends, Tristan Miller, joined the Army within months of Kevin. Kevin ``was enlisting in a time of war and he chose to enlist as an infantryman,'' Tristan recalls. ``Kevin knew what he was going into. This was something he volunteered to do. Kevin knew something was wrong out there, and he was going to take a stand about it.''

Kevin was later based at Fort Lewis, WA, where he met the woman who would become his wife, Krystal, in the fall of 2008. On March 22, 2009, they were married, just a few days before Kevin's 27th birthday. Kevin also grew very close to Krystal's son Brian and enjoyed spending time as a dad.

Then, in July, Kevin was deployed to Afghanistan--his first deployment. He deployed as part of 4th Platoon, Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, based out of Fort Lewis. He was promoted to specialist and assigned to be a mortar carrier driver, a responsibility given to those soldiers among the best able to remain calm in the face of a crisis. No doubt Kevin's lifetime of preparation, going back to his boyhood neighborhood patrols, served him well for his greatest and final role.

``It was an honor to be his parents,'' says Sandra Graham, Kevin's mother. ``Truly an honor.''

We are thinking of Kevin's family and friends today, including his wife Krystal, his stepson Brian, his mother Sandra, his brothers Daniel, Sean, and Scott, and many other beloved family members and friends. Kevin's father, Daniel Graham, a hero in his own right, has sadly passed on.

Mr. President, I know my U.S. Senate colleagues join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family of SPC Kevin J. Graham and great gratitude for his life of honorable service and his enormous sacrifice in uniform. Without heroes like Specialist Graham, our country could not be free. I hope it is some small measure of comfort to his family that the life of Specialist Graham has been remembered and appropriately honored here in the U.S. Senate.

Those of us in this body must never forget the men and women such as Specialist Graham who built the foundation upon which our democracy stands.

Mr. President, just some information for my friend from Vermont. We had anticipated after my remarks of going to the comments of Senator Alexander and Senator Corker in connection with the life of Senator Howard Baker. So I ask unanimous consent at this point that the Senators from Tennessee follow my remarks on Senator Baker.

Yes.

First, a few observations about ObamaCare. It may not have existed in the English language a few years ago, but in short order it has become a battle word for broken promises and almost cartoonish inefficiency. It is no wonder why: You can keep your plan. You can keep your doctor. Premiums will go down. The law will create millions of jobs.

We knew the promises wouldn't hold up. Many of us said so. One even earned the dubious distinction of being declared the ``lie of the year.'' And that is why it is so hard to trust much of what the Obama administration claims about ObamaCare these days, such as back in December when administration officials issued another promise--that they would make sure any taxpayer-funded ObamaCare subsidies would go only to enrollees who actually qualify for them under the law.

We wanted this assurance not only because so many other promises had been broken; we wanted it because eligibility verification is so important. Middle-class taxpayers are feeling enough pain from this law already. They shouldn't have to subsidize inaccurate or even fraudulent ObamaCare claims on top of all the rest. So I helped pass a law that requires a nonpartisan watchdog to keep an eye on the procedures the administration claimed would protect taxpayers to see how they will work and then report back to us in Congress.

Last week that watchdog, the inspector general, issued the first two reports on the issue, and it turns out we were pretty correct to be worried. The inspector general concluded that the administration was often ineffective at verifying such basic details about ObamaCare enrollees as their citizen status, their income, their Social Security number, and whether they were even eligible to purchase ObamaCare in the first place. The administration, the IG reported, didn't even follow its own eligibility verification procedures in many cases.

And that wasn't all. The IG also discovered nearly 3 million inconsistencies in the information ObamaCare enrollees provided in their applications, nearly 90 percent of which couldn't even be resolved because the necessary software--the necessary software--wasn't even operational.

It is completely ridiculous.

And the administration is still struggling to get a handle on the problem. Computer systems that should have been ready to go last October have not been built yet. It is the kind of scenario we would expect to see in a Leslie Nielsen movie, not in real life.

Worse still, administration officials are now indicating they are going to keep chugging ahead with their deeply flawed verification practices, even after everything the government's own watchdog uncovered. Many individuals enrolled with the current flawed enrollment process will automatically be enrolled for the same taxpayer subsidies next year.

They are defiant--defiant--in the face of all of this. This is precisely the kind of flippant attitude that is so infuriating to many of our constituents.

Many of us predicted these kinds of problems would be the likely outcome of giving government such expansive power over a huge segment of our economy. Of course we are going to have massive inefficiency and probable fraud and migraines for middle-class families who already have enough to deal with. Of course we are going to see all this. It seems inevitable.

That is why Republicans say we need to start over with actual health care reform--reform that can actually lower costs and increase the quality of care without resorting to this tired sort of government- centric approach.

ObamaCare is built upon the intellectually lazy idea that we can simply legislate a desirable outcome into existence, that we can tell a hulking Federal bureaucracy to simply bureaucratize affordable health care into being. Unfortunately, life does not work that way. Reality always intervenes, as we have been seeing with the pain of ObamaCare these past few years--pain that will only continue until Washington Democrats join us to enact a serious bipartisan solution that actually addresses many of our health care challenges and dispenses with the failed policies of this administration. Yet that is exactly the opposite of what we have seen from our friends on the other side so far.

Instead of working with us to solve massive problems, such as the ones the inspector general identified, Democrats in Washington are simply hiding from the issue altogether. They are trying to change the subject. Even hinting at it prompts the Democratic majority to shut down the legislative process altogether and cancel committee markups. They block votes and amendments. They will not allow the Senate to consider numerous bipartisan House-passed bills that would address some of ObamaCare's most glaring problems.

Even when a bipartisan group proposes a plan to address a flaw in the law that is reducing incomes for working families, they reject it. Instead, they schedule show votes designed to inflame one group or another.

As for the President, he is traveling around the country this week to give campaign speeches--not working with Congress to help middle-class families struggling under the weight of his policies. So the Democratic plan seems to be to double down on the mess they created and to hope Americans can be distracted enough to forget about it come November.

If that is the plan, it is not going to work. Middle-class Americans know who has been standing by their side throughout this entire ObamaCare fiasco. They know who has been standing against them, serving as a shield for the President and the hard left.

It is not too late for Democrats in Washington to work with Republicans to address the massive problem they created. If they truly care about the millions they have already hurt in this country with this law, it is time to do just that.

Mr. President, the Senators from Tennessee and I had an opportunity 1 week ago today to attend the funeral of Senator Howard Baker, who led the Senate Republicans for 8 years and was a truly wonderful American.

Actually, it was just an honor to attend his funeral down in Huntsville, TN, a town of 1,248 souls that Senator Baker often referred to as the ``center of the known universe.'' It was a wonderful tribute, and it carried a lot of lessons about the work we do.

Senator Corker was there too, and I am sure he felt the same way. Just before the funeral, he noted that Senator Baker was the kind of person who seemed to evoke ``wisdom in everything he did.'' I was glad to hear the two men got to spend some time together a few months before Senator Baker passed away.

Anyway, a real highlight of the funeral for me was a magnificent-- absolutely magnificent--eulogy by Senator Alexander. It captured not only the closeness of their friendship but also the qualities that made Senator Baker such an important figure. This morning I would like to take just a moment to thank Senator Alexander for those thoughtful words and at this point insert his eulogy into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that be done.

I would like to share some of Senator Alexander's observations about Senator Baker because, as I said, I think they are important, timely lessons about the purpose and potential of our service.

One of the things that stands out in all the tributes to Senator Baker, including Senator Alexander's, is the way in which he embodied the rare trait of taking himself lightly even as he took his duties seriously.

I will give you an example. One of the time-honored traditions around here is for new Senators to labor over their maiden speeches as if Pericles himself were standing in judgment from the Presiding Officer's chair. Senator Baker was no exception. His maiden speech was long, thoughtful, and dense--so much so that when he asked his father-in-law, then-Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen, for his reaction, Dirksen is said to have remarked: ``Howard, Howard, perhaps you should occasionally enjoy the luxury of an unexpressed thought.''

It was the kind of comment that might have stung a lesser Senator, but as Senator Alexander pointed out in mentioning that last week, Baker was a quick learner. About a week or so later, Howard rose again--this time to challenge one of his Democratic colleagues to a game of tennis. The Senator in question had just taken a swipe at the vigor of his Republican colleagues, particularly the new ones, and Senator Baker decided to rise to the challenge, tongue firmly in cheek.

It was a star performance. The Senator that Baker challenged even interrupted him at one point to suggest that it was ``one of the best maiden speeches that has ever been delivered in this chamber.'' Evidently he had missed Baker's actual maiden speech. But Senator Baker's legendary ability to adapt was now firmly established and it set the tone for a two-decade run in which he would be called upon to deploy his many other talents and skills to defuse tensions, resolve conflicts, repair trust, build consensus, and, frankly, just to put people at ease--because sometimes in this business there is nothing more important than just that: to just keep the bearings oiled.

We have all been recently reminded of how Senator Baker put his own ambitions aside to help rebuild the Reagan White House after Iran- Contra. It was a great testament to his values and to his feel for priorities. What Senator Alexander reminded us last week was that these former political rivals--Baker and Reagan--started every day in the White House together telling each other a little story. They had no problem putting their past disputes behind them and building a close working friendship based on mutual respect, common purpose, love of country, and of course good humor. They were adults, busy about serious business, and they conducted that business with dignity and with grace.

The larger point is that while people talk a lot about the importance of having political skill in Washington these days, the importance of temperament cannot be overstated. The way Senator Baker conducted himself here and in the White House is eloquent testimony of that.

It is not that he was laid back. As Senator Alexander put it, behind Baker's pleasant demeanor was a restless ambition that would propel him to the heights of American politics and government for 40 years, but he could subordinate that ambition when he felt the moment or the country needed him to. He was persistent about achieving a result but never insisted that his way was the only way to do it. It is a quality that required an ability to listen. In Baker's case that meant being an eloquent listener, a trait Senator Alexander put above all the others in Baker's formidable arsenal.

Here is how Senator Baker himself once put it:

There is a difference between hearing and understanding

what people say. You don't have to agree, but you have to

hear what they've got to say. And if you do, the chances are

much better you'll be able to translate that into a useful

position and even useful leadership.

Senator Alexander pointed out Howard Baker had courage. He helped round up the votes to ratify the Panama Canal Treaty even though he must have known it would not help him much in a Republican primary for President, to put it mildly. When the integrity of our politics was at stake, he did not hesitate to take on a President of his own party in a very public way--an impulse that one hopes lawmakers in both parties could muster today if the integrity of our system called for it again.

But perhaps most important of all, Howard Baker was grounded. He had an important job to do, and he did it well, but he also kept a healthy distance from his work. His photograph of President Reagan's inaugural in January 1981 illustrates the point. Just behind the new President we can spot the Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill and the new Vice President George Bush. Then right there between them is a man holding up a camera to capture the moment. It is the new Senate majority leader standing there like an ordinary spectator with a very good seat. It was Howard Baker.

Senator Alexander summed up Baker's groundedness this way: ``Howard Baker never stopped sounding like where he grew up.''

Senator Baker was a fixture here for decades, but Huntsville was always home. Perhaps that is also why Senator Baker took his stewardship of the Senate so very seriously. He knew he was not going to be around forever and that meant he had a duty to make the Senate work and to preserve it as a place where disputes and disagreements are sifted and sorted out and where stable, durable solutions are slowly but surely achieved. It is how he earned the nickname ``the great conciliator.''

When Dan Quayle was a Senator here, he used to say: ``There's Howard Baker, and then there's the rest of us.''

Over the past week, we have been reminded of why that was, and I thank Senator Alexander for helping us remember why his friend and mentor meant so much to this country and this institution.

May the memory of Howard Henry Baker inspire us to be our best selves and even better Senators.

Madam President, this past Wednesday, July 2, I was extremely pleased and honored to be a part of the awarding of the Purple Heart Medal with Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster to a brave soldier Kentucky is proud to call one of its own. SPC Earl Wilson of Liberty, KY, received his Purple Heart with Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for wounds suffered while serving our country in Vietnam. I want to share the honor and majesty of this event with my colleagues and so therefore ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks at the ceremony to award SPC Earl Wilson his Purple Heart with Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, as well as the text of the two proclamations for the Purple Hearts, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Yesterday I talked about how supposedly moderate Senate Democrats are supposedly incapable of advancing important policies they claim to support, policies such as approving the Keystone Pipeline. These Senate Democrats just can't stop talking about how much they love Keystone. Yet they will not stop enabling their own Democratic leadership to block approval of this shovel-ready, job- creation project. They have been doing so for years now. So it is hard to take what they say very seriously.

That is true when it comes to the Obama administration's war on coal jobs too. Some of our friends on the other side want their constituents to think they will stand up to this elitist war on middle-class jobs. These Senators want everyone to believe they are opposed to this administration's waves of job-killing energy regulations.

The truth is it is just the opposite. These Democratic Senators say they are ready to stand and fight, but when push comes to shove we can't find them anywhere. Instead, we continually see them supporting the majority leader and the Democratic Senate leadership that dutifully does the bidding of President Obama and the far left.

On this issue the Democratic leadership has gotten ever more extreme in its defense of the war-on-coal jobs. Multiple times I have tried to offer legislation that would ease the pain for Kentucky's coal families--hard-working Americans who just want to work and put food on the table.

I pushed for Senate approval of commonsense bills, such as the Saving Coal Jobs Act and the Coal Country Protection Act, but the majority leader blocks those efforts at every turn, and none of the so-called moderate Senate Democrats ever come to the floor to assist me in my efforts. Every time they choose to follow a party line instead--the party line of the majority leader they support.

The most troubling is the majority leader whom these Democrats support is so determined to stamp out opposition to the President's job-killing regulations he has taken to shutting down the legislative process altogether. His efforts have even begun to affect our committee work.

Case in point. Just last week Senate Democratic leadership pulled the Energy and Water appropriations bill from committee consideration because it feared a procoal jobs amendment I wanted to offer that might actually pass. We saw yet another example of that this week when Senate Democrats pulled the Financial Services appropriations bill from committee consideration for the same reason. The Senate Democratic leadership apparently doesn't want Members of the Senate, even in committee--even in committee--to have any real say in the

contours of the President's energy regulations--regulations that will affect millions of our constituents in profound ways.

Appropriations bills are exactly what the Senate should be voting on. Our constituents sent us here to debate big issues, to amend and improve policies that work, and to repeal the ones that don't. That is our job description. But the Democratic majority won't allow us to fulfill it.

The extremism here is really worrying. But the majority leader couldn't get away with it if the Democrats in his conference who claim to be ``moderate'' would actually stand up to him for once. The so- called moderates could stand up to him when he tries to shut down the legislative process, but they don't. The so-called moderates could stand up to him when he blocks every reform of the President's job- killing regulations or when he blocks every effort to approve the Keystone Pipeline, but they don't. They won't even stand up to President Obama when he jets off to speak to partisan groups and friendly audiences that rarely have the best interests of coal country at heart.

I know the President will also be trying out a new PR campaign today to see what life is really like for the middle class--for those beyond the White House gates. But he won't see the consequences of his EPA regulations at a political rally. He won't see what his IRS has done to grassroots organizations. He won't hear from the families of veterans who died while waiting for a bureaucrat to hand out a doctor appointment. And he won't see the damage ObamaCare has caused for working families.

Well, if he is actually serious about this initiative, then he will come to Kentucky to see the tragic effects of his policies firsthand. I invite him to visit with local coal families in my State and hear the other side of the story they won't hear from California billionaires. I invite him to meet with the veterans I hear from every day, and I invite him to meet with families such as the Whitehead family from Allen County, who write to me about the damage his ObamaCare law has already done to them. But I doubt he will, and I doubt the so-called moderate Senators will push him to do so anyway.

So perhaps it is time these Senators stop referring to themselves as moderate at all. If they are not willing to stand up to the majority leader or the President when it counts, then they are just another party-line Democrat. It is really too bad, because we Republicans on this side of the aisle want to come to bipartisan solutions on the issues affecting so many of our constituents. We want to pass commonsense energy legislation that can create well-paying jobs, increase North American energy independence, and lower utility prices for struggling middle class families. We want to give Congress a say on extreme policies from the administration that take aim at middle class jobs in each of our States. But we can't do any of that without dance partners on the Democratic side. And there is hardly a true moderate in sight anymore. I can remember when we used to have moderates over on the Democratic side, but we can't find them today. It is a shame for our country.

I and my party are going to keep fighting for the middle class either way, even if we have to continue carrying on the battle for sensible, commonsense solutions all by ourselves.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I welcome the Supreme Court's decision in the Noel Canning case. It represents a clear rebuke to the President's brazen power grab--a power grab I was proud to lead the effort against. Today's decision was clear, and it was a unanimous-- unanimous--rebuke of the President of the United States.

As my Republican colleagues and I have said all along, President Obama's so-called recess appointments to the NLRB in 2012 were a wholly unprecedented act of lawlessness. The President defied the Senate's determination that it was meeting regularly, and the Supreme Court unanimously--unanimously--agreed with us.

Today's ruling is a victory for the Senate, for the American people, and for our Constitution.

The Court reaffirmed the Senate's clear and constitutional authority to prescribe its own rules, including the right to determine for itself when it is in session. And the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the President's completely unprecedented assertion of a unilateral appointment power--a power the Framers deliberately withheld from his office.

Our counsel, Miguel Estrada, did an outstanding job defending the Senate and its uniquely important place in our constitutional system. By contrast, our Democratic colleagues shirked their institutional duty to defend the Senate. They failed, yet again, to stand up to the President. Although they failed to defend the Senate when it mattered most, they, their successors, and their constituents will benefit from today's ruling.

The principle at stake in this case should extend well beyond narrow partisanship. It should be about more than just one President or one political party.

In closing, the administration's tendency to abide only by the laws it likes represents a disturbing and dangerous threat to the rule of law. That is true whether we are talking about recess appointments or ObamaCare.

So I hope the Obama administration will take away the appropriate lessons because the Court's decision today is a clear rebuke of this behavior.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is with great sadness that I announce the passing of one of the Senate's most towering figures, Senator Howard Baker.

The Senate sends its sincere condolences to the family of Senator Baker. In particular, we want to pass along our deep sympathies to his wife Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker. Many of us served alongside Nancy in the Senate, and we know this must be a difficult moment for her.

Senator Baker was a true pathbreaker. He served as Tennessee's first popularly elected Republican Senator since Reconstruction. He served as America's first Republican majority leader since the time of Eisenhower. He served his Nation with distinction as a member of the U.S. Navy, as Chief of Staff to President Reagan, and as our country's Ambassador to Japan.

Senator Baker truly earned his nickname, the ``Great Conciliator.'' I know he will be remembered with fondness by Members of both political parties.

Again, let me express the Senate's sympathies to the Baker family. He will be missed by the Senate and by his country.

Influence--it is a word we hear a lot these days, especially from our friends on the other side who suddenly feel the need to convince their constituents that they are ``moderate'' Democrats, despite the voting records that say just the opposite. These Senate Democrats can't stop boasting about how much supposed influence they have on energy issues, but it is a baffling claim to the rest of us because it is so hard to point to what they have actually accomplished.

Take the Keystone Pipeline. The Senate Democrats I am referring to claim to have so much influence within their party to get it approved, but the evidence actually leads to the opposite conclusion; that they have almost none at all. When it comes right down to it, they have not even been able to secure a serious, gimmick-free floor vote from the majority leader to approve the Keystone Pipeline. That should be the bare minimum.

The events that transpired yesterday only underscore the point. Yesterday afternoon several of my Republican colleagues again tried to pass the Keystone Pipeline. Once again, the Democratic leadership blocked the bill, and the so-called moderate Democrats simply stood by while their own party blocked this important job-creation legislation. They didn't even put up a credible fight.

It is disappointing, but it is no surprise because Washington Democrats have blocked approval of this shovel-ready, job-creation project for years now, even though it would create thousands of well- paying American jobs, even though it would help our struggling economy, even though it would increase North American energy independence, and even though the Obama administration has admitted that constructing the pipeline would have almost zero significant impact on the environment.

In other words, the Senate Democratic leadership is obstructing construction of the Keystone Pipeline for one main reason--to please their patrons on the far left. Let's be clear about something. The only reason they are able to get away with it is because so-called moderate Democrats let them, the same so-called moderates who claim to have so much influence around here.

The bottom line is these so-called moderates can't have it both ways. They can't credibly claim to have influence on issues such as these, even as they let their party leaders shoot down almost every effort to achieve the things they claim to want, such as Keystone.

Frankly, it is hard to see how we could ever hope to get a Keystone bill over to the President's desk and signed into law while Democrats run the Senate, especially when the so-called moderates stand idly by as the President has yet another meeting with the anti-Keystone jobs lobby tonight. The President is meeting with an anti-Keystone fundraiser today and will be hearing from an organization with a mission to stop these important jobs. He needs to hear from Americans across the country who are desperate for work in the Obama economy. Preaching to the choir is not going to get that done.

Ironically enough, the President will be meeting with these same anti-Keystone interests right after holding a pep rally with Senate Democrats--his reliable anti-Keystone backstop in Congress.

I think it is time to put aside the charade. The American people have already had to suffer through more than 5 years of delay and obfuscation on this pipeline. The bureaucrats and the experts have studied it to death over and over and over, and every time we learn basically the very same thing: There is a ton of upside to building Keystone and minimal substantive downside.

It is time to end all the politically motivated delays and get serious around here. It is time for Democrats who claim to support these important jobs to stand up to the party bosses and stand with their constituents and not just talk about doing it. We owe it to the American people to get these Keystone Pipeline jobs approved as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, it seems increasingly clear that will never happen under the current Democratic-run Senate, but one way or another, we need to get this done.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, I would simply offer a consent agreement that the majority leader objected to when he pulled the Shaheen bill a while back. It was pretty simple and pretty easily understood. This is the consent that was offered when the majority leader, as I said, pulled the Shaheen-Portman bill a while back. This is what I said:

I propose a different unanimous consent agreement. I ask

unanimous consent that the only amendments in order be five

amendments from the Republican side related to energy policy

with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. I

further ask that following the disposition of those

amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate

proceed to vote on the passage of the bill, as amended, if

amended.

Now, that gives the majority leader what he was asking for on the last bill: 60-vote thresholds. It gives him amendments from our side related to energy policy, and it would have led to a vote on Keystone.

So I would propound that unanimous consent requestagain. It sounds to me as though we may be getting somewhere if the majority leader really wants to give us a chance to have a Keystone vote here on the Senate floor.

Reserving the right to object, we didn't get amendments on Shaheen-Portman. So what the majority leader is now saying is he wants to pass a kind of comprehensive energy bill dealing with a variety of different subjects without any amendments at all as a condition for having a vote on Keystone with five amendments related to the subject.

I can remember when we used to vote around here. In fact, his Members have only had seven rollcall votes in a year. He has one Member from Alaska who has never had a rollcall vote on the floor his entire Senate career.

So I think rather than these UCs going back and forth, maybe we ought to talk about how to work this out and see if maybe the Senate could actually start voting on things again. I object.

I ask unanimous consent that the exchange between the majority leader and myself come out of our leader time in order not to take further time of the Members.

I yield the floor.