Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have spoken often on the floor about the challenges and opportunities for the future that the people of eastern Kentucky and rural parts of the Commonwealth face. Many of these challenges stem from this administration's regulatory overreach, whether it is a war on coal, ObamaCare or Dodd-Frank. Too many people are out of work, which has placed a drastic burden on the coal mining industry, and harshly cut the number of jobs available in the coal mining industry and related industries.

In spite of the challenges the people of eastern Kentucky face, I have great confidence we can overcome that and succeed. I was pleased to be able to assist the Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation in receiving a Promise Zone designation, which was awarded just last week. That is why I wrote the administration in support of this designation last year. This economic initiative is just one way to help jump-start the region's journey out of economic distress.

But we need more than that. My friend and colleague in the other Chamber, Representative Hal Rogers, is leading an effort to identify ways to lift Appalachia out of the cycle of poverty and unemployment through the SOAR Initiative, and I applaud his efforts.

To offer yet another possibility for eastern Kentucky, my friend and colleague Senator Rand Paul and I introduced the Economic Freedom Zones Act, to further enable eastern Kentucky to lift the burdens of some of the poorest families in the country. Our legislation would roll back government regulations and tax barriers to spur job creation and reform failed educational systems to aid disadvantaged children.

So continuing my efforts to find ways to assist these rural counties and give these communities a voice, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senator Paul, the Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act or simply the HELP Rural

Communities Act. My friend and colleague in the House, Representative Andy Barr, introduced this legislation in that body, and I applaud his efforts to see it passed.

The HELP Rural Communities Act would give rural counties in Kentucky a voice when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, has incorrectly labeled them as ``nonrural''--just another example of this administration's one-size-fits-all, we-know-best approach to governing. Several counties in Kentucky, such as Bath County, have been labeled as ``nonrural'' and are therefore barred from certain rural lending practices helpful to farmers and small businesses.

If you have ever been to these counties, as I have, you would most certainly disagree with the CFPB's ruling. But current law provides literally no opportunity to challenge the CFPB's decision. My bill would allow counties which have been improperly designated as ``nonrural'' to petition the CFPB with additional local information to reconsider their status in order to ensure that rural communities, such as those in eastern Kentucky, have the access to credit they need to grow their economy.

This is an important step in the effort to renew hope for the future in rural Kentucky, especially eastern Kentucky. Given the bipartisan interest shown in recent weeks to get government out of the way and let the people of the region work, Congress and the President can come together to pass this legislation on behalf of eastern Kentuckians and rural communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Paul and Representative Barr, to see that we get this passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my friend the majority leader is talking about the crush of nominations. Of course, the reason we have a crush of nominations is because of the decision of the majority to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate last year, which produced the inevitable, entirely predictable consequence of sending an enormous number of nominations back down to the administration at the end of the session.

So the decision of the majority to run roughshod over the minority has a lot of consequences, one of which is pretty clear already: that it didn't streamline the nomination process as it was sold to the minority to do. It only made it more difficult.

On another matter, I would like to say a word about unemployment insurance.

The reason for the holdup should be pretty obvious at this point. Republicans have a lot of good ideas on how to pay for this extension. We also have a lot of proposals for getting at the root of the problem, proposals that would make it easier for folks who are struggling in this economy to actually find stable and fulfilling work or get retrained so they can find good jobs. That is a goal on which I expect we could all agree.

Unfortunately, up until the weekend the majority leader wasn't terribly interested in any of these ideas. He only seemed to want to extend the program without really paying for it, without doing much of anything to help private sector job creation, and without creating opportunities for targeted training that would help folks who are currently receiving unemployment assistance actually find a job.

So I think this is unfortunate. There is clearly no shortage of creative, constructive proposals out there which speak to the underlying problems, which speak to the urgent need to create more stable, good-paying jobs, and which make sure we don't increase our already out-of-control Federal debt. Some of these ideas actually come from Democrats. The Presiding Officer's senior Senator from Connecticut has an idea to create a program that subsidizes employment for low- income Americans so they aren't stuck in neutral while they search for permanent work. This is an idea which actually deserves debate and a vote.

As I have indicated in recent days, the majority leader should give other Senators more of a say in what we do around here, including members of his own conference. So hopefully his comments a few moments ago and over the weekend are a sign that we may be able to work this out in a way that the Senate can function the way it used to, which was that Members were able to actually offer amendments and get votes before we moved to final passage on important legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the majority leader yield?

I would observe that what I am hoping for is an open amendment process. We have the amendment tree filled and it remains my hope that we will be able to, through these discussions we have had, get to something closer to what we have been accustomed to in the past with a relatively open amendment process. So under those circumstances, and in the hope that by tomorrow we end up with a more fair process, I am happy to go along with what the majority leader has suggested.

For months the Democrats who run Washington have been desperate to distract from the pain of ObamaCare. If we listen to them, they think they have found something that might work for them.

The one thing that can actually distract folks from the misery of this law is the misery of the economic malaise they have presided over for the past 5 years. We truly have to hand it to them in one respect. It takes a lot of chutzpah to spend an entire Presidential term pushing policies that are supposedly meant to help the little guy and then turn around and blame everybody else when they flop.

But chutzpah won't solve the problem, and the poll-tested talking points and failed stimulus ideas we have seen Democrats trot out thus far won't do much to improve the plight of millions of Americans struggling in today's economy.

To me that is the real tragedy, because the discussion about how to help Americans battle against the odds day after day is a conversation we actually should be having. In fact, it is a debate Republicans are having. In recent days we have seen several leading Republicans talk about how to tackle poverty in the 21st century.

Unlike the Democrats' outdated ideas from the sixties, Republicans are thinking about ways to update our Nation's approach with fresh proposals that speak to the situation Americans actually find themselves in today, not back in the sixties.

The Republican approach is to learn from past mistakes. It is about turning the left's good intentions into policies that can actually get the job done, and it is about moving beyond the treatment of symptoms and getting at the underlying problems.

That is the thinking behind the Economic Freedom Zones Act, which Senator Paul and I recently introduced. It aims to shine a light into some of the most impoverished corners of our country, to raise up cities and families who have been left behind and sometimes literally crushed by the outdated ideas from the sixties and to actually do that in a way that lasts.

With this legislation, some of the most disadvantaged areas of our country would acquire the ability to apply for economic freedom zone status that would help lift the burden of some of the poorest families in our country. Small business owners would see fewer government regulations, enabling them to create jobs and drive prosperity. Entrepreneurs would see punitive tax barriers peeled back, allowing them to lead a recovery with new ideas and new energy. Failed educational systems would see reforms that lift up disadvantaged children, giving new hope to a younger generation. Cities and regions that now face a dark future could transform themselves, if they chose, almost instantly into magnets for new ideas and for new hope.

If our Democratic colleagues are serious about their focus on economic distress--if it is more than only some poll-tested ObamaCare distraction--then I would invite them to work with us on innovative new approaches such as this.

This could allow the Senate, for instance, to consider our proposal as an amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation currently on the floor, because this is a discussion that needs to be about helping people. These economic freedom zones are similar in some ways to the Promise Zone initiative recently developed by the Obama administration.

I was pleased to hear that eight counties in eastern Kentucky will soon receive Promise Zone designation. That is why I wrote in support of granting this designation last year, because there is no doubt that eastern Kentucky is a region that has suffered enormous hardship in recent years--much of it, unfortunately, related to the very same Obama administration war on coal families. But the promise zone designation is a step in the right direction nonetheless. Senator Paul and I will be heading to the White House later today for a promise zone event because we are encouraged the President is finally--finally--focused on a concrete approach to jobs that Members of both parties can support, proving that we can accomplish things when we focus on real efforts rather than political show votes that are designed to fail.

Promise zones are something we can build on with far more comprehensive approaches, such as Senator Paul's economic freedom zones that would reach even more communities in need

of revitalization. Because let's remember this: Government programs can sometimes help, but they can't do everything. The 1960s mindset about how to fight poverty needs to change to fit the realities of the 21st century.

I want to share a sentiment I read yesterday from Thomas Vincent, an unemployed coal worker from the very Kentucky county where LBJ launched his big-government blitz 50 years ago. This was his take on the so- called ``war on poverty:'' What good are all these government programs if they do not get you a job? It is a feeling, the article noted, that is widespread among his neighbors in Martin County.

This is why Republicans say it is time for modernization and new approaches. It is time to give folks such as Thomas real hope. It is time to give them more than just good intentions.

Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Is it the majority leader's intent to allow votes on any Republican amendments?

On the bill we were just discussing.

Is the answer to my question, I would say to the majority leader, no?

No.

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

He brings up the Secretary of Defense frequently. Was the Secretary of Defense defeated or confirmed?

Has a member of the President's Cabinet ever been defeated on a filibuster in the history of the Senate?

I ask my friend, the majority leader, then is what he finds offensive the fact that there are debates about these matters? Since none of these members are being defeated, what is the issue? I am having a hard time understanding it. Is it the fact that there is controversy, that there is debate? Since none of them are being defeated, is he also suggesting we have no controversy about anybody sent by the President of the United States?

Will the majority leader yield for another question?

Since he has conceded that no Cabinet members have been defeated prior to the decision of the majority leader to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate, is it not the case that 215 of President Barack Obama's judges have been confirmed and only 2 have been defeated?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Yesterday the majority leader rejected my offer for both sides to offer amendments to the unemployment insurance bill--the way things used to work around here; we had a bill called up, and we had amendments. This is, sadly, typical of the way things are these days in this institution. If the majority leader just accepted my offer, we could actually be debating and amending this bill instead of wasting time. How does the majority leader expect to achieve consensus when one side doesn't have the chance to offer any input at all? That is the way the Senate used to operate.

Look. If the majority leader wants this bill to pass the Senate, then there is a very good likelihood he is going to have to find a way to pay for it. I will be offering one idea on that front; that is, paying for a longer extension by dropping the mandate that forces Americans to buy insurance they don't want. But if they don't like that idea, there are others. One is a bipartisan idea endorsed by the President that ensures individuals can't draw both Social Security disability benefits and unemployment benefits at the same time. Senators Coburn and Portman both have versions of that. There is another plan offered by Senator Ayotte that would cut down on fraud in refundable tax credits. There are plans for job creation that will be offered by Senators Paul, Thune, and Inhofe.

These plans take a different approach than the government-led one we see from our Democratic friends. They rely on unlocking the potential of the private sector to actually increase employment. Why don't we have a vote on them in the Senate? I am sure there are many Democratic ideas out there as well, but we won't get the chance to debate any of them as long as the majority leader keeps blocking us from offering amendments.

This obstructionism by the Democratic majority is against the traditions of this body, and it needs to end because if Democrats truly want to get anything done this year, they are going to have to learn how to work with us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past several years those of us who are fortunate enough to serve have engaged in many fierce debates. Some have been forced upon us by external events, including a searing financial crisis, while others were brought about by an unapologetically liberal President who promised dramatic change and who has worked very hard to follow through on that pledge--in some cases, even in the face of legal obstacles and widespread public opposition. So change has, indeed, come.

Despite the daily drumbeat of headlines about gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, the truth is that an activist President and a Democratic-controlled Senate have managed to check off an awful lot of items on their wish list one way or another. Yet just as important as what they did, my colleagues, is how they did it because that also has been at the heart of so many of the fights we have had around here over the past few years. These conflicts haven't stemmed from personal grievances or contempt, as some would have it. They are, instead, the inevitable consequence of an administration that was in such a hurry to impose its agenda that it neglected to persuade the public of its wisdom and then cast aside one of the greatest tools we have in this country for guaranteeing a durable and stable legislative consensus, and that tool is the Senate.

Remember, I think we all know partisanship is not some recent invention. American politics has always been divided between two ideological camps. Today that is reflected in the two major parties, but it has actually always been there. On one side are those who proudly place their trust in government and its agents to guide our institutions and direct our lives. On the other are those of us who put our trust in the wisdom and the creativity of private citizens working voluntarily with each other and through more local mediating institutions, guided by their own sense of what is right, what is fair, and what is good.

Recent polling suggests that most Americans fall squarely into the latter camp. People are generally confident in their local governments but lack confidence in Washington.

Despite the political and ideological divides which have always existed in our country, we have almost always managed to work out our differences--not by humiliating the other side into submission but through simple give-and-take. It is the secret of our success. The same virtues that make any

friendship, marriage, family, or business work are the ones that have always made this country work. And the place where it happens, the place where all the national conflicts and controversies that arise in this big, diverse, wonderful country of ours have always been resolved, is in this Chamber.

I realize it may not be immediately obvious why that is the case, but the fact is that every serious student of this institution, from De Tocqueville to our late colleague Robert Byrd, has seen the Senate as uniquely important to America's stability and to its flourishing. In their view, it has made all the difference, and here is why--because whether it was the fierce early battles over the shape and scope of the Federal Government or those that surrounded industrialization or those that preceded and followed a nation-rending civil war or those surrounding the great wars of the 20th century or the expansion of the franchise or a decades-long cold war or the war on terror, we have always found a way forward, sometimes haltingly but always steadily, and the Senate is the tool that has enabled us to find our footing almost every time.

I mention all this because as we begin a new year, it is appropriate to step back from all the policy debates that have occupied us over the past few years and focus on another debate we have been having, and the debate we have been having is over the State of this institution. What have we become? It is not a debate that ever caught fire with the public or with the press, but it is a debate that should be of grave importance to all of us because on some level every single one of us has to be at least a little bit uneasy about what happened here last November. But even if you are completely at peace with what happened in November, even if you think it was perfectly fine to violate the all- important rules that say changing the rules requires the assent of two- thirds of Senators duly elected and sworn, none of us should be happy with the trajectory the Senate was on even before that day, even before November, or the condition we find the Senate in 225 years after it was created. I don't think anybody is comfortable with where we are. I know I am not, and I bet, even though there is nobody over here at the moment, I bet almost none of them are either.

I wish to share a few thoughts on what I think we have lost over the last 7 years and what can be done about it together. ``Together'' obviously requires the involvement, one would think, of some people on the other side of the aisle. Even though they are not here to listen, they have been invited.

Let me state at the outset that it is not my intention to point the finger of blame at anybody, although some of that is inevitable. I don't presume to have all of the answers either, and I am certainly not here to claim that we are without fault. But I am absolutely certain of one thing: The Senate can be better than it is. Many of us have seen a better Senate than we have now, no matter who was in the majority. This institution can be better than it is. I just can't believe that on some level everyone in this Chamber, including the folks on the other side, doesn't agree. It just can't be the case that we are content with the theatrics and the messaging wars that go on day after day. It can't be the case that Senators who grew up reading about the great statesmen who made their name and their mark over the years are now suddenly content to stand in front of a giant poster board making some poll- tested point-of-the month day after day and then run back to their respective corners and congratulate each other on how right they are. I can't believe we are all happy about that on either side.

Don't misunderstand me--there is a time for making a political point and even scoring a few points. I know that as well as anybody. But it can't be the only thing we do. Surely we do something other than scoring political points against each other. It cheapens the service we have sworn to provide to our constituents. It cheapens the Senate, which is a lot bigger than any of us.

Hopefully, we can all agree that we have a problem. I realize both sides have their own favorite account of what caused it. We have our talking points, and they have their talking points. We all repeat them with great repetition, and we all congratulate each other for being on the right side of the debate. I understand that. People over there think Republicans abuse the rules, and we think they do. But, as I said, my goal here isn't to make converts on that front; my purpose is to suggest that the Senate can be better than it has been and that it must be if we are to remain great as a nation.

The crucial first step of any vision that gets us there is to recognize that vigorous debate about our differences isn't some sickness to be lamented. Vigorous debate is not a problem. When did that become a problem? It is actually a sign of strength to have vigorous debates.

It is a common refrain among pundits that the fights we have around here are pointless. They are not at all pointless. Every single debate we have around here is about something important. What is unhealthy is when we neglect the means that we have always used to resolve our differences. That is the real threat to this country, not more debate. When did that become a problem?

The best mechanism we have for working through our differences and arriving at a durable consensus is the U.S. Senate. An Executive order can't do it. The fiat of a nine-person court can't do it. A raucous and precarious partisan majority in the House can't do it. The only institution that can make stable and enduring laws is the one we have in which all 50 States are represented equally and where every single Senator has a say in the laws we pass. This is what the Senate was designed for. It is what the Senate is supposed to be about, and almost--almost--always has been.

Take a look at some of the most far-reaching legislation of the past century. Look at the vote tallies. Medicare and Medicaid were both approved with the support of about half the Members of the minority. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed with the votes of 30 out of the 32 Members of the Republican minority--all but two Republican Senators. There weren't many of them. That was the year after the Goldwater debacle. Only two Senators voted against the Social Security Act, and only eight voted against the Americans with Disabilities Act.

None of this happened, by the way--none of it happened--by throwing these bills together in the back room and dropping them on the floor with a stopwatch running. It happened through a laborious process of legislating, persuasion, and coalition building. It took time and it took patience and hard work and it guaranteed that every one of these laws had stability--stability. Compare that--compare that, if you will--to the attitude behind ObamaCare. When Democrats couldn't convince any of us the bill was worth supporting as written, they decided to do it on their own and pass it on a party-line vote and now we are seeing the result.

The chaos this law has visited on our country isn't just deeply tragic; it was, my friends, entirely predictable--entirely predictable. That will always be the case if we approach legislation without regard for the views of the other side. Without some meaningful buy-in, we guarantee a food fight, we guarantee instability, and we guarantee strife.

It may very well have been the case that on ObamaCare the will of the country was not to pass the bill at all. That is what I would have concluded if Republicans couldn't get a single Democratic vote for legislation of that magnitude. I would have thought: Well, maybe this isn't such a great idea. But Democrats plowed forward anyway. They didn't want to hear it. The results are clear. It is a mess, an absolute mess.

The Senate exists to prevent that kind of situation. Because without a moderating institution as the Senate, today's majority passes something and tomorrow's majority repeals it; today's majority proposes something, and tomorrow's majority opposes it. We see that in the House all the time. But when the Senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to, it arrives at a result that is acceptable to people all along the political spectrum. That, my friends, is the whole point.

We have lost our sense for the value of that, and none of us should be at peace. Because if America is to face up

to the challenges we face in the decades ahead, she will need the Senate the Founders, in their wisdom, intended, not the hollow shell of the Senate we have today--not the hollow shell of the Senate we have today.

First, one of the traditional hallmarks of the Senate is a vigorous committee process. It is also one of the main things we have lost. There was a time--not that long ago--when chairmen and ranking members had major influence and used their positions to develop national policy on everything from farm policy to nuclear arms. These men and women enriched the entire Senate through their focus and their expertise. Just as important, they provided an important counterweight to the executive branch. They provided one more check on the White House. If a President thought something was a good idea, he had better make sure he ran it by the committee chairman who had been studying it for the past two decades. If the chairman disagreed, then they would have a serious debate and probably reach a better product as a result.

The Senate should be setting national priorities, not simply waiting on the White House to do it for us. The place to start that process is in the committees. With few exceptions, that is gone. With very few exceptions, that is gone. It is a big loss to the institution, but most importantly it is a big loss for the American people who expect us to lead.

Here is something else we have gained from a robust committee process over the years. Committees have actually served as a school of bipartisanship. If we think about it, it just makes sense. By the time a bill gets through committee, one would expect it to come out in a form that was generally broadly acceptable to both sides; nobody got everything, but more often than not everybody got something, and the product was stable because there was buy-in and a sense of ownership on both sides.

On the rare occasions when that has happened recently, we have seen that work. The committee process in the Senate is a shadow of what it used to be, thereby marginalizing, reducing the influence of every single Member of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Major legislation is now routinely drafted not in committee but in the majority leader's conference room and then dropped on the floor with little or no opportunity for Members to participate in the amendment process, virtually guaranteeing a fight.

There is a lot of empty talk around here about the corrosive influence of partisanship. If we truly want to do something about it, we should support a more robust committee process. That is the best way to end the permanent sort of shirts-against-skins contest the Senate has become. Bills should go through committee. If Republicans are fortunate enough--if Republicans are fortunate enough--to gain the majority next year, that will be done.

Second, bills should come to the floor and be thoroughly debated. We have an example of that going on right now, and that includes a robust amendment process. In my view, there is far too much paranoia about the other side around here. What are we afraid of? Both sides have taken liberties and abused privileges. I will admit that. But the answer isn't to provoke even more. The answer is to let folks debate. This is the Senate. Let folks debate. Let the Senate work its will, and that means bringing bills to the floor. It means having a free and open amendment process. That is legislating.

That is what we used to do. That is exactly the way this place operated just a few years ago. The senior Senator from Illinois, the Democratic assistant majority leader, likes to say--or at least used to say--that if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a fireman, and if you don't want to cast tough votes, don't come to the Senate. I guess he hasn't said that lately.

When we used to be in the majority, I remember telling people: Look. The good news is we are in the majority. The bad news is, in order to get the bill across the floor, you have to cast a lot of votes you don't want to take--and we did it and people groaned about it, complained about it. Yet the Sun still came up the next day and everybody felt as though they were a part of the process.

Senator Durbin was right about that when he said it. I think it is time to allow Senators on both sides to more fully participate in the legislative process, and that means having a more open amendment process around here. As I said, obviously it requires us, from time to time, to cast votes we would rather not cast. But we are all grownups. We can take that. There is rarely ever a vote we cast around here that is fatal.

The irony of it all is that kind of process makes the place a lot less contentious. In fact, it is a lot less contentious when we vote on tough issues than when we don't, because when we are not allowed to do that, everybody is angry about being denied the opportunity to do what they were sent here to do, which is to represent the people who elected us and offer ideas we think are worth considering.

At a meeting we just came out of, Senator Cornyn was pointing out there were 13 amendments people on this side of the aisle would like to offer on this bill, all of them related to the subject and important to each Senator who seriously felt there was a better way to improve the bill that is on the floor right now. But, alas, I expect that opportunity will not be allowed because one person who is allowed to get prior recognition can prevent us from getting any amendments or, even worse still, pick our amendments for us, decide which of our amendments are OK and which aren't.

I remember the late Ted Stevens telling the story about when he first got here. Senator Mansfield was still the majority leader, and he tried to offer an amendment--Senator Stevens did--and the Member of the majority who was managing the bill prevented it, in effect. Senator Mansfield came over to Senator Stevens, took his amendment, went back to his desk and sent it to the floor for him. He sent it to the floor for him. That was the Senate not too long ago.

If someone isn't allowed to get a vote on something they believe in, of course they are going to retaliate. Of course they are going to retaliate. But if they get a vote every once in a while, they do not feel the need to. Voting on amendments is good for the Senate and it is good for the country. Our constituents should have a greater voice in the process.

Since July of last year, there have been four Republican rollcall votes. In the whole second half of 2013, Members on this side of the aisle have gotten four rollcall votes--stunning. That is today's Senate.

So let me say this: If Republicans are fortunate enough to be in the majority next year, amendments will be allowed, Senators will be respected, and we will not make an attempt to wring controversy out of an institution which expects, demands, and approves of great debates about the problems confronting the country.

A common refrain from Democrats is that Republicans have been too quick to block bills from ever coming to the floor. What they fail to mention of course is that often we have done this either because we have been shut out of the drafting process--in other words, had nothing to do with writing the bill in the first place--or it had been made pretty clear that there wouldn't be any amendments, which is, in all likelihood, the situation we are in this very day.

In other words, we already knew the legislation was shaping up to be a purely partisan exercise in which people we represent wouldn't have any meaningful input at all. Why would we want to participate in that? Is it good for our constituents? Does it lead to a better product? Of course not. All it leads to is a lot more acrimony.

So look. I get it. If Republicans had just won the White House and the House and had a 60-vote majority in the Senate, we would be tempted to empty our outbox too. But you can't spend 2 years emptying your outbox and then complain about the backlash. If you want fewer fights, give the other side a say.

That brings me to one of the biggest things we have lost around here, as I see it. The big problem, my colleagues, has never been the rules. Senators from both parties have in the past revered and defended the rules during our Nation's darkest hours. The real problem is an attitude that views the Senate as an assembly line for one party's partisan legislative agenda rather than as a place to build consensus to solve national problems. We have become far

too focused on making a point instead of making a difference, making a point instead of making good stable laws. We have gotten too comfortable with viewing everything we do here through the prism of the next election instead of the prism of duty, and everyone suffers as a result.

As I see it, a major turning point came during the final years of the Bush administration, when the Democratic majority held vote after vote on bills they knew wouldn't pass. I am not saying Republicans have never staged a show vote when we were in the majority. I am not saying I don't even enjoy a good messaging vote from time to time. But we have to wonder, if that is all we are doing, why are we here? It has become entirely too routine, and it diminishes the Senate. I don't care which party you are in; you came here to legitimate, to make a difference for your constituents. Yet over the past several years the Senate seems more like a campaign studio than a serious legislative body.

Both sides have said and done things over the past few years we probably wish we hadn't. But we can improve the way we do business. We can be more constructive. We can work through our differences. We can do things that need to be done. But there will have to be major changes if we are going to get there. The committee process must be restored. We need to have an open amendment process.

Finally, let me suggest that we need to learn how to put in a decent week's work around here. Most Americans don't work 3 days a week. They would be astonished to find out that is about it around here.

How about the power of the clock to force consensus? The only way 100 Senators will be truly able to have their say, the only way we will be able to work through our tensions and disputes is if we are here more. A number of you will remember this: Not too long ago, Thursday night was the main event around here. There is a huge incentive to finish on Thursday night if you want to leave on Friday. It is amazing how it worked.

Even the most eager beaver among us with a long list of amendments which were good for the country--maybe 10 or 12--around noon on Thursday, it would be down to two or one by midnight on Thursday. It was amazing how consent would be reached when fatigue set in. All it took was for the majority leader--who is in charge of the agenda--to say: Look, this is important. There is bipartisan support for this. This came out of committee. We want to have an open amendment process, but we want to finish this week, and we can finish on Thursday afternoon or Thursday night or Friday morning. We almost never get worn out around here.

What happened to the fatigue factor to bring things to a close? Amendments voluntarily go away, but important ones still get offered, and everybody feels like they have a chance to be involved in the process no matter which side of the aisle they are on. This is obviously particularly effective on bills which come out of committee, with bipartisan support, so there is an interest in actually passing it. We almost never do that anymore--almost never. On those occasions, we worked late, sometimes well into the morning.

I know that sounds kind of quaint for people who haven't been around here very long, but it actually worked. There is nothing wrong with staying up a little later and getting to a conclusion. I can remember the majority leader himself, when he was whip, walking around late at night on Thursdays with his whip card making sure he had enough votes to do whatever he wanted to do.

When you finished one of those debates, whether you ended up voting for the bill or voting against the bill, you didn't have the feeling that, unless you chose to go away with your amendment, you had been denied the opportunity to participate and to be a part of the process and actually make a difference for your constituents.

That is how you reach consensus: By working and talking and cooperating through give-and-take. That is the way everyone's patience is worn down, not just the majority leader's patience. Everyone can agree on a result even if they don't vote for it in the end. Using the clock to force consensus is the greatest proof of that, and if Republicans are in the majority next year, we will use the clock. Everybody gets an opportunity, but we will use the clock, we will work harder, and get results.

Restoring the committee process, allowing Senators to speak through an open amendment process, and extending the workweek are just a few things the Senate could and should do differently. None of it would guarantee an end to partisan rancor. There is nothing wrong with partisan debate. It is good for the country. None of it would cause us to change our principles or our views about what is right and what is wrong with our country.

Partisanship itself is not the problem. The real problem has been a growing lack of confidence in the Senate's ability to mediate the tensions and disputes we have always had around here. There are many reasons some have lost that confidence, and ultimately both parties have to assume some of the blame.

But we can't be content to leave it at that. For the good of the country, we need to work together to restore this institution. America's strength and resilience has always depended on our ability to adapt to the various challenges of our day. Sometimes that has meant changing the rules when both parties think it is warranted. When the majority leader decided a few weeks back to defy bipartisan opposition--there was bipartisan opposition to what happened in November--by changing the rules that govern this place with a simple majority, he broke something. He broke something.

But our response can't be to just sit back and accept the demise of the Senate. This body has survived mistakes and excesses before. Even after some of its worst periods, it has found a way to spring back and to be the place where even the starkest differences and the fiercest ideological disputes are hashed out by consensus and mutual respect. Indeed, it is during periods of its greatest polarization that the value of the Senate is most clearly seen.

So let me wrap it up this way. We are all familiar with the Lyndon Johnson reign around here. Robert Caro has given us that story in great detail. Some look at LBJ's well-known heavyhandedness as a kind of mastery. Personally, I have always believed the leader who replaced him was a better fit for this place, and evidently so did Johnson's colleagues who elected Mansfield upon Johnson's departure with overwhelming enthusiasm. They had had it up to here with LBJ, and they were excited that he was gone.

In fact, Caro reports that he tried to come to the first lunch after he became Vice President and was going to act as the sort of de facto majority leader even though he was now Vice President. That was, shall I say, unenthusiastically received, and he was almost literally thrown out of the lunch never to return, and Mansfield was, as I said, enthusiastically chosen to replace him.

The chronicles of LBJ's life and legacy usually leave out what I just told you, but by the time he left the Senate, as I indicated, his colleagues had had enough of him, right up to here. They may have bent to his will while he was here, but the moment they had a chance to be delivered from his iron-fisted rule, they took it.

With their support, Mike Mansfield would spend the next 16 years restoring the Senate to a place of greater cooperation and freedom. As we look at what the Senate could be--not what it is now, but what it could be--Mansfield's period gives us a clue.

There are many well-known stories about Mansfield's fairness and equanimity as leader. But they all seem to come down to one thing, and that was his unbending belief that every single Senator was equal. That was Mansfield's operating mode: Every single Senator is equal. He acted that way on a daily basis and conducted himself that way on a daily basis: The unbending belief that every Senator should be treated as equal.

So, look. Both sides will have to work to get us back to where we should be. It is not going to happen overnight. We haven't had much practice lately. In fact, we are completely out of practice at doing what I just suggested as the first steps to get us back to normal. But it is a goal I truly believe we can all agree on and agree to strive toward together, and it takes no rules change. This is a behavioral problem.

It doesn't require a rules change. We just need to act differently with each other, respect the committee process, have an open amendment process, and work a little harder. None of that requires a rules change, because restoring this institution is the only way we will ever solve the challenges we face. That is the lesson of history and the lesson of experience. We would all be wise to heed it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I indicated to the majority leader I was going to ask unanimous consent, which I am prepared to do at this point. I have to admit, I am a little surprised at the fervor with which the majority is dedicated to reviving the expired emergency unemployment benefits after they ignored the issue all of last year. I am sure there are many on my side who would like to see these additional weeks of benefits extended if--as the Speaker of the House indicated he supported--we could find a way to extend them without actually adding to the national debt.

To that end I would like to propose that we be allowed--my side be allowed--to offer an amendment to pay for these benefits by lifting the burden of ObamaCare's individual mandate for 1 year and take care of our veterans who were harmed by the recently agreed-to budget deal while we are in the same amendment, and once that is disposed of we can have an actual debate on this issue and an amendment process in the Senate, which hasn't happened very often in recent times.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 1845, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill and that my amendment with Senator Hatch be the first amendment in order and that there be up to 1 hour of debate on the amendment divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate then proceed to a vote in relation to that amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of that amendment, it be in order for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in alternating fashion, which used to be the way we did business around here.

Mr. President, over the past several days, we have seen a number of stories about how Democrats plan to spend the year gearing up for the November elections by making an issue out of economic hardships faced by Americans; in other words, instead of working on reforms that would actually help people overcome the challenges so many of them

face in this economy, Democrats plan to exploit those folks for political gain. It is pretty amazing when you think about it.

We are now in the sixth year--the sixth year--of the Obama administration. We all know the stock market has been doing great, so the richest among us are doing fine. But what about the poor? What about working-class folks? What about folks who work in industries liberals don't approve of, such as coal? How many of these Americans have been doing well during the Obama economy?

Record numbers of them are having a perfectly terrible time. One indicator is the growth of the Food Stamp Program. Consider this: Since the President took office, the number of Americans who have signed up for food stamps has literally skyrocketed--skyrocketed. It is up almost half. Nearly 4 out of 10 unemployed Americans are trapped--literally trapped--in long-term unemployment. What is worse, the poorest Americans are the ones who have often had the hardest time recovering in this economy.

Yes, the President took office in the midst of an economic crisis. No one disputes that. But for many Americans, a terrible situation seems to have only gotten worse over the course of this administration. For the President to turn around and try to blame his political opponents for the suffering we have seen out there takes a pretty good amount of nerve. It also assumes a collective case of national amnesia. It would take a collective case of national amnesia to reach those conclusions because, remember, these are the same folks who gave us the stimulus, who gave us tax increases, who gave us ObamaCare, and all of it was done in the name of helping the little guy, in the name of greater equality.

What has it given us? It has given us this mess we have in our country: record numbers of long-term unemployed, record numbers on food stamps, people losing their health care plans, others seeing the premiums shoot up when they can least afford it, and now another call, one more call, for a government fix.

Washington Democrats have shown almost no interest for 5 years in working together on ways to create the kind of good, stable, high- paying jobs people want and need. This is a real disservice, first and foremost, to those who are struggling the most out there--from the college graduate who suddenly finds herself wondering why she has huge student loan debts but no prospects of work to the 50-year-old dad who has worked his whole adult life but suddenly can't find a job that meets either his needs or his potential. Yet this administration's proposed solution is just to slap another bandaid from Washington on it and call it a day.

Yes, we should work on solutions to support those who are out of work through no fault of their own, but there is literally no excuse to pass unemployment insurance legislation without also finding ways to create good, stable, high-paying jobs and also trying to find the money to pay for it. So what I am saying is, let us support meaningful job creation measures and let us find a way to pay for these UI benefits so we are not adding to an already completely unsustainable debt.

Unfortunately, the administration seems almost totally disinterested in solutions that don't put government in the lead, and it seems nearly incapable of working with those who don't share that belief. That, in many ways, is precisely why we are in the situation we are in--because it is only when one believes government is the answer to all of our problems that we talk about unemployment insurance instead of job creation and the minimum wage instead of helping people reach their maximum potential.

It is time to get away from ``temporary government programs'' and give the American people the tools they need to drive an economy that truly works for them and for their families. We could start with one of the real bright spots in our economy; that is, energy, a field that is poised to help our economy create literally millions of jobs, if only the administration would get out of the way.

Another area in which we should be able to work together is health care. By almost any metric--affordability, accessibility, even the ratio of cancellations to enrollments--this law has imposed more pain and more distress than many had ever thought possible. Centrists, moderates, conservatives, just about any sensible person outside the congressional Democratic leadership in Washington has long understood this. But now even the left is starting to come to grips with the painfully obvious fact that the law it fell in love with can't possibly work.

Last week one of the great pooh-bahs of the left admitted that ``ObamaCare is awful,'' calling it ``the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud.'' I don't agree with that man on much else, including his broader ideas on health care, but it is good to hear a grandee of the left at least admit this isn't working.

His words point to a larger truth, that the President's amen chorus had ample opportunity to speak truth to power when it mattered and that most--most--chose to remain silent. For that the law's apologists have left the American people to pay the price.

Let me read part of a letter I recently received from Jennifer Bell, a constituent of mine in Hopkinsville. This is what she said:

I have less coverage than I did before. I didn't get to

keep my policy that I was happy with. Every dollar I have to

pay more is a dollar taken from my family. I never thought

that in America we would be forced to purchase something we

cannot afford. We worked hard to get where we are. Now we are

being forced to pay more in order to pay for somebody else's

insurance. How is that fair?

I hear you, Jennifer. Everyone on this side of the aisle hears those concerns.

Here is something else. Many Kentuckians are finding ObamaCare is about more than just higher premiums and cuts to Medicare. It is also about a lack of access to doctors and hospitals. One of the most leftwing papers in my State recently ran a big story about how many ObamaCare coverage networks exclude--exclude--so many of the hospitals my constituents want to use.

A few weeks ago, the majority leader basically said criticisms of ObamaCare amounted to jokes. He might like to think this is all some joke, but the constituents who have been writing me about the consequences of this failed law don't see it that way.

I know this must weigh heavily on our Democratic colleagues. I know they can't see so many Americans hurting because of decisions they made and feel absolutely nothing.

Let me say this to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is a new year and a time for new beginnings. If you are ready to work with us, we are here. Together we can start over on health care. Together we can give the American people the kind of health care reform they deserve--reform that can lower costs and improve the quality of care.

But as with solving the problems of joblessness and unemployment, it is something we can only do together.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to bid farewell to a Kentucky son who became half of one of the most enduring and influential acts of country and rock and roll music. Phil Everly, of the hit-making duo the Everly Brothers, passed away this weekend at the age of 74.

Phil and his older brother Don brought their trademark close harmony singing, modeled in the Appalachian country and bluegrass music tradition, to rock and roll beginning in the late 1950s. With songs including ``Bye Bye Love,'' ``Wake Up Little Susie,'' and ``All I Have to Do Is Dream,'' they consistently scored hits at the top of the charts.

The Everly Brothers are famous the world over and influenced musicians such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, and many others. But they were especially beloved in their family's home State of Kentucky, and particularly in Central City, in Muhlenberg County, western Kentucky, which was the site of the Everly Brothers' Labor Day Homecoming Music Festival every year.

This festival included many famous country and rock and roll music stars from the Everly Brothers themselves to Chet Atkins, Keith Urban, Billy Ray Cyrus, and Tammy Wynette. Money raised went to local charities.

Phil and Don Everly's musical career was the result of a lifetime spent singing. Phil and Don were born the sons of a Kentucky coal miner turned country musician, Ike Everly, and his wife Margaret. The family moved to pursue musical opportunities and ended up playing live country music on the radio in Shenandoah, IA. The whole family was spotlighted, from Mom and Dad Everly to Little Donnie and 6-year-old ``Baby Boy Phil.'' Don and Phil spent their summers in their parents' home of Muhlenberg County.

As teenagers the Everly Brothers started their own careers, first as songwriters, then as performers. In 1957 they scored a No. 1 hit with ``Bye Bye Love.'' In their trademark style, Phil sang the high harmony notes while Don sang baritone, their voices intertwining in a way that sounded easy but was difficult to duplicate.

They continued to have best-selling songs for several years, including 12 Billboard top 10 hits, and released the landmark country- rock album ``Roots'' in 1968 that included snippets of their old family radio show. The Beatles have said that the vocal harmonies from their first No. 1 hit, ``Please Please Me'' of 1963, were modeled after the Everly Brothers' 1960 hit song ``Cathy's Clown.'' Phil was the author of one of the duo's best loved songs, ``When Will I Be Loved?,'' which was a top 10 hit for Linda Ronstadt in 1975.

While older brother Don was born in Kentucky, younger brother Phil was actually born in Chicago on January 19, 1939. Nearly 50 years later, in 1988, the mayor of Central City gave Phil Everly an honorary Kentucky birth certificate. ``I really appreciate you making me a full- blown Kentuckian,'' Phil said as he received it. ``I've been lying for a lot of years.''

The Everly Brothers' Labor Day Homecoming Music Festival began in 1988 as a way for the Everly Brothers to show their gratitude to their hometown fans. In 2010, the Central City Tourism Commission opened the Muhlenberg County Music Museum, which showcases a complete collection of Don and Phil's albums and features a 1950s-style jukebox that plays their biggest hits.

Sadly, just before Phil's death, local western Kentucky fans of the Everly Brothers were planning a celebration of what would have been Phil's 75th birthday on January 19. Instead, the Central City Tourism Commission will host a memorial service at the museum on that day to celebrate Phil's life and music. Phil is survived by many family members and beloved friends, including his brother Don.

I know my colleagues will join me in expressing gratitude and appreciation for the wonderful music that Phil, along with his brother Don, provided the world. The music of the Everly Brothers continues to provide joy to people to this day. Kentucky is honored to have played such a role in the shaping of this extraordinary musical family.

Reserving the right to object, it is unfortunate the Senate's schedule is completely full with pending cloture motions on controversial or completely nonurgent nominations.

If these nomination were deferred, we could consider this timely and important legislation today.

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending cloture motions on executive nominations be withdrawn; that following disposition of the Defense bill, the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of H.R. 2668, a House-passed revenue measure; that the text of S. 1859 be the first amendment in order; and that the majority and minority sides then be recognized to offer amendments in an alternating fashion so these important issues could be considered this week.

I object.

If I may, before the Senator from Utah leaves the floor, he correctly stated the state of the Senate today. It is not the same body it was only a few years ago in the way we are being treated. It is a very discouraging development, as we approach the end of the year, to see the way the Senate deteriorated under the current leadership.

I thank the senior Senator from Utah for pointing out that it was not too long ago that the two parties actually functioned on issues such as the majority leader was trying to ram through today without any committee consideration.

I thank my friend from Utah.

Stifling Dissent

Earlier this year the Internal Revenue Service admitted responsibility for an incredible abuse of power. In the midst of an election season, it targeted and harassed Americans for the supposed crime of thinking differently. An agency with access to some of the most

personal information of every tax-paying American betrayed their trust. In doing so, it showed the lengths to which this administration will go to stifle those who dissent from its policies. All of this was and remains a complete outrage.

It is the kind of thing we might expect from a banana republic or a third-world dictatorship, not the world's leading democracy. The worst part is we still don't know everything that happened or if it is still going on. That is because the bipartisan investigation into all of this still hasn't concluded.

It is unclear to me how seriously the White House is taking this investigation. In many ways it seems to have treated the scandal more as a public relations problem to get past than a serious problem to solve and now, get this, they expect the elected representatives of the people to roll over and rubberstamp a new Presidential nominee to head the IRS. They want Congress to forget what happened and simply move on. They expect us to clear the way tomorrow and let them ram through the President's new pick to run the IRS. The American people deserve answers about how and why this targeting happened. They deserve justice too.

I will not be supporting any nominee to lead this agency until the American people get the answers they deserve. Of course, the Democrats in charge of the Senate changed the rules a few weeks back in order to ensure they could get their way on nominees, no matter what the American people think. It is the same kind of attitude we have seen on the Defense bill, where the majority leader prevented other Members from offering amendments. They will do what they want, even if it means breaking the rules.

If John Koskinen does find himself confirmed tomorrow, I want him to know a few things. First, he should understand I don't hold any animus toward him personally. Under different circumstances, I might well have been able to support him. We had a good conversation when we met recently to discuss his nomination, but he is also someone I will be keeping a close watch on, as will the other members of my conference, as will the American people, because big challenges lie ahead for the next IRS Commissioner, no matter who he or she may be.

We expect the next IRS Commissioner to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation into this scandal. We expect whoever is eventually confirmed to hold those who broke or bent the rules fully accountable. We expect the next Commissioner to fairly implement the laws he or she is charged with executing.

To his credit, the nominee has assured me he agrees with me on a topic I feel very strongly about--that the IRS should stay out of regulating political speech. Let me say that again. The IRS should stay out of regulating political speech. He told me himself he agreed with that, and I was pleased to hear it.

Were he to become Commissioner, I would expect him to oppose the extremely misguided proposed IRS rule that aims to overturn more than 50 years of settled law and practice by unfairly targeting the speech of those who criticize the administration while leaving its supporters untouched.

This proposed role, which will redefine what social welfare means in order to target certain groups that seek to educate the public, would end up penalizing Federal, State, and local organizations for the supposed crime of providing information, much of it nonpartisan or bipartisan. The goal is clear: to make it easier to push through the backdoor what congressional Democrats have been unable to pass through the front door, discriminatory policies that seek to silence those who dare to oppose them. It is just the latest in a long and troubling pattern of Chicago-style tactics under this administration, and it is exactly the kind of political meddling the next Commissioner needs to ensure never happens again.

Let us not forget, the IRS should be a boring place, an impartial agency of tax collectors, not the vanguard of the left.

The next Commissioner needs to see to it that the organization finally returns to its mission, and he or she needs to root out those who would have the IRS target Americans for the way they think.

Lastly, as I have told the nominee, I am deeply concerned about the IRS role in implementing ObamaCare. The fact is that ObamaCare represents a dramatic expansion of the use of the Tax Code to pick winners and losers. It gives the agency broad new responsibilities for enforcing ObamaCare's most onerous mandates and to hand out nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer subsidies. And in order to do all this, it will need to know who has insurance, penalize those who don't, and determine who is eligible for subsidies and how much they ought to receive-- something the agency has a very troubled history in doing with other programs. If they get any of that wrong, they will need to come back and repossess subsidies after the fact.

In my view, the IRS doesn't have any business snooping even further into the lives of our constituents, especially at a time when it is already under a cloud of scandal. It is just one of the many reasons I opposed ObamaCare in the first place and why I continue to oppose it.

If the nominee is to become Commissioner, then at a minimum I expect him to hold the agency to the highest standards--the highest standards--when it comes to protecting the privacy of the people we all represent. I expect him to provide regular transparent updates to Congress on the status of implementation and to let us know of any problems as soon as they arise. The last thing we need is for the IRS to compound the pain it and ObamaCare have already inflicted upon the American people by allowing fraud and further mistreatment to happen under its watch. The IRS has done a lot to lose the trust of the American people. It will need to do a lot more to regain it.

Following the advice I just laid out will put the IRS on a better path. If this nominee ends up becoming the next Commissioner, that advice will form the criteria upon which his performance will be judged.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Madam President, I rise to give voice to the people of eastern Kentucky who are hurting due to this administration's war on coal.

Recently, I traveled to Pikeville, KY, in the central Appalachian coal fields to hear firsthand from coal miners, their families, those in the energy industry, and others about how their communities are being ravaged by EPA's excessive, overly burdensome regulations on coal.

The EPA didn't want to listen to these folks. I tried to get the EPA to have a hearing in eastern Kentucky, and they refused. So I did it. I held this listening session to put a human face on the suffering that is being felt in Appalachia due in large part to this administration's war on coal. I want to share with my colleagues just a little bit of what I heard in that listening session down in Pikeville a few days ago.

This is a picture of Howard Abshire. He is a former production foreman and a fourth-generation coal miner. In the audience during his testimony was his son right behind him, right here, Griffin. He is a fifth-generation coal miner. What the father and son have in common is they are both out of work. Both the father and the son are 2 of over 5,000 Kentuckians who have lost their jobs in the war on coal--two of the casualties of the President's war on coal, Howard and Griffin, out of work.

Howard is holding up a piece of coal in his left hand. Coal mining is what the EPA wants to stamp out, but coal is also the powerful substance which powers our homes, provides light and heat and fuels the commerce of goods and services worldwide.

``This is coal,'' he said. ``This keeps the lights on.'' Howard is only one of many coal miners laid off for lack of coal mining work. This is what he said:

Look in our schools. Look in our nursing homes. Look in our

pharmacies. We're hurting.

We need help. We don't want to be bailed out. We want to

work.

Howard doesn't want to be bailed out. He wants to work.

Seated next to Howard is Jimmy Rose. Jimmy Rose is a veteran. He fought in Iraq. He is a former coal miner. Jimmy was perhaps the most famous attendee at the listening session because he brought attention to the war on coal to a national television audience on ``America's Got Talent.'' Jimmy is a songwriter and singer. He used his song ``Coal Keeps the Lights On'' in his competition in ``America's Got Talent,'' and it spoke directly to the hardship in his community caused largely by the war on coal. This is Jimmy Rose right here, and here is what he had to say:

It's in our heritage, it's in our blood.

Addressing the Obama administration, Jimmy said:

Look at what you're doing, and who you're affecting . . .

Coal mining is a way of life, just like I say in the song.

Don't kill our way of life. I hope one day I can always say

coal kept the lights on.

I also heard from Monty Boyd, the owner of Whayne Supply Company and Walker Machinery, mining and construction equipment distributors that serve Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, and Ohio. The companies employ 1,900 people and operates 25 stores.

Whayne Supply this year celebrated 100 years of operation. Yet this is what Monty had to say:

At a time when I should be excited about our future, I am

full of concern and uncertainty because our future outlook is

bleak due to the regulatory ambush on the coal industry by

the EPA.

He went on to say:

Coal in Kentucky is more than just mining. It is the

driving force that keeps our energy rates affordable, keeps

our manufacturing sector competitive, and is the economic

life blood of eastern Kentucky.

Monty went on:

I am disheartened to continually see the federal government

and the EPA take such an anti-business stance that destroys

an industry that is vital to our regional economy. The

federal government appears to be choosing the winners and

losers in regard to the energy sector of America.

Those are strong words from someone with a good perspective on Kentucky's coal industry.

I also heard from Anita Miller, over here in the photograph. She is a manager of safety for Apollo Fuels in my State. She has worked in the industry for more than 15 years. Here is what Anita had to say:

My son walked earlier than my daughter . . . every time she

would try to stand up, he would either knock her down, or put

his hand on her head so she couldn't stand. This is what is

happening to the coal industry.

Anita went on to say:

Every time we try to stand up for ourselves, someone either

knocks or holds us down. . . . You can't really buy anything

or make plans for the future because you don't know what

the future holds.

My wish is that the people who are trying so hard to

destroy the coal industry would just stop for a minute and

think about the hot showers they take, the lights they turn

on, and that first hot cup of coffee in the morning, and

remember that it came from electricity powered by coal.

I couldn't agree more with what Anita says. It is apparently too easy for EPA bureaucrats and the Obama administration to make decisions that have a huge impact on the people of eastern Kentucky. They don't think about the consequences and, I might add, without bothering to meet face to face with the people they hurt.

The EPA schedules listening sessions for its new regulations only in cities far away from coal country, both geographically and philosophically; cities including New York, Boston, Seattle, and San Francisco. They held 11 listening sessions in all, but the closest one to eastern Kentucky was in Atlanta, requiring Kentuckians to make a 14- hour round-trip drive simply to attend. So it is pretty clear from the location of all these listening sessions the EPA did not want any real input.

That is why I convened a listening session in Pikeville that resulted in the powerful testimony I have shared with my colleagues today. Since the Obama EPA would not come to Kentucky, I brought the voices of Kentuckians to EPA. We held three panels composed of those in the coal industry, miners and their families, and local elected officials to illuminate the disruption in these communities caused in large part by the war on coal. Many of my constituents filled out comment cards and my office delivered them yesterday to the EPA, along with the hearing testimony.

I want to leave my colleagues with the comments of one Kentuckian, Justine Bradford, who is a retired teacher in Pikeville. Here is what Justine wrote:

Dear EPA, will you please tell Santa Claus all we want for

Christmas this year is to be able to work.

This is Justine Bradford: Tell EPA to tell Santa all we want for Christmas this year is to be able to work.

Here in eastern Kentucky we, too, are real people. Please

help us find a job. Come and walk in our shoes.

The people of eastern Kentucky believe in coal, and with good reason. The abundance of coal in America and in Kentucky in particular is a God-given resource. For decades it has powered our factories, transported our goods, and warmed our homes.

Yes, the blessings of coal come with the responsibility to use it in an environmentally friendly way. But they also come with the responsibility to see that hard-working Kentuckians who rely on coal for an honest day's work and steady pay are given every chance to earn that. And they come with the right of all Americans to take full advantage of this God-given domestic resource to produce clean, cheap, and safe energy.

These things have been true for many decades. There is no reason they should not still hold true now. Eastern Kentucky must look for some economic opportunities beyond coal, and I support that, and I know the people of the region can accomplish greatness. It is vital that we consider eastern Kentucky's future. But let me make this point: It is equally vital that we not give up on eastern Kentucky's present. As we consider eastern Kentucky's future it is important that we not give up on eastern Kentucky's present, and coal is the key to the present in eastern Kentucky.

The Obama EPA has the testimony I heard in Pikeville. Whether they want it or not, they have it. Eastern Kentucky is going to continue to push back in this war on coal. The war is not over yet, not by a long shot. This President will be gone in 3 years and the coal will still be in the ground. The people of the region are resilient and they will keep fighting.

I am very hopeful for a positive outcome in eastern Kentucky and the Appalachian region and I am going to defend them in every way I can.

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

Madam President, earlier this morning the Senate voted to advance a budget agreement that passed the House last week. The legislation has been a topic of much discussion over the past several days, and there are sincere arguments on both sides.

While I appreciate the challenges House and Senate negotiators faced in crafting these budgetary guidelines, I voted against this legislation because in my view Congress should continue to adhere to the fiscal restraints both parties agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

I was the principal Republican negotiator of that agreement. I have been particularly invested in its success, and I was very proud of it. As a result of the Budget Control Act, government spending has declined for 2 years--2 years in a row--for the first time since the Korean war. This was hard-won progress on the road to getting our Nation's fiscal house in order.

As I said, I fully appreciate the constraints Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray faced in their negotiations, and there is clearly some good to be said about their agreement. But we should not go back on the agreement we made under the BCA.

Nonetheless, this has been a very important public debate. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side do not seem terribly interested in substantial debate on this or any other substantive issues this week, least of all ObamaCare, which has been wreaking havoc on our constituents for months now but which Democrats seem entirely uninterested in discussing. Instead, for much of this week the Democrat-run Senate has decided to devote its attention to pushing through nominations--nominations. They want to spend time seating political appointees at places such as the Department of Interior-- positions that, while they may be important, are certainly not in any

way emergencies that need to be attended to right this second.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, millions of Americans will continue to suffer under a law they told Washington not to pass in the first place, a law that Washington Democrats still stubbornly refuse to change in any meaningful way. Our colleagues on the other side seem to think they have no responsibility to do anything about the impact of ObamaCare since the White House issued a press release declaring partial victory--partial victory--in fixing the Web site. That is their whole approach to this rolling disaster: Let the White House dodge and deflect on any problem that arises until people forget about the last one. Point the finger at some bureaucrat or some Web technician and basically do nothing.

We are now nearly 3 months into this national calamity, and what have Democrats done about this national calamity? Well, they have issued a lot of talking points and some halfhearted apologies. They have mouthed nostrums about ``private sector velocity.'' They have waived laws for fear of the political impact of leaving them in place. And there has hardly been any accountability for the massive consequences faced by American consumers as a result of this failed law. In other words, they haven't done much of anything. They have treated this whole thing like a public relations problem to get past rather than a real-life problem for middle-class Americans to be solved. They are engaged in daily battle aimed at one overriding goal: Protect the law. Yet nearly every day we hear more about its painful impact.

Since the October rollout, millions of Americans have lost their insurance plans. More than 280,000 have lost coverage in Kentucky alone, and so many are feeling the squeeze of this law, folks such as Lana Lynch, a mom from Brandenburg, KY, who told me the annual out-of- pocket expenses for her family rose from $1,500 to $7,000 under ObamaCare, and folks such as Barrett Simpson from Sweden, KY.

Barrett had a health plan he liked and wanted to keep, a $540-a-month policy that was, in his words, ``perfect'' for his family. The folks responsible for ObamaCare apparently thought they knew better than he did about the needs of his family, so he lost it. Here is what he had to say about that:

[My] plan is being eliminated because of the ACA, and the

cheapest, closest plan will cost [u]s $1,400 next year. We

can keep the plan until the end of next year, but we will

have to pick a new one. We don't need the extra coverage for

maternity, for vision or dental, but yet we will be forced to

pay for it.

He continued:

These changes are absurd. Most people in this country who

are content with what they had are now paying for what Obama

is trying to do for a very few.

Barrett closed his letter by asking me to work to repeal ObamaCare.

Well, Barrett and Lana should know this--in fact, every Kentuckian should know this, and every American should know this: Members on my side of the aisle hear you loudly and clearly. We are not going to give up this fight. No matter how much the other side tries to distract the country's attention, we won't be fooled and we know you won't be either.

Look. The folks each of us were sent here to represent--not the government--should be the ones choosing plans that make more sense for their families. And when our colleagues on the other side go around referring to insurance being lost as ``junk,'' that is beyond offensive to the people we represent.

There is a lot of ivory tower thinking that goes on in this city--way too much of it. It is time for our Washington Democratic friends to finally climb out of the ivory tower and see the reality of their ideas in action, witness the failure of their policies firsthand. It is time for Washington Democrats to drop their refusal to change anything of substance in ObamaCare, and it is time for them to listen closely to the people who sent us here in the first place.

Here is what so many Americans are saying. They want Democrats to start working with Republicans to improve our Nation's health care system in a positive way, to help us implement real, patient-centered, commonsense reforms that can actually lower costs and improve the quality of care because we were sent here to solve problems, not to make them worse, as ObamaCare does.

Let's erase that mistake. Let's get rid of it and start over with real reform. Working together, we can do it.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama for his kind words, and I commend him for the great job he has been doing in outlining the issues before us, not to mention the particular nominee he was speaking about.

A few weeks ago the Obama administration essentially declared that it had met its goals for fixing the ObamaCare Web site. With the Web site fixed, they led us to assume that ObamaCare was ``fixed'' as well, but that was never true. As I have been saying all along, the problems are much bigger than a Web site.

Even the administration's claims about the Web site have been exaggerated. Recent news reports suggest that many Americans who thought they had enrolled on the exchanges will find that they do not, in fact, have coverage on January 1, largely as a result of lingering problems with the site.

An even larger problem lies with the coverage options folks are actually finding if they manage to make it through the Web site. For folks patient enough to successfully navigate through healthcare.gov, many are finding that ObamaCare offers higher premiums, higher costs, or higher deductibles--sometimes all three--in exchange for coverage that is in many cases inferior to what they had before: fewer choices, restricted hospital networks, losing doctors our constituents know and trust. That is what many are getting in exchange for higher costs and skyrocketing premiums, even after the President promised ObamaCare would ``cut costs and make coverage more affordable for families and for small businesses.''

Despite the President's serial pledges to the contrary, the government's own studies on this issue now indicate that ObamaCare will actually increase the cost of health care in America by more than $620 billion. ObamaCare will actually increase the cost of health care in America by more than $620 billion.

As one California woman recently put it, for her, ObamaCare has meant being forced into lower coverage for more money. Many Kentuckians feel exactly the same way.

Giselle Martino is a constituent of mine from Prospect, KY. Here is what she recently wrote to me after losing her coverage:

I paid a very high premium to have a major medical plan. I

am now forced into the exchange for a lesser plan with more

exclusions and higher deductibles. I will most likely never

reach those deductibles. How does this help me? I am

basically paying into the plan for the others. If I must pay

for my higher tier heart drugs anyway, why should I bother

with the health plan? What a disappointment this

administration has caused.

Higher costs and less care, that is what ObamaCare means for Giselle Martino.

ObamaCare has been a disappointment for Mike Conn from Prestonsburg too. Here is what he had to say about this law:

A policy that has similar coverage to what we had would

cost us around $1,100 a month. [That] is a 100-percent

increase for me and my wife. I was informed by the individual

that was helping me find coverage that it was because we live

in eastern Kentucky.

Mike says his plan is no longer available in that part of the State, and now he is evidently facing a 100-percent increase in cost because of where he lives--a 100-percent increase in cost because of where he lives. It is not fair.

Mike and Giselle both have every right to be upset. But that is the reality of ObamaCare for too many Kentuckians, a State where 280,000 people have already lost the coverage they had because of this law. It is a reality facing millions of Americans across our country. When the White House was asked today whether they were confident that the millions of Americans with canceled policies would be able to sign up for new insurance before January 1, they couldn't give a straight answer.

That is why we Republicans are going to maintain our focus where it belongs--on the people we represent and on the issues that truly matter to them because our constituents understand that ObamaCare is about so much more than a Web site. The administration needs to start understanding that too. Fixing a few lines of code isn't going to help people keep the plans they like, plans that work for their families. It isn't going to help our constituents afford the law's exorbitant premiums and deductibles. It isn't going to help our constituents cope with fewer choices and lower quality of care. These are the things that actually matter to the middle class.

The administration and its allies in Congress can talk until they are hoarse about a Web site or about nominees or about whatever else they think they can say to distract Americans from the failures of this law, but that isn't going to work.

To the millions of Americans suffering under ObamaCare, people should know that Republicans are on their side. We are going to keep fighting for true health reform that lowers costs, for reform that promotes choice and a better quality of care, and we are going to keep fighting against the idea that government knows better than our constituents when it comes to their families' health care. That is what our constituents expect of us, I know that is what Kentuckians expect, and that is just what Republicans are going to continue to do.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.