Floor Statements

Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the nominations of Thomas Perez and Gina McCarthy to head the Department of Labor and the EPA. I will be voting against both of these nominees, and I would like to explain why.

Tom Perez is someone who has devoted much of his career to causes he believes in. That is certainly admirable, but the duty of advice and consent is about more than just ascertaining whether a nominee has good intentions. Far more important is considering the way a nominee has gone about pursuing them. It is about what he or she would do on the job. And that--that--is where the Perez nomination begins to break down because based on the evidence, Tom Perez is more than just some leftwing ideolog, he is a leftwing ideolog who appears perfectly willing to bend the rules to achieve his ends. It is this ``ends justify the means'' approach to his work, not simply his ideological passion, that is so worrying to me about Mr. Perez.

A few examples from his past paint the picture. Media reports indicate that as a member of a county council in Maryland, Mr. Perez tried to get the county to break Federal law by unlawfully importing foreign drugs even after a top FDA official said Federal law was ``very clear,'' and that there was ``no question'' that doing so would be ``undeniably illegal.''

When the County Executive, a fellow Democrat, ultimately decided not to instruct county employees to break the law, as Mr. Perez advocated-- which could have subjected those workers to criminal prosecution--he lambasted the County Executive as ``so timid.''

``Federal law is muddled,'' Mr. Perez argued, adding, ``sometimes you have to push the envelope.'' Sometimes you have to push the envelope.

Throughout his career, however, Perez has done more than just push the envelope. He once pushed through a county policy that encouraged the circumvention of Federal immigration law. As the head of the Federal Government's top voting rights watchdog, he refused to protect the right to vote for Americans of all races in violation of the very law he was charged with enforcing. He also directed the Federal Government to sue a law-abiding woman who was protesting outside an abortion clinic in Florida.

The Federal judge who threw out this lawsuit said he was ``at a loss as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place.''

Just as troubling, when Mr. Perez has been called to account for his failures to follow the law, he has been less than forthright. When he testified that politics played no role in his office's decision not to pursue charges against members of a far-left group that may have prevented others from voting, the Department's own watchdog--their own watchdog--said ``Perez's testimony did not reflect the entire story,'' and a Federal judge said the evidence before him ``appear[ed] to contradict . . . Perez's testimony.'' Appeared to contradict Perez's testimony.

In short, Mr. Perez made misleading statements in this case, under oath, to both Congress and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Taken together, this is reflective not of some passionate leftwinger who views himself as patiently advocating policies within the bounds of a democratic system, but as a crusading ideologue whose convictions lead him to believe the law simply doesn't apply to him.

As Secretary of Labor, Mr. Perez would be handling numerous contentious issues and implementing many politically sensitive laws. Americans of all political persuasions have a right to expect the head of such an important Federal department, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, would implement and follow the law in a fair and reasonable way. I do not believe they could expect as much from Mr.

Perez, and that is why I will be voting against him today.

As for Gina McCarthy, I have no doubt she is a well-meaning public servant. We had some good conversations when she came to visit my office earlier this year. But as the head of EPA's air division, she is overseeing the implementation of numerous job-killing regulations. These regulations, along with others promulgated by the EPA, have had a devastating effect in States such as mine.

They have helped bring about a depression--depression with a ``d'' in parts of Eastern Kentucky.

And there is no reason to expect a course correction from Ms. McCarthy if she were to be confirmed as Administrator.

In fact, one assumes she would be expected to carry forward the President's plan to impose, essentially by executive fiat, even more destructive policies--policies similar to those already rejected by a Democrat-controlled Congress.

As someone sent here to stand up for the people who elected me, I cannot in good conscience support a nominee who would advance more of the same, someone who is not willing to stand up to this administration's war on coal.

And remember, this ``war'' talk that is not me saying that. ``A war on coal is exactly what's needed.'' That is what one of the White House's own climate advisors said just the other week.

All of us--Republicans especially--believe in being good stewards of the environment. But Washington officials have to be rational and holistic in their approach. They cannot, as this administration seems to think, simply do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences for people who do not live or act or think the same way they do.

I do not blame Ms. McCarthy personally for all of the administration's policies. But I believe the EPA needs an Administrator who is ready to step up and challenge the idea that the livelihoods of particular groups of Americans can simply be sacrificed in pursuit of some ivory tower fantasy. That kind of nominee--the kind of nominee I can support--is one who is willing to question the status quo and to make Kentuckians part of the solution.

Obamacare

Later today, the President is scheduled to deliver a speech on Obamacare.

He is expected to say that, because of Obamacare, Americans can expect checks in the mail.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Free money.

But, as they say, most things in life that sound too good to be true very often are.

And, in this case, it is not so much that people will be getting free money, as that most people will be paying many dollars more for their healthcare and maybe--just maybe--getting a few bucks back.

In other words, if you are a family in Covington facing a $2,100 premium increase under Obamacare, then, really, what would you rather have: a check for $100 or so or a way to avoid the $2,100 premium increase in the first place?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

I think most Kentuckians would agree that this is just another sad attempt by the administration to spin them into wanting a law they do not want.

And there is this to consider: Even though we expect the President today to tout about $500 million worth of these types of refunds, what he will not say is that next year Obamacare will impose a new sales tax on the purchase of health insurance that will cost Americans about $8 billion. That is a 16 to 1 ratio.

So if the administration is concerned with saving people money on their health care, I have some advice for them.

Work with us to repeal Obamacare and start over--work with us to implement common-sense, step-by-step reforms that can actually lower costs for Kentuckians. Because jacking up our constituents' health care costs is bad enough, but to try to then convince them the opposite is happening--that they have actually won some Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes, well, it is just as absurd as it sounds. It is really an insult and I know Kentuckians aren't going to buy it.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

As I mentioned yesterday, I am glad the majority saw the light and stepped back from committing a tragic mistake. It is good news for our country and good news for our democracy. Now that that is behind us, we can get back to debating the issues our constituents are the most concerned about, and for a lot of my constituents they are concerned about ObamaCare.

This is a law that was basically passed against their will and it is a law that is now being imposed upon them by a distant bureaucracy headquartered here in Washington. If the folks in DC are to be believed, its implementation is going just swimmingly. The Democratic leader in the House of Representatives called it ``fabulous.'' The President said the law is ``working the way it's supposed to.'' And my friend the majority leader said the other day that ``ObamaCare has been wonderful for America.''

Fabulous? Wonderful? These are not the kinds of words one normally associates with a deeply unpopular law, or one that media reports suggest is already having a very painful impact on Americans we represent. Which sets up an important question for Senators to consider: Just who are we prepared to believe here when it comes to ObamaCare: the politicians who have developed it or the people who are reacting to it?

The politicians in Washington who forced this law on the country say everything is fantastic. They spent millions on slick ads with smiling actors and sunny-sounding scripts that blissfully--I am being kind here--blissfully dismiss what the reality of this law will actually look like to so many Americans, or what the reality of the law has already become for some of them. That is why the people have taken an entirely different view. They are the ones worried about losing the coverage they like and want to keep, which is understandable given the growing number of news stories about insurance companies pulling out of States and markets altogether. They are the ones worried about their jobs and pay checks.

Each anecdote we hear about a college cutting hours for its employees or a restaurant freezing hiring or a small business already taking the ax to its workforce at such an early stage--each of them is a testament to just how well this law has been working out for the people we were sent to represent.

According to the chamber of commerce's small business survey released just yesterday, anxiety about the requirements of ObamaCare now surpass economic uncertainty as the top worry for small business. The impact of ObamaCare now surpasses economic uncertainty as the top worry for small business owners.

Here is another thing: When even cheerleaders for the law start to become its critics, that is when we know there is something to this train wreck everybody keeps talking about.

Unions are livid--even though they helped pass the law--because they see their members losing care and becoming less competitive as a result of it. That is why they fired off an angry letter to Congress just this week.

The California Insurance Commissioner is troubled too--even though he has been one of ObamaCare's biggest boosters. He is so worried about fraud that he warned we might ``have a real disaster on our hands.'' Well, it is hard to argue with him.

The President was so worried about some of this law turning into a disaster that he selectively delayed a big chunk of it, but he only did that for businesses. He just delayed it for businesses.

A constituent of mine was recently interviewed by a TV station in Paducah, and here is what she said about the President's decision: ``It ain't right.'' Well, she is not alone.

We can argue about whether the President even had the power to do what he did, but here is the point today: If businesses deserve a reprieve because the law is a disaster, then families and workers do too. If this law isn't working the way it is supposed to, then it is a terrible law. If it is not working as planned, then it is not right to foist it on the middle class while exempting business.

That is why the House will vote this week to at least try to remedy that. It is an important first step to giving all Americans and all businesses what they need, which is not a temporary delay for some but a permanent delay for everyone.

The politicians pushing ObamaCare might not like that, but they are not the ones who are having to live with this thing the same way most Americans will have to live with it.

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

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished Kentuckian who is looked up to and admired by many in the Commonwealth for his character and his service to our country: Mr. Edward Earl Gidcumb. Mr. Gidcumb, or ``Earl'' to his friends, celebrates his 88th birthday this July 31. He served America during World War II as a storekeeper, second class, in the U.S. Navy, and survived some harrowing experiences.

Earl's story is commemorated in a book titled ``WWII DC: The Long Overdue Journey,'' which details the experiences of World War II veterans from Kentucky and describes a trip made by these Kentucky veterans to the Nation's capital in 2004 to visit the National World War II Memorial. Earl still is an active participant in the Kentucky veterans community as one of the few buglers left in western Kentucky; he plays taps at military funerals and civic events. Earl also contributed to the establishment of the Kentucky Veterans and Patriots Museum in Wickliffe, Kentucky.

Earl was a high-school student when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. He graduated from high school on May 23 of 1943; on May 25, he was sworn into Naval service in Marion, IL.

Earl underwent training in Chicago and then served aboard several vessels, the first of which, the U.S. Navy ship LST 218, was bound for Pearl Harbor. Earl recalls, ``water supply was very short and we took salt-water baths using a special soap for bathing in salt water. We slept in bunks stacked six high and down below the main deck . . . I started out in the Atlantic Ocean and ended up on the Pacific Ocean.''

Earl spent time in Pearl Harbor before being posted to the USS Indianapolis CA 35, a heavy cruiser. He received five battle stars while serving on the Indianapolis for 10 months. A few months after being transferred off that ship, the Indianapolis was sunk by a Japanese submarine.

``I would not be here today if I had remained aboard the Indy,'' Earl says. ``The second torpedo of the two that sunk it hit the part of the ship where I slept each night. There [were] 1,196 aboard, 800 went down with the ship, [and] 317 survived after several days in the water. Some died from their wounds, some were eaten by sharks,

and the balance drowned. It was the Navy's worst naval disaster.''

Earl was transferred to Oregon, where he was joined by his wife, Jean Moore. Earl and Jean were high-school sweethearts and got married when Earl went home on 30 days' leave. After 45 years of marriage, sadly, Jean passed away in 1989.

Earl was reassigned again, this time to the USS Bottineau APA 235, a troop carrier. The ship went to Japan not long after the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They received occupation troops from Honshu, Japan. Earl earned another battle star for an encounter with a Japanese suicide plane in Okinawa Bay. After 2 years, 8 months, and 9 days of faithful service, Earl was discharged in 1946.

Looking back nearly 70 years later, Earl recalls the lessons he's learned. ``I was only 17 when I entered service,'' he says. ``I had no idea what I was facing . . . I had no reason to be scared.''

``I saw men put in LCVP vessels and sent to do battle on the beach to take the island back from the Japanese. I saw some of the same men brought back in body bags. I saw 450 Japanese planes shot down in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, all in one day. I saw a Japanese Zero so close I could see the orange Japanese flag on the side of the plane. I saw body parts of Japanese soldiers scattered everywhere when I went over the Island of Tarawa. We lost 8,000 Marines of our own. This was my first battle.''

Madam President, I am grateful heroes like Mr. Edward Earl Gidcumb are still able to transmit their wisdom and share their stories with the rest of us. The life story of Mr. Gidcumb is certainly inspiring. I know my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in thanking him for his valiant service to our country. It is thanks to him and his fellow soldiers that America was able to triumph in World War II and advance freedom and democracy.

Mr. President, I sat here patiently and listened to the majority leader's speech, and I hope he will do me the courtesy to listen to mine, since this is a very important day in the history of the Senate. I want to make a couple of observations, which I hope my friend the majority leader will listen to.

First, he is trying to justify in advance what would be a very clear failure to honor his very clear commitment not to break the rules of the Senate. What he is referring to are his own statements, not mine, regarding extraordinary circumstances. He said that, not me. In other words, to justify breaking his clear commitments not to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate, he is attributing to me something somebody else said, and that somebody else, by the way, is him. He is attributing to me something he said.

We need to keep our commitments around here and not break them, and we need to be honest about quoting people around here. This is about trying to come up with excuses to break our commitments. What this is about is manufacturing a pretext for a power grab.

I listened very carefully to what the majority leader had to say. What he is saying, in effect, is he doesn't want to have any controversy at all attached to any of the nominees. In other words, don't ask any questions. Advise and consent means sit down and shut up.

He was complaining about the number of questions the nominee for EPA Administrator was required to answer.

What he conveniently left out was the chairwoman Senator Boxer requested 70,000 documents. Why is it OK for the chairwoman to request 70,000 documents and somehow if the ranking member makes a lot of requests it is some violation of some comity? When the Founders wrote ``advise and consent,'' I don't think they had in mind sit down and shut up.

It is noteworthy that all of the people he is complaining about got confirmed. So what he is saying is he doesn't want any debate at all in connection with Presidential appointments, just sit down, shut up, and rubberstamp everything, everyone the President sends up here.

On the calendar right now there are 21 nominations--21. There are 148 in committee. We don't control the committees, he does: 148 in committee, 21 on the calendar. It is pretty obvious Senate Democrats are gearing up today to make one of the most consequential changes to the Senate in the history of our Nation.

I want everybody to understand, this is no small matter we are talking about. I guarantee you it is a decision that if they actually go through with it, they will live to regret. It is an open secret at this point that big labor and others on the left are putting a lot of pressure on the majority leader to change the rules of the Senate and to do so, as he promised not to do, by breaking the rules of the Senate. That would violate every protection of the minority rights that has defined the Senate for as long as anyone can remember.

Let me assure you, this Pandora's box, once opened, will be utilized again and again by future majorities and it will make the meaningful consensus-building that has served our Nation so well a relic of the past.

The short-term issue that has triggered this dangerous and far- reaching proposal is simple enough. The hard left is so convinced that every one of the President's nominees should sail through the confirmation process that they are willing to do permanent irreversible damage to this institution in order to get their way, and it appears as if they have convinced the majority leader to do their bidding and hijack the Senate. They are not interested in checks and balances. They are not interested in advise and consent. They are not even interested in what this would mean down the road when Republicans are the ones making the nominations. They want the power and they want it now. They do not care about the consequences. The ends justify the means ethos has been resisted by basically every Senate leader in the past and it is a clear and unequivocal violation of the public assurances that the current majority leader made to the entire Senate, his constituents, and the American people just a few months ago.

What is worse is we got to this point on the basis of an absolute fairytale, a fairytale. Obviously, the left needed an excuse to justify such an unprecedented power grab, so they simply made up a story about Republicans blocking the President's nominees. The majority leader is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his facts. The facts are the facts. Here is the real story. Almost nothing about this tale so often repeated around here holds up to scrutiny.

The facts are that this President took office and the Senate has confirmed 1,560 people. The Senate has confirmed every single one of the Cabinet nominees who has been brought up for a vote--every single one. The President has gotten nearly three times as many judges confirmed at this point as President Bush in his Presidency.

Here is the point. What this whole so-called crisis boils down to are three nominees the President unlawfully appointed--as confirmed by the courts. A Federal court has held the three nominees were unlawfully appointed. Two of the three are direct parties to the litigation and the third one was appointed at exactly the same moment in the exact same way. One of these nominees has been held up by inaction over at the White House related to structural reforms that the administration and even the nominee himself, Mr. Cordray, now say they are willing to work with us on. The fact is, indisputably, we have been confirming lawfully nominated folks routinely and consistently: The Energy Secretary, 97 to 0; the Secretary of the Interior, 87 to 11; the Secretary of the Treasury, 71 to 26; the Secretary of State, 94 to 3, just a few days after the Senate got his nomination; the Secretary of Commerce, 97 to 1; the Secretary of Transportation, 100 to 0; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 96 to 0; the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare

and Medicaid Services, 91 to 7; the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, on a voice vote--in other words, unanimously.

What about the nominees still awaiting confirmation who have not--not been unlawfully appointed? The Senate is ready to vote on them too. Regretfully, in my view, frankly, all of them appear ready to have the votes to be confirmed. I don't necessarily support them, but they have the votes to be confirmed. Why don't they call them up? The majority leader determines what the order of business is around here. He could have scheduled votes if that is what he wanted to happen. Why don't we have a vote on the Secretary of Labor? What about the Administrator of EPA? The NLRB nominees who were not unlawfully appointed--there are some other NLRB nominees who were not unlawfully appointed--why aren't we voting on them?

As I said, pending the expected negotiations on reforms to the CFPB, the Senate would likely confirm the chairman to that position as well.

We need to be honest about what is going on around here. The only crisis is the crisis the Democrats are creating with their threats to fundamentally change the Senate, something the majority leader said just a few years ago he would never even consider. Here is why he said that: Because going down this road is ``ultimately . . . about removing the last check in Washington against a complete abuse of power.''

Those are the words the majority leader himself used in describing the very thing he is now threatening to do--the very thing he is now threatening to do.

Let me sum up what is going on around here. Senate Democrats are getting ready to do permanent damage to this body to confirm three unconstitutionally appointed nominees by a simple majority vote. They are willing to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate in order to confirm three nominees that the Federal courts have said were unlawfully appointed. Every other nomination we are talking about has either already been confirmed or is on the way to being confirmed, but they will not call them up. He gets to decide when we vote. Where are the callups for EPA and Labor and the three NLRB nominees lawfully appointed?

If this is not a power grab, I don't know what a power grab looks like. The President appoints three people unconstitutionally, the second highest court in the land confirms they were unlawfully appointed, and Senate Democrats want to break the rules of the Senate to confirm them. This is not the story we just heard from the majority leader, but this is a fact.

The entire phony crisis--absolutely phony, manufactured crisis--boils down to three unlawfully appointed nominees. The Democrats say we are holding up the others. It is not true. He gets to schedule the votes. Where are they? Bring them up. The truth is, if there is anyone to blame for holding up things in the Senate it is the Democratic majority. They are the ones blocking nearly 30 fast-track nominations, many of whom Republicans have already agreed to confirm unanimously. They are the ones, the Democrats, who have yet to schedule votes on McCarthy and Perez, despite the fact that both of these highly controversial nominees already have enough votes to clear the 60-vote hurdle.

I do not like the facts, frankly, and I am not going to be voting for either of these nominees. Tom Perez in particular is a far left ideologue whose record of bending the rules to achieve his ends is deeply concerning to me and just one of the reasons I plan to vote against him. But to pretend the power to confirm these folks lies in the hands of anyone but the majority leader is totally disingenuous.

The White House knows what I have just said. I have told them. The majority leader would know it too if he spent a little more time working with his colleagues in a collegial way and a little less time trying to undermine and marginalize people.

The real reason, as I said, is that the far left and big labor are leaning hard on Democrats to go nuclear. Go nuclear--they love the sound. The majority leader is about to sacrifice his reputation and this institution to go along with it because what they truly want is for the Senate to ratify the President's unconstitutional decision to illegally appoint nominees to the NLRB and the CFPB without the input of the Senate. They know they cannot get that done under current rules. They know time is not on their side. The second highest court in the land ruled unanimously that President Obama had no power to do what he did. Another court has since concurred. Now the Supreme Court is set to hear the case in just a few months. They obviously thought it was important enough to be dealt with at the highest Court in the land.

This is not a fight over nominees at all. It is a fight over these illegal, unconstitutionally appointed nominees. It is laughable to think Democrats would ever agree to such a thing if we were talking about a Republican President's unlawful nominees--laughable.

It is equally irrational to think we would go along with this. In fact, no Senator, regardless of party, should ever consider ceding our constitutional duties in such a way.

I advised the Romney team before the election that if he won and I was ever elected majority leader, I would defend the Senate first in these battles. I would defend this institution against a Republican President trying to abuse it. That is a precedent set by majority leaders, such as Robert Byrd, who revered this institution because they knew what it was to be in both the majority and the minority. It is what the best leaders of the Senate have always done. It is absolutely tragic to think these days may be over.

Here are the battle lines. On one side are people who think the President should have the power to unconstitutionally ignore Congress and their constituents. Those are people who believe in it so firmly that they are willing to irreparably damage the Senate to ensure they get their way. They are willing to do something the majority leader himself said would contribute to the ruination of the country. I am not making up his quotes; that is what he said.

On the other side are the folks in my conference, and even some Democrats, with the courage to speak up against this power grab. We are the folks who believe deeply that a President of any party should work within the bounds of the Constitution, and that Senators of both parties should fulfill their own constitutional obligations to thoroughly vet nominees. We also believe in giving those nominees a fair hearing. If you look at the facts, you will see we have already been doing that.

As Senator Alexander noted, no majority leader wants written on his tombstone that he presided over the end of the Senate. Well, if this majority leader caves to the fringes and lets this happen, I am afraid that is exactly what they will write. In the majority leader's own words: Breaking the rules to change the rules is un-American. Those are his words, not mine.

I hope the majority leader thinks about his legacy, the future of his party and, most importantly, the future of our country before he acts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on the issue of delay, there are 148 nominations in committees. The majority leader's party controls the committees. They can come out at any point. On the calendar of business on the floor 21 nominees are pending.

The majority leader, I am sure, will remind everybody he always gets the last word so I am sure he will speak again. But I would remind everybody of the core point here: He gave his word without equivocation back in January of this year that we had settled the issue of rules for the Senate for this Congress. That was in the wake of a bipartisan agreement to pass two rule changes and to pass two standing orders. So at the core of this is the majority leader's word to his colleagues and the Senate as to what the rules would be for this Congress. He gave his word, and now he appears to be on the verge of breaking his word.

Secondly, the only nominees--let's make sure we understand this-- likely to have a problem getting cloture are the ones who were unconstitutionally appointed, according to the Federal Court in the District of Columbia.

So where we are is the majority leader wants to fundamentally change the Senate after breaking his word in order to jam through three nominees the Federal Courts have said were unconstitutionally appointed. That is where we are.

I think it is a sad day for the Senate. I hope the majority leader will reconsider what I consider to be a highly irresponsible action on his part.

Is the Senator from Tennessee going to pose a question to me or to the majority leader?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have a consent that I think would set up these votes in a much more expeditious way than the way the majority leader is proceeding. But first let me just say, these are dark days in the history of the Senate. I hate that we have come to this point. We have witnessed the majority leader break his word to the Senate.

Now our request for a joint meeting of all the Senators has been set for Monday night--a time when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty--in an obvious effort to keep as many of his Members from hearing the concerns and arguments of the other side as possible. It remains our view that for this to be the kind of joint session of the Senate that it ought to be, given the tendency of the Senate to have sparse attendance on a Monday night, to have this meeting on Tuesday before it is too late.

Having said that, a more expeditious way to accomplish most of what the majority leader is trying to accomplish would be achieved by the following consent: I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday at 2:15, the Senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the following nominations: No. 104, that is Pearce to be a member of the NLRB; No. 102, Johnson, to be a member of the NLRB, and No. 103, Miscimarra, to be a member of the NLRB.

I might just say, parenthetically, if those nominees were confirmed, coupled with the two nominees illegally appointed, whose illegal appointments' term continue until the end of the year, the NLRB would have a full complement of five members and able to conduct its business.

I further ask consent that following those votes, the Senate proceed to the cloture motion filed on Calendar No. 99; that is, Perez, to be Secretary of Labor; and, further, if cloture is invoked, the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination--I would add, parenthetically, that would eliminate the post 30 hours, assuming cloture were invoked on the very controversial nominee, Perez, to be Secretary of Labor--further, the Senate then vote on the cloture motion filed on Calendar No. 98, McCarthy, to be EPA Director; and if cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination--also eliminating the 30 hours postcloture if cloture is invoked on McCarthy; and I might add that the ranking member of the environment committee supports cloture on the McCarthy nomination. Thereby, it is reasonable to assume that cloture would be invoked on what is for a lot of our Members, including myself, a very controversial nomination. I further ask consent that the Senate then vote on the cloture motion that was filed on Calendar No. 178--this is someone named Hochberg, to be president of the

Export-Import Bank--again, if cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the confirmation of that nomination--again, eliminating the 30 hours postcloture, assuming cloture is invoked; and I assume that it will be--finally, I ask consent that following the votes listed above the Senate proceed to the cloture votes on the remaining three filed cloture motions.

Now, before the Chair rules, what this allows, as I indicated, is for the Senate to work efficiently through a series of nominations in a quicker fashion than the majority leader has proposed.

They would get their votes and there would not be a delay. This would only leave discussion and votes on the three remaining illegally-- according to the Federal court--the three remaining illegally appointed nominations. That is my unanimous consent.

Mr. President, the majority leader always reminds me he can have the last word. I am sure he can have the last word again. Speaking for Senator Vitter, he did ask for a lot of information from the new prospective Administrator of the EPA--so did Senator Boxer. She asked for 70,000 pages herself. But he was satisfied with the responses he got. This is how the process ought to work. This is how it has worked for decades. You are trying to get answer to questions. You are trying to engage in some kind of prediction as to how somebody might operate in the future.

What the majority leader has been saying all along is he wants the confirmation process to be speedy and for the minority to sit down and shut up. He believes that advise and consent means sit down and shut up; confirm these nominees when I tell you to.

The reason he is having to take a lot of heat over this is because he has broken his word to the Senate, given last January, that we had resolved the rules issue for this Congress. I know for a fact, even though he may get his 51 votes, there are a lot of Democrats who are not happy with where the leader is.

When they tell me that--the Republican I expect they would be least likely to want to tell that to--I know what is going on here. They have been hammered into line. This has been personalized by the majority leader: You have to do this for me. What is astonishing is he is saying, you have to do this for me because you have to help me break my word and go back on everything I said in my own biography just a few years ago. You have to help me look bad. You have to help me break my word, violate what I said in my own biography, create unnecessary controversy in the Senate, which has done major bills on a bipartisan basis all year long and had begun to get back to normal.

This is very hard to understand. This is why my Members are astonished at where we are. They are scratching their heads, saying: Who manufactured this crisis? We know who manufactured it, the guy right over here to my left. So this is a very sad day for the Senate. If we do not pull back from the brink, my friend the majority leader is going to be remembered as the worst leader of the Senate ever, the leader of the Senate who fundamentally changed the body.

It makes me sad. Some of my Members are more angry. I am more sad about it. But it is a shame we have come to this. I sure hope all the Democratic Senators are there Monday night. I am certainly going to encourage my Members to be there. It is high time we sat down and tried to understand each other, because many Members on the other side are hearing a different version of the facts that are largely unrelated to reality.

I know my friend the majority leader will have the last word. He reminds me of that frequently, on a daily basis, that the difference between being the majority leader and the minority leader is he gets the last word. So I will yield the floor and listen to the last word.

Of course, the majority of the NLRB would not be Republicans. I have mentioned to the administration on several occasions: Send us up two nominees who are not illegally appointed. But we cannot seem to get that done. I mean, the taint attached to the two NLRB nominees and to Mr. Cordray, who I agree is a good man and many of my Members support, is that they were illegally appointed.

But, of course, the agencies have not been at a disadvantage. They are there

waiting. He may have been waiting to be confirmed, but he is not waiting to do the job. He is in office. The two NLRB members are in office. The question is, do we respect the law? A Federal court has said the two NLRB members were illegally appointed.

Mr. Cordray, unfortunately, was appointed on exactly the same day in exactly the same way. Is the Senate completely lawless? Do we not care what the Federal courts say? I am stunned at where we are. It is pretty clear to me that all the other nominees are highly likely to be confirmed.

What it comes down to is that the majority leader is going to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate in order to confirm, with 51 votes, three illegally appointed positions that the Federal courts have told us are unconstitutionally appointed. That is the rationale for the nuclear option?

That is why I say it is a sad day for the Senate, a sad day for America.

Mr. President, on the issue of delay, I am trying to avoid bursting out in laughter. The two NLRB nominees were sent up to the Senate December 15, 2011--December 15, 2011. Before their paperwork got here, 2 weeks later the President recess appointed them. Delay? Their paperwork had not even arrived. The committee could not do anything with them. A couple of weeks later they were recess appointed.

That is not my definition of a delay, by any objective standard.

The core issue here, no matter how much the majority leader tries to obfuscate and discuss other matters, is that he is prepared to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate for three nominees who were unconstitutionally appointed, according to the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC. For that, the majority leader proposes to use the nuclear option? It is a sad, sad commentary on today's Senate.

For more than a month, I have been coming to the floor to talk about student loan reform. I have said that to an outside observer, this is an issue that should have been an easy bipartisan slam dunk. I have noted that the proposals put forward by both President Obama and congressional Republicans have been strikingly similar. We both agree on the need for a permanent reform, and we agree on the need to help all students and not just some of them. Yet here we are after the July 1 deadline and Democrats are still blocking bipartisan student loan reform.

You have to ask yourself why. It is because they have prioritized politics over helping students. There are basically two different Democratic groups battling for supremacy: a more responsible reform- permanently faction and a more political campaign-permanently faction.

In the first group are the sensible Democratic Senators who agree with both President Obama and Republicans that it is time to finally solve this issue. Washington should actually help students and stop using them as pawns in a political chess match. They support the bipartisan compromise plan put forward by Democratic, Republican, and Independent Senators alike.

Unfortunately, this faction is opposed and outnumbered by the campaign-permanently Democrats. They are the ones whom I suspect would actually prefer to see rates lapse so they can manufacture another campaign issue. To hear the musings of some top Democrats, one would have to conclude that the Democratic leadership is on the side of campaigning permanently and against helping students.

As the majority leader put it a few weeks ago: ``[We're] not looking for compromise.''

Another Democratic Senator in leadership boasted a goal in this debate was to show ``the difference between the two parties on a key issue.''

I mean, this is just the kind of thing that makes people so cynical about Washington. Washington Democrats yell and wave their arms about the need for something, and then they appear to do everything possible behind the scenes to sabotage it, apparently so they can manufacture a politically convenient crisis. They are doing it on student loans, and they have been doing it with nominations too.

All week it seems they have been breathlessly telling any reporter who will listen that we have a nominations crisis around here; that Republicans are holding up the President's nominees. It is really laughable.

To hear some of the over-the-top rhetoric, one would think Republicans have blocked all of the President's second-term Cabinet nominees. But then, of course, you would be entirely wrong.

The truth is, since the President swore his oath of office in January, the Senate has confirmed every single Cabinet pick that has been brought up for a vote--every single one of them.

Let me repeat that. Every single one that has been brought up for a vote, all of them have been confirmed. Many of them have been confirmed on unanimous or nearly unanimous votes. Yesterday, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee announced his support for an up-or-down vote on Gina McCarthy's nomination to be EPA Administrator. So there is no question she is going to be confirmed.

It is clear that facts are getting in the way of the Democrats' arguments, which is why they are forced to gin up this fake--absolutely fake--nominations ``crisis.'' It is why we see them bringing out all the nominees who have been appointed to office either illegally or who are exceedingly controversial. Democrats themselves have delayed consideration of these nominees literally for months--because the majority leader determines the timing--so they could pull them all out of the woodwork at the same time, in the hopes the Senate would reject them.

Democrats are out there daring the Senate to do it. They want it so badly it appears to be their goal. And there is a reason for this. It is because the far-left base seems to be getting fed up with the democratic process. The big labor bosses are sick of waiting for the special interest legislative kickbacks they must feel they are owed, and now they know that altering the rules of our democracy is the only way to get what they want.

This isn't going to work. The facts show the truth, and the truth is that any crisis over nominations is a crisis of Washington Democrats' own making--one they have stirred up intentionally--an absolutely manufactured crisis by any objective analysis.

As of last night, there were 140 nominees pending in various committees.

These nominees are under the control of the majority, not us. And there are a little over two dozen or so eligible for expedited floor consideration, many of whom Republicans have already said we would pass unanimously. Why hasn't the majority leader called for votes on any of these folks? Clearly, if anyone is obstructing here, it is the majority leader, because this whole conversation isn't about making the Senate work better, and he knows it. It is all about his power grab. Well, let me caution him again to think long and hard about what he is doing.

As one of the most senior members of the Democratic Party said yesterday, deploying the nuclear option would mean breaking the rules to change the rules--breaking the rules to change the rules. As the majority leader himself once said, it would ``ruin our country.'' And we all know why. Once the trigger is pulled, there would be no limit to the consequences, not just for Republicans or for our country but for Democrats too. They should think very carefully about the ramifications for them when a future Republican President makes his own appointments to the Cabinet and to the Federal bench.

Look, we know Senate Democrats are not serious about implementing student loan reform. They have already demonstrated that by blocking just about every bipartisan effort to do so. But on the nuclear option, it is certainly my hope that cooler heads will prevail. I have to believe they will choose the long-term health of our democracy and of their party over what frankly amounts to the narrowest--the narrowest-- of short-term political considerations. Pulling the nuclear trigger is not something the history books will look favorably on, and they know it. And, of course, there will be consequences.

When the President was in the Senate back in 2005, and the then- Republican majority was thinking about something akin to this, this is what the President had to say. ``If they choose to change the rules and put an end to the democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.'' The President was entirely correct.

Senator Reid said in 2009, a couple of years ago, ``There is no way I would employ the use of the nuclear option. No way.'' He said it would ``ruin our country.'' He said, ``It would have destroyed the Senate as we know it.''

Hopefully, that was not then and there is some different standard now. And, of course, we know we had this debate at the beginning of the year. Actually, we have had it at the beginning of the last two Congresses, and the Senate--the occupant of the Chair had newly arrived here--voted on two rules changes and two standing orders, after which the majority leader said, ``The rules issue for this Congress is over.''

He gave his word in January of this year. We are waiting to see if that word will be kept.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

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

Over the years we have seen repeated instances of indifference to the rule of law on the part of this administration. It is a consistent and worrisome path. The most recent example, of course, was last week's announcement that the President had simply decided not to enforce a major piece of his health care law--that is, until after the midterm election. What the President was saying in effect was that if he doesn't want to implement the law he has signed, he doesn't have to.

I agree it is a terrible law. I understand why people harmed by it would want it changed. In fact, I think we ought to repeal it altogether and opt instead for real reforms that actually would lower costs. But the fact is--for now, at least--it is the law and it is the President's constitutional duty to enforce the law. Yet, instead of fulfilling this basic duty of his office, the President seems to believe he gets to decide who is subject to the law. He gets to decide who is subject to the law and who gets a pass. So last week businesses had their ObamaCare sentences delayed. Maybe next week it will be some other group, but it is his call. He will decide what the law is. He did it with immigration, he did it with welfare work requirements, and he did it with the NLRB when he took it upon himself to tell another branch of government when it was in recess. He is doing it again with his own signature health care law.

Imagine that the current occupant of the White House was not President Obama but a Republican. Imagine that. Pretend that this Republican had come to office promising an era of inclusion and accountability, but as the years wore on he simply had grown tired of the democratic process.

Imagine that this President, despite securing confirmation for nearly every nominee he submitted, couldn't understand why the elected Senate didn't simply rush them all through even quicker. He couldn't understand why Senators insisted on fulfilling their constitutional obligations to scrutinize each nominee.

Visualize for a moment that this President decided to urge Members of his party to break the rules of the Senate so that he could appoint whomever he wanted regardless of checks and balances. Imagine the outrage in the media, online, and especially on the other side of the aisle. They would claim the President was a dictator. They would say he was ripping the Constitution to shreds, basically everything they said for so many years

about President Bush. But, of course, President Obama isn't a Republican, and so Washington Democrats seem just fine with it. In fact, it appears they are even ready to help this President--actually help him--in his partisan power grab.

I know Washington Democrats are getting a lot of pressure from big labor bosses and from other far-left elements of their base to do this. These folks have told Democrats it is time to pay up, and they do not have much time for things such as the democratic process or the rule of law. They have raised a ton of money for the Democrats and now they want the special interest treatment they believe is owed to them. That is why we see the other side cooking up phony nomination fights. They are cooking up a phony nomination fight because they want to go nuclear, but they know the facts simply aren't on their side to justify doing so. They know their core argument, that President Obama's nominees are being treated less fairly than those of President Bush, is essentially at odds with reality. It is a complete fiction. They have gotten burned by the fact checkers already. President Obama's nominees for Secretary of Transportation and Energy were unanimously confirmed. Secretary of State? Confirmed. Treasury? Confirmed. Interior, Defense, Commerce? Check, check, check.

Already in this Congress the Senate has approved 27 of President Obama's lifetime appointments. That compares to just 10 at a comparable period in President Bush's second term. And, by the way, my party controlled the Senate at this point in President Bush's second term. He got 10, President Obama has 27. In other words, President Obama has just settled back into office and already he has secured nearly three times--three times--more comparable judicial confirmations.

Look, to justify doing something as extreme as the left wants, you better be prepared to make a rock-solid case, and this is the best they can come up with, that we need to change the rules of the Senate because big labor bosses say so; that the left should be allowed to fundamentally change our democracy because the President is only getting nearly everything he wants--nearly everything he wants--rather than everything he wants at the exact moment he wants it? Let's get real here. This is not how a democracy functions.

If this were a Republican President and the shoe were on the other foot, does anyone seriously believe Washington Democrats would be going along with something so utterly preposterous? Of course not. Remember, the current majority leader once said the nuclear option would ``ruin our country.'' That was said by the fellow who sits right over here, the current majority leader of the Senate. And a former Senator from Illinois named Obama said if the Senate broke the rules to change the rules ``the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock [would] only get worse.'' Boy, he was right about that.

What I am saying to President Obama and his friends on the far left is this: The facts show you are getting treated pretty darn well on nominations as it is. But if you would like more confirmed, if, for instance, you want the Senate to confirm your nominees to the NLRB, then don't send us nominees who have already been declared illegal by the courts. We have already said that is not going to happen. You know you can't look Americans in the eye and say you would vote for such a thing if you were in the minority so don't expect us to. But if you send us fresh picks, we will happily give them a fair hearing, just as we have been doing all along with all of the rest of the President's nominees. Almost all of them have been confirmed. Most have been confirmed almost unanimously, because we in America know that majorities of either party will never get absolutely everything they want. That push and pull is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. And one day--maybe not in the too-distant future--when our Democratic friends in the majority are invariably returned to the minority, they will thank us for standing up for those democratic rights.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, I congratulate our good friend from South Carolina on his maiden speech and the opportunity, obviously, to learn more about his inspirational early life and the bilingual nature of his beginning and the way he interpreted those lessons both from his mother and from his mentor into the extraordinary success he has had both in the private sector and the public sector. I wish to say, on behalf of my colleagues, it is an honor to serve with him.

Mr. President, at the outset of the debate we have been engaged in, I expressed my hope that we could do something about our Nation's broken immigration system. Millions of men and women are living among us without any documentation or certainty about what the future will bring for themselves or their families. Many of those who come here legally end up staying here illegally. We have no way of knowing who or where they are. And current law simply does not take into account the urgent needs of a modern rapidly changing economy.

Beyond all of this, it has long been a deep conviction of mine that from our earliest days as a people immigration has been a powerful force of renewal and national strength. Most of the people who have come here over the centuries have come as dreamers and risk-takers, looking for a chance for a better life for themselves and for their children.

I can think of no better example of this than my wife, who came here at age 8 in the cargo hull of a ship because her parents did not have the money for a plane ticket. When she entered the third grade at a public school in New York, she did not speak a word of English. Yet, in just a few short decades, she would be sworn in as a member of the President's Cabinet--an honor and an opportunity she could hardly have guessed at when she was just a little girl. This is the kind of story that has made this Nation what it is. Legal immigration makes that possible.

So, yes, I had wanted very much to be able to support a reform to our Nation's immigration laws. I knew it would be tough, and the politics are not particularly easy either. But the fact is that our constituents did not send us here to name post offices and pass Mother's Day resolutions; they sent us here to tackle the hard stuff too.

Broad bipartisan majorities agree that our immigration system needs updating. In my view we had an obligation to our constituents at least to try to do it, to try to do it together and in the process show the world we can still solve national problems around here and reaffirm the vital role legal immigration has played in our history. So it is with a great deal of regret--for me, at least--that the final bill did not turn out to be something I can support. The reason is fairly simple. As I see it, this bill does not meet the threshold test for success that I outlined at the start of this debate. It just does not say--to me, at least--that we have learned the lessons of 1986 and that we will not find ourselves right back in the same situation we found ourselves in after that reform.

If you cannot be reasonably certain the border is secure as a condition of legalization, there is no way to be sure millions more will not follow the illegal immigrants who are already here. As others have rightly pointed out, you also cannot be sure that further Congresses will not just reverse whatever assurances we make today that border security will occur in the future. In other words, in the absence of a very firm results-based border security trigger, there is no way I can look at my constituents, look them in the eye and tell them that today's assurances will not become tomorrow's disappointments.

Since the bill before us does not include such a trigger, I will not be able to support it. It does not give any pleasure to say this or to vote against this bill. These are big problems. They need solving. I am deeply grateful to all the Members of my conference and their staffs who have devoted so much of their time and worked so hard over a period of many months to solve these problems. I am grateful to all of them.

While I will not be voting for this bill, I think it has to be said that there are real improvements in the bill. Current immigration policy, which prioritizes family-based immigration, has not changed in decades. This bill would take an important step toward the kind of skills-based immigration a growing economy requires. Through new and reformed visa programs, for instance, this bill would provide many of our most dynamic businesses with the opportunity to legally hire the workers they need to remain competitive and to expand. Some industries, such as construction, could and should have fared better, but on balance I think the improvements to legal immigration contained in the bill are very much a step in the right direction.

We have learned an important lesson in this debate. One thing I am fairly certain about is that we will never resolve the immigration problem on a bipartisan basis either now or in the future until we can prove--prove--that the border is secure as a condition for legalization. This, to me, continues to be the biggest hurdle to reform. Frankly, I cannot understand why there is such resistance to it--almost entirely, of course, on the other side. It seems pretty obvious to me, and I suspect to most Americans, that the first part of immigration reform should be proof that the border is secure. It is simply common sense.

Hopefully, Democrats now realize that this is the one necessary ingredient for success and they will be a little more willing to accept it as a condition for legalization because until they do, I for one cannot be confident that we have solved the problem, and I know a lot of others will not be confident either.

So this bill may pass the Senate today but not with my vote. In its current form, it will not become law. But the good news is this: The path to success, the path to actually making a law is fairly clear at this point. Success on immigration reform runs through the border. Let me say that again. Success on immigration reform runs through the border. Looking ahead, I think it is safe to say that is where our focus should lie.

Senate Rules

Mr. President, briefly on another matter, another day has passed and the majority leader has still not confirmed that he intends to keep his word, which was given back in January of this year, with regard to the rules of the Senate. To refresh the memory of my colleagues, we had a big discussion at the end of the year about the rules and procedures in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

Out of those bipartisan discussions came two rules changes and two standing orders that were passed consistent with the current rules of the Senate. In the wake of that bipartisan agreement, the majority leader gave his word to the Senate that the issue of the rules under which we would operate this year was settled.

Regretfully, he continues to suggest to outside groups, and occasionally on the floor as well, that maybe he didn't mean that, and that if our behavior--meaning the minority's behavior--doesn't meet his standards, he is still open to breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.

We all know how this would occur if it did occur. The Parliamentarian would advise the occupant of the chair the way to change the rules of the Senate is with 67 votes. The majority leader, under that scenario, would move to overrule the Chair and with 51 votes establish a new precedent that would turn the Senate into the House.

It has been suggested maybe that would only apply to nominations, but as Senator Alexander and I pointed out last week, of course, that would not be the case. The next time the other side had a majority--my side-- I would have a hard time arguing to my Members we should confine a 51- vote majority to simply nominations, and I would be under intense pressure to say: Why not legislation. Senator Alexander and I laid out what some of the top priorities would be that he would recommend to me--and many of them I agree with--for an agenda I would be setting instead of the majority leader. These are things such as the national right-to-work, repealing ObamaCare, establishing Yucca Mountain, the national nuclear repository. One gets the drift. These are many things the current majority would find abhorrent.

I hope this crisis will be averted. All it requires from my friend the majority leader is simply an acknowledgment that he intends to keep his word.

I yield the floor.

I object.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of a bill introduced earlier today by Senators Manchin, King,

Alexander, Coburn, Burr, and Carper; further, that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form, no amendments be in order to the measure, the bill be subject to any applicable budget point of order, and that following the use or yielding back of time and disposition of any waivers, if necessary, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, yesterday morning I made a prediction about a speech the President was expected to give later in the day. I said we could expect him to announce a plan to impose the will of some of his most radical backers on the American middle class. I said he would be undeterred by Congress's rejection of his national energy tax even when Democrats held commanding majorities in both Houses. I said he would announce his intention to push through job-crushing regulations anyway but this time largely through the back door over the objections of many working-class Americans rather than through the regular democratic process. Lo and behold, that is essentially what he did.

I was surprised by one thing, though, and that was his continued effort to play politics with the Keystone Pipeline jobs. Remember, we all know that the oil this pipeline would carry is going to come out of the ground either way. It is going to come out of the ground whether or not he approves it. In other words, whether he gives approval to the pipeline or not, the oil is coming out of the ground. The only question is whether that energy and those jobs will go to America or whether they will be allowed to travel across the Pacific to governments that harbor terrible environmental records to begin with.

That is just one reason why the Keystone Pipeline has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support here in the Senate. Even Big Labor--a sector that is usually supportive of the President--is all behind the Keystone Pipeline. Yet, yesterday, when the President had the opportunity to side with the working-class families across the country by approving the pipeline, he took another pass--just took a pass.

Sometimes you have to wonder about this administration. In making decisions such as these, you have to wonder if they truly understand the worries most Americans have to contend with in the Obama economy. I have long warned, for example, that the White House was determined-- determined--to wage a war on coal. They denied it, of course, but only just long enough to get through the last election. So it is not a coincidence that the President did not give his speech before the election or that he gave it at a university that symbolizes the DC elite rather than somewhere in coal country. He should have made this speech down at Morehead State University in my State or the University of Pikeville in my State. That would have been the place to make the speech, not here in town.

Now the President's supporters seem all too happy to admit there is a war on coal. Just yesterday an adviser to the White House said, ``A war on coal is exactly what's needed.'' You have to give him points for candor.

Look, Republicans are all for developing the fuels and the energies of the future. We are all for that. We just think it should come about as part of an all-of-the-above strategy, which is exactly what the White House said it supported too back before the election. But now with the election year over, the truth comes out.

In truth, the administration seems to adhere to a dogma that could best be described as ``none of the above''--not ``all of the above'' but ``none of the above, except a couple of things that make our base happy.'' I would note that such an approach is basically nonsense since it ignores what is necessary to keep our country's growing energy needs met in order to move toward a future where renewables look set to play a greater role because it simply tries to pretend that it will not take years, if not decades, for these other types of energy to come online in a way that will truly meet our energy needs.

In a phrase, it is a strategy that subordinates almost everything to politics. That is why Republicans believe a true all-of-the-above strategy means developing wind, solar, natural gas, oil, and coal, and embracing American jobs that come along with producing American energy.

Here is what we believe it absolutely does not mean: It does not mean picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring war on them. There is a depression in central Appalachia, which includes eastern Kentucky, because of the government itself, this administration. Sometimes people in Washington forget the decisions here actually affect the lives of others. I am often left to wonder, do they not care?

Of course, coal is an important industry to my State, and I am going to defend Kentucky workers from out-of-touch Washington attacks, but it is pretty naive to think it is just about Kentucky, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. As I said yesterday, a war on coal is actually a war on jobs. Coal is important to our entire country. It is critical to the growth of manufacturing, and it is important to our national economy.

One can say a coal miner in Kentucky relies on coal for their well- being, just as a line worker in a manufacturing plant that uses coal relies on it too. Pretty much everyone who lives or works in a building with electricity relies on coal in some way. That is why even some in the President's party are trying to distance themselves from his approach.

As one of my Senate Democratic colleagues put it yesterday:

The fact is clear: our own Energy Department reports that

our country will get 37 percent of our energy from coal until

2040.

Removing coal from our energy mix will have disastrous

consequences for our recovering economy.

I couldn't agree more with our Democratic colleague.

It is time for the White House to stop pivoting from job-destroying policies to campaign-stop PR pitches for jobs right back to job- destroying policies. It is time for the administration to get serious about pursuing a truly workable strategy for this country, for energy, for the economy, and for jobs.

Senate Rules

Briefly, on another matter, another day has gone by. We are still not clear that the majority leader is going to keep his word given back at the beginning of this Congress that the issue of the rules for the Senate of this Congress have been settled. They have been settled as a result of bipartisan discussions that occurred back in January leading to the passing of two rules changes and two standing orders, after which the majority leader had said it had been settled, that we had the rules for this Congress.

Later we learned that maybe we didn't, and there were these implied threats issued to groups around the country that he would exercise a so-called nuclear option. The definition of the nuclear option is to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate.

The minority, and I suspect a reasonable number of the majority, are waiting to find out whether the majority leader intends to keep his word. Your word is the currency of the realm in the Senate. His word has been given. We expect it to be kept.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an honorable Kentuckian and decorated World War II veteran, Mr. Wilburn K. Ross of Strunk, KY. Ross, who turned 91 in May, celebrated his birthday by making a trip to Kentucky from his current home in Dupont, WA. Ross has not only served his country but continues to serve his childhood home by coming back each year to spend time with his family and fellow veterans of McCreary County.

Ross, who is also known as ``Wib,'' was raised in Strunk, KY, and joined the U.S. Army here to begin his extraordinary service to our country. Every year for his birthday, Ross makes the visit back to Kentucky. ``Everybody here treats me well,'' Ross said. ``I like coming back here because

I was raised here.'' Ross's son Greg is the eldest of his six children and travels with his father.

On October 30, 1944, Ross served as a private in Company G, 30th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. This day Ross fought courageously, and 6 months later he received the highest decoration in the U.S. military, the Medal of Honor. After 55 out of the 88 men were lost in his company, Ross manned a machine gun alone holding off six German attacks.

Mr. Ross's bravery and courage while in service to his Nation is an inspiration to his fellow Kentuckians. His story is one that is told again and again to remind McCreary County residents of his dedication and liberty to our country. A local newspaper published an article on May 23, 2013, to celebrate 91 years of life for Mr. Ross and to retell his story while in uniform. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in advance of the President's big speech today, I read this morning that one of the White House climate advisers finally admitted something most of us have suspected all along. He said, ``A war on coal is exactly what is needed.''

A war on coal is exactly what is needed. That is one of the President's advisers. It is an astonishing bit of honesty from someone that close to the White House, but it really encapsulates the attitude this administration holds in regard to States such as mine where coal is such an important part of the economic well being of so many middle- class families. It captures the attitude it holds with regard to middle-class Americans all across the country, where affordable energy is critical to the operation of so many companies and small businesses, and to the ability of those businesses to hire Americans and help build a ladder to the middle class for their families.

Declaring a war on coal is tantamount to declaring a war on jobs. It is tantamount to kicking the ladder out from beneath the feet of many Americans struggling in today's economy. I will be raising this issue with the President at the White House later today.

One of the sectors the President's war on jobs would hit is manufacturing. Ironic, perhaps, because just a few months ago it was President Obama himself who said:

I believe in manufacturing. I think it makes our country

stronger.

Well, of course, that is correct. Manufacturing does make our country stronger. Just look at Kentucky. We are the first in the Nation in aluminum smelting. We are third in production of auto parts. Kentuckians know these types of businesses strengthen not just the Bluegrass State but our entire Nation. They provide well-paying jobs, economic growth, and tickets to prosperity for workers and their families. Yet in the global economy of the 21st century, retaining, much less expanding, our manufacturing core has never been more challenging than it is now.

We face relentless competition from all corners of the globe, so policymakers have to be careful about the types of policies they enact. Obviously, American success in this hypercompetitive world is strengthened when we keep taxes low and regulations smart. Perhaps most important, it is strengthened when we ensure energy is abundant and affordable.

These are energy-intensive industries, after all. If the White House moves forward with this war on jobs and raises the cost of energy, that would almost assuredly raise the cost of doing business. That would likely put jobs, growth, and the future of American manufacturing at risk. That is one of the many reasons Americans rejected the President's attempt to impose a national energy tax in his first term.

Even with overwhelming majorities in Congress, including a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate, Washington Democrats were unable to pass the President's energy tax. In the Senate, the Democratic majority would not even bring it up for a vote. Think about that. They could have pushed it through on their own without a single Republican vote, and yet they could not.

Why? Well, for one, the constituents we serve are a lot smarter than some in Washington might like to believe. They know we cannot impose a national energy tax without cutting jobs and significantly raising energy costs not just on their families, but also on their employers.

The data seems to bear out such concerns. I remember some projections showing that by 2030, the Waxman-Markey proposal could have decreased the size of our economy by about $350 billion and reduced net employment by 2.5 million jobs, even after taking job creation into account.

So Americans made their opposition to this tax abundantly clear to Members of Congress. In the 2010 midterm elections, they ousted a good number of those who voted for it in the House. Because of concerns about job losses, higher utility bills, and reduced competitiveness, Congress is even less inclined today to vote for an energy tax than when the President commanded such massive majorities in the first part of his first term.

It is fairly self-evident to say there is no majority for such an idea in the 113th Congress. The President shall also push ahead and ignore the will of the legislative branch, the branch closest to the American people. Whether they want it or not, he says he will do it by Presidential fiat.

I am sure we will find out more details in his speech today. If I am right, and I think I am, he is going to lay out a plan to do what he wants to do through executive action--in other words, more czars, more unaccountable bureaucrats.

The message this sends should worry anyone who cares about constitutional self-government, that the President can simply ignore the will of the representatives sent here by the people because he wants to, because special interests are lobbying him, and because he wants to appease some far-left segment of his base.

What I am saying is he cannot declare a war on jobs and simultaneously claim to care about manufacturing. He cannot claim to care about States such as mine where an energy tax would do great damage to countless Americans employed in energy sectors such as coal.

Wages are already failing to keep pace with rising costs for many people. Many families have seen their real median income actually decline in recent years. A survey released yesterday shows that three- quarters of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality of the Obama economy. Even in the best of times, imposing an energy tax would be a bad idea. In an era of unacceptably high unemployment, an era where Americans are finally desperate to focus on growing the middle class rather than throwing scraps to his wealthy supporters, ideas such as this border on absurdly self-defeating.

He may as well call his plan what it is, a plan to shift jobs overseas. Basically, it is unilateral economic surrender. To what end? Many experts agree a climate policy that does not include massive energy consumers such as China and India is essentially meaningless. The damage to our economy would be anything but meaningless. Ironically, those are the very types of countries that stand to benefit economically from our loss. Nations such as these will probably take our jobs, keep pumping more and more carbon into the air, and what will we have to show for it? That is a question the President needs to answer today.

Americans want commonsense policies to make energy cleaner and more affordable. The operative word is commonsense, because Americans are also deeply concerned about jobs and the economy. That is what the President should be focused on. Incredibly, it appears to be the farthest thing from his mind.

Senate Ground Rules

I have been mentioning on a daily basis the ongoing concern I have about the institution in which 100 of us serve, an institution that has served America well since the beginning of our country. The Constitution was framed back in 1887. George Washington presided over that Constitutional Convention. Legend has it he was asked, What do you think the Senate is going to be like? He reportedly replied it would be like the saucer under the teacup, and the tea that sloshed out of the teacup would go down into the saucer and cool off. In other words, the Founders of our great country believed the Senate would be a place where things slowed down, were thought over, and obviously where bipartisan agreements would be the way to move forward.

Over the period of our history, the idea of unlimited debate has had a lot of support in this body from both parties. In fact, during World War I, it was agreed there ought to be some way to stop a debate. Prior to that, there was no way, actually, to stop a debate. They agreed to create a device called cloture that would allow a supermajority of the Senate to bring debate to an end.

Over the years there have been flirtations by majorities of different parties to fundamentally change the Senate. Those temptations have been avoided. Those temptations arose again at the beginning of the previous Congress and at the beginning of this Congress under the current majority and the current majority leader. There was a lot of discussion about the way forward for the institution that would benefit the institution and not penalize either side. In January of 2011 the majority leader said the issue was settled for the next two Congresses, the previous Congress and this one.

In spite of that, we entered into a lengthy discussion at the beginning of this Congress on a bipartisan basis. As a result of that, the Senate passed two rules changes and two standing orders. The majority leader once again gave his word that this issue was concluded.

Last January I asked the majority leader: ``I would confirm with the majority leader that the Senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order or rules of this Congress unless they went through the regular order process?''

The majority leader said: ``That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the Rules Committee.''

The regular order process takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. We did that with the two rules changes earlier this year, thereby confirming, again, that is the way you change the rules of the Senate.

The majority leader, in spite of having given his word, not once but twice, continues to suggest that may not be a word that is going to be kept and has continued to flirt openly with employing what is called the nuclear option.

My party, when it was in the majority some time ago, 8 or 9 years ago, flirted with it as well, but good sense prevailed and we moved backward. We moved into a position where we are today, which is it takes 60 votes when you have a determined minority to get an outcome.

The threat has been related to nominations and nominations only, as if somehow breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate would be confined to nominations in the future. The way that would be done, of course, is the Parliamentarian would say it was a violation of Senate rules to change the rules of the Senate with 51 votes. The majority would simply appeal the ruling of the Chair and do it with 51 votes. If that is ever done, the Senate as an institution we have known is finished, and it would not be confined to nominations in the future.

Senator Alexander and I laid out a few days ago the kind of agenda we would probably pursue, almost certainly pursue, were we in the majority. It was an agenda that would in many ways horrify the current majority, such things as completing Yucca Mountain, repealing ObamaCare, national right-to-work--I mean, things I believe probably every single Member of the majority party would find abhorrent. But that is the point.

The supermajority threshold is inconvenient to majorities from time to time. It requires them to engage in negotiation in order to go forward. It is frustrating from time to time. It is important to remember--every Senate majority should remember--the shoe will someday be on the other foot.

The institution has served our country well. We have had some big debates this year in which we have had amendments, discussions on a bipartisan basis, and bills moved forward. We saw it on the farm bill. We have seen it on other bills. We may well see it on the bill that is on the floor of the Senate now.

The fundamental point before the Senate is we need to know if the majority leader intends to keep his word, because in the Senate your word is important. In fact, it is the currency of the realm here in the Senate.

I am going to continue to raise this issue because we need to resolve it. Senators need to know that words will be kept. The word on the ground rules of how we operate here in the Senate needs to be kept. We are not interested in a majority that says the definition of advise and consent is sit down and shut up, do things I want to do when I want to do it, or I will threaten to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate. This is no small matter, and I will continue to address it until we get it resolved.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a few months back one of our Democratic colleagues warned of a huge train wreck on the horizon--the implementation of ObamaCare. Yesterday we received another warning as ObamaCare speeds down the tracks. This one came from the Government Accountability Office, which highlighted a number of missed deadlines that cast doubt on the ability of the administration to even get the law up and running by October 1.

Of course, the GAO is not the first to issue such warnings. Some of us have been sounding a similar call literally for years. What we have said is that ObamaCare is set to become a bureaucratic nightmare. Most of the law's key provisions have not even been implemented yet. Not a single American has signed up for an exchange. Already it is turning into one big mess.

It was not hard to see this coming. We are talking about a 2,700-page piece of legislation. We are talking about a law that has already generated more than 20,000 pages of regulations--literally a redtape tower 7 feet tall. We are talking about an edict that proposes to alter one of the most personal, most private aspects of our lives in a fundamental way. So it does not take an expert to understand what that leads to--reams of paperwork; a massive new bureaucracy; the coordination of numerous, hulking government agencies, including, of course, the IRS.

It cannot be done without the people the government is attempting to regulate--the doctors, the hospitals, States, small businesses, hundreds of millions of Americans--actually having a clue how to comply. Nobody knows how to comply. The law is maddeningly complex. So, of course, ObamaCare is going to be a mess--going to be a mess. We said it would be. Actually, it already is. Yet earlier this month the President said that ObamaCare was ``working the way it is supposed to.'' That is literally what he said.

Maybe that is why just yesterday a survey of Americans showed that only 19 percent--fewer than one in five--believe ObamaCare will make their family better off--only 19 percent. It found that a much greater number--roughly half of Americans--worried about losing the health care coverage they already have.

There was another survey released too, a survey of small business owners. It found that 41 percent of small business owners said they had frozen hiring, literally quit hiring people because of ObamaCare--41 percent of small businesses. About 20 percent said they had already reduced their workforces because of it. Forty percent quit hiring people and 20 percent reduced their workforce because of ObamaCare. Remember, this is a law that is still being implemented, and many businesses already seem to be laying people off. I hope that is not a preview of what we will see once ObamaCare actually comes online. But given the evidence thus far, it is hard to draw a different conclusion.

The Kentucky Retail Federation recently cited ObamaCare as the thing having the most impact on their businesses' ability to grow. As the leader of that group put it, the companies in his federation are hesitant to take on new staff or to invest in their own business growth until they know how much health care reform is going to cost.

So if this is the law that is ``working the way it is supposed to,'' then it is obviously a very bad law. It is Congress's duty to repeal bad laws. I hope that it will. I hope my Democratic friends here in the Senate will finally work with us to do just that because we cannot do it without them. They have the majority. If they can muster the will to admit their mistake, I hope they can also find the will to work with us to start fresh on health care. This time, I hope they will actually work together with Republicans to get something done for the American people. In my view, that means pursuing effective, step-by-step reforms that cannot only lower costs but they can also be implemented effectively and understood completely by the constituents we were sent here to serve. I know my constituents back in Kentucky would expect as much of us, and frankly they should expect that much of us.

Mr. President, as I have talked about repeatedly over the last few weeks, there is a cloud hanging over the Senate, an unease throughout the Senate entirely on the Republican side and some on the Democratic side as well, and that is this: We had a discussion at the beginning of this Congress about what the rules of the Senate would be for this Congress this year and next year. After that bipartisan discussion, we passed two rules changes and two standing orders. The majority leader said we had determined what the rules of the Senate were going to be for the next 2 years. He gave his word that we would not break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate--the so-called nuclear option. Yet he has continued to hint that maybe that was not what he had in mind.

So what my colleagues and I are asking the majority leader to do is to

stand by his word. Your word is the currency of the realm here in the Senate. We expect the majority leader to keep his word. His word was given unequivocally in January of this year. In fact, it was given in January 2 years before that for the next two Congresses.

So it is time to lift this cloud which is hanging over the Senate so all the Members of the Senate can understand what the rules are for this Congress because we already made that decision back in January. We await the majority leader finally addressing the matter and making it clear that his word is good.

I yield the floor.