Floor Statements

Mr. President, last year President Obama was asked about the lessons he has learned from his first term. Instead of focusing on errors in judgment or policy, he seemed to indicate that he needed to do a better job--just a better job--of telling ``a story to the American people.'' In other words, the policy was just fine, and if Americans did not get it, it was because they had a listening problem. Well, that is an attitude that has come to define this administration.

I would say that is why folks will be rallying on the Capitol grounds today. They, like a growing number of Americans, are losing faith in government. They think it is working against them, not for them. And for good reason.

Let's take ObamaCare. This law has been pretty unpopular for several years now. It is not as though the American people have not been exposed--probably overexposed--to the arguments on both sides of the issue. ObamaCare must have been discussed hundreds of thousands--maybe even millions--of times over the past few years. That includes political debates, more speeches than any of us care to count, issue ads both pro and con, and--guess what--Americans still do not like the idea of ObamaCare, not because they are unable to understand or because they have not ``seen the right messenger.'' It is because most of them like their health care plan and want to keep it. It is because they do not want to pay more to the health insurance companies. And it is because they do not think the law is going to work as promised.

Yet the Washington Democrats' explanation for ObamaCare's enduring unpopularity still seems to be that the law is too complicated for their constituents to understand, and the Washington Democratic solution seems to be not to actually change the policy but to spend millions in a campaign-style PR--PR--blitz.

So the news flash would be this: If you still do not think Americans are able to understand a law you passed more than 3 years ago, then there is something wrong with the law, not with the American people.

Instead of going around the country trying to convince Americans why they are wrong, the administration could actually listen for a change. I think they should start over on health care and embrace the types of commonsense, step-by-step reforms that would actually lower the cost. I am not holding my breath that is going to happen.

So at a minimum they need to at least do this: The President, members of his Cabinet, and the congressional Democrats--congressional Democrats who voted for this law--need to get out and explain to Americans what is headed their way. Do not feed them the sunny picture painted in the ObamaCare ads the President's campaign team is already running but actually explain the reality of the situation to them. For instance, Americans need to know about the coming wave of premium hikes. We have already seen projected double-digit increases in some States. They need to know we are likely to see even more Americans lose the health care they want to keep, just like the thousands of Californians who will probably have to look for new plans after Aetna pulled out of the individual market in their State, almost certainly because of ObamaCare. They need to know they could lose their jobs or see their hours cut or struggle to find work in the first place. In fact, a recent survey showed that about 70 percent--70 percent--of small businesses say the law will make it harder for them to hire. Americans need to know all of these things because they need to prepare for them.

It is supremely unhelpful when the President claims that those who already have health care will not see changes, as he did just a few weeks ago. He knows that is not what many experts are saying. He owes it to the country to be frank about that. So it is time to get off the campaign trial, call

off the PR spinmeisters, put down the communications plan. It is time to level with the American people.

It has been over 140 days now since we settled here in the Senate the issue of the Senate's rules. We settled it conclusively not only this January but actually January 2 years before that. What happened this January is we had an extensive bipartisan discussion about what rules or standing orders we might change. In the wake of that discussion, we passed two rules changes and two standing orders.

The majority leader said--well, this is what he said 2 years ago:

I agree that the proper way to change the Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules, and I will

oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the

Senates rules other than through the regular order.

That was in January of 2011. What he said back in 2011--and the reason I put that up even though that was a previous Congress--he said either this Congress or the next Congress, the Congress we are in now.

This January, I said to 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 this Congress unless they went through the

regular order process?

That was this January, just a few months ago, a little over 140 days.

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.

Now, that is not ambiguous. That is not ambiguous at all.

So the reason I and my colleagues have been talking about this repeatedly is that this is a huge institutional issue. The naive notion that somehow you can break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate for nominations only was laid out by Senator Alexander yesterday in which he suggested a hypothetical series of measures that, if I were in the job the majority leader is currently in a year and a half from now, would be a very appealing agenda to my side, things like repealing ObamaCare, things like national right to work, things like opening ANWR.

Now, I would say to my friends on the other side, that is not something they would be very excited about, but in American politics things change. There is a tendency, when you are in the majority, to be kind of arrogant about it and to think the rules of the Senate are unnecessarily inconvenient to what you are trying to achieve.

Well, the Senate was designed from the very beginning--George Washington was actually asked during the Constitutional Convention: What do you think the Senate is going to be like?

He said: I think it is going to be like the saucer under the tea cup. The tea is going to slosh out of the cup, down to the saucer, and cool off.

In other words, they anticipated that the Senate would not be a place where things happen rapidly.

Written right into the Constitution is advise and consent. Advise and consent. The Senate has a role to play, for example, on nominations-- which seem to be the fixation of the majority at the moment even though there is no evidence whatsoever that this administration has been treated poorly with regard to either executive branch or judicial nominations, no evidence at all. This is a manufactured crisis. Nevertheless, they seem to be focused on nominations. What do my friends in the majority think ``advise and consent'' means? Apparently they think it means ``sit down and shut up. Do what I say when I tell you to.'' I do not think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

So there are a number of reasons we should not go down this road:

No. 1, the majority leader gave his word. Your word is the currency of the realm in the Senate. That ought to end it right there.

No. 2, do not assume you could just sort of surgically break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate for nominations only.

No. 3, I think it would be appropriate, since the American people change their minds from time to time about whom they would like to be in the majority of the Congress, to think about the consequences when the shoe is on the other foot.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, day after day I have been coming to the Senate floor to remind the majority leader of the commitments he made to the American people in 2011 and again just a few months ago that he would not break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate; that he would preserve the rights of the minority in this body; that he would not try to remake the Senate in the image of the House, something that could change our democracy in a very fundamental way.

So the question remains: Will he keep his word?

Here is what he said on January 27, 2011:

I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next--

The one we are in now--

to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular

order.

And here is what he said this year, after I asked him to confirm that the Senate would not consider any rules changes that did not go through the regular order process:

That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate

procedure would be subject to a regular order process

including consideration by the Rules Committee.

Now, look, Mr. President, a Senator's word--especially the word of the majority leader--is the currency of the realm in this Chamber--the currency of the realm in this Chamber. As the majority leader himself said:

Your word is your bond . . . if you tell [a Republican

Senator or a Democratic Senator] you are going to do

something, that is the way it is.

He is entirely correct. Senators keeping their word, well, that is just vital to a well-functioning Senate. But it is only part of the equation. We also need well-established rules that are clear, fair, and preserve the rights of all Senators--including those in the minority-- to represent the views of their States and of their constituents. That is the other reason why I have been pressing the majority leader on this issue.

As a matter of principle, holding a Senator to his or her word is important, but so is preserving a Senate that works the way it is supposed to. And we cannot be assured of that until the majority leader affirmatively states that he will stay true to the commitments he has made.

I understand my friend the majority leader is under a lot of pressure. I have known him for a long time, and deep down I know he understands the far-reaching consequences of ``going nuclear.'' I think he actually realizes how terrible an idea that would be because once the Senate definitively breaks the rules to change the rules, the pressure to respond in kind will be irresistible to future majorities. The precedent will have been firmly and dramatically set.

Some Washington Democrats say: Oh, they just want to limit the rules change to nominations; they just want to make a little adjustment on nominations, which is why they have been hurtling the Senate toward a manufactured fight over a couple of the President's most controversial nominees. But Republicans have been treating the President's nominees more than fairly.

At this point in President Bush's second term he had a total of 10 judicial confirmations; and, by the way, the Republicans were in the majority in the Senate. President Bush, at this point in his second term, with a Republican majority in the Senate, had 10 judicial confirmations. So far in his second term, President Obama has had 26 judges confirmed--26, 26 to 10. Apples to apples: at this point in President Bush's term, with a Republican Senate; at this point in President Obama's term, with a Democratic Senate.

I would note that just yesterday the Senate approved two more judicial nominees. That leaves just five--just five--available to the full Senate to be confirmed. There are only five around here. Think about that. Of the 77 Federal judicial vacancies, the President has not nominated anyone for most of them, and only 5 remain on the Senate's Executive Calendar. Moreover, only one of those nominees has been waiting more than a month to be considered.

So it is hard to see this as anything other than a manufactured crisis. There is no factual basis for it--a manufactured crisis. So the question is, a crisis to what end? Where does this lead us?

Well, one of the reasons the majority leader has refrained from changing the rules thus far is this: He fully understands--he fully understands--that majorities are fleeting, but changes to the rules are not, and breaking the rules to change the rules would fundamentally change the Senate.

Future majorities would be looking to this precedent. I do not know what the future holds, but 2 years from now I could be setting the agenda around here. Once deployed, the nuclear option may have fallout in future Congresses, actually forever altering the deliberative nature of the Senate, which has made it the institution where enduring compromises between the parties have been forged.

So it is time for sober consideration of the direction in which the Senate is being taken.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

I wish to congratulate my friend from Tennessee on a brilliant presentation on the history of the Senate and the current manufactured crisis we face.

The only comment I would add, just by way of reiterating the point my friend has already made, the Senator quoted Jefferson and Adams about the tyranny of the majority.

De Tocqueville. Washington, when he was presiding over the Constitutional Convention, according to legend, asked what will the Senate be like. He said: Well, it will be like the saucer under the teacup. The tea will slosh out of the cup, down into the saucer, and cool off.

In other words, from the very beginning, it was anticipated by the wise men who wrote the Constitution that the Senate would be a place where things slowed down and were thought over. That has been the tradition for a very long time throughout the history of our country.

Until the First World War, it was not possible to stop a debate at all. Cloture

was actually adopted by the Senate in the late teens of the previous century and then lowered in the 1970s to the current two-thirds.

Looking at the history of our country, it is pretty clear to me that the Senate has done exactly what Washington thought it would do, slow things down and move them to the middle, and has been a place where bipartisan compromise was by and large achieved, except in periods of time where either side had a very big majority which, of course, our friends on the other side had in 2009 and 2010.

The American people took a look at that and decided to issue a national restraining order and restore the kind of Senate they are more comfortable with that operates, to use a football analogy, between the two 45-yard lines. There is not a doubt in my mind that if the majority breaks the rules of the Senate, to change the rules of the Senate with regard to nominations, the next majority will do it for everything. The Senator from Tennessee has pointed that out.

I wouldn't be able to argue a year and a half from now, if I were the majority leader, to my colleagues that we shouldn't enact our legislative agenda with a simple 51 votes, having seen what the previous majority just did. I mean, there would be no rational basis for that.

It is appropriate to talk about what our agenda would be. I would be, of course, consulting with my colleagues on what our agenda would be, but I don't think there is any doubt that virtually every Member of the Senate Republican conference would think repealing ObamaCare would be job one of a new Republican majority. I don't even have to guess is what likely to be the No. 1 priority: repealing ObamaCare.

The Senator from Tennessee mentioned drilling in ANWR. There has been a majority in the Senate for quite some time, both when the Democrats were in the majority and when the Republicans were in the majority, to lift the ban against drilling in ANWR.

I think that would certainly be on any top 10 list that I was able to put together as majority leader. Approving the Keystone Pipeline, we have gotten as many as 60 votes for that. We have gotten as many as 56 votes for ANWR.

What about repealing the death tax? We had as many as 57 votes back in 2006 to repeal the death tax entirely. There is a new bill being introduced this afternoon by our colleague, Senator Thune of South Dakota, to get rid of the death tax altogether, to get rid of the dilemma every American faces. He has to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the same day, the government's final outrage.

These are the kinds of priorities our Members feel strongly about. I think I would be hard-pressed, with the new majority--having just witnessed the way the Senate was changed with a simple majority by the current Democratic majority--to argue that we should restrain ourselves from taking full advantage of this new Senate.

From the country's point of view, it is a huge step in the wrong direction. I am not advocating that, but I would be hard-pressed to say to our Members, the precedence having been set, why should we confine it to nominations.

I will say to my friend from Tennessee, the Senator is absolutely right. The one thing the two leaders have always agreed on is to protect the integrity of the institution.

For those who may be observing this colloquy, they probably wonder why it is occurring. I wish to explain to our colleagues--and to any others who may be watching while this colloquy occurs--Senate Republicans are tired of the culture of intimidation.

We have seen it over in the executive branch with the IRS and we have seen it at HHS with regard to ObamaCare; this feeling that if you are not in the majority you need to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way. That mentality, that arrogance of power, has seeped into the Senate.

The culture of intimidation is this: Do what I want to do when I want to do it or I will break the rules of the Senate--change the rules of the Senate by breaking the rules of the Senate. In other words, it is the intimidation, the threat that has been hanging over the Senate as an institution for the last few months. It needs to come to an end.

I believe that is why the Senator from Tennessee and myself would like the majority leader to answer the question does he intend to keep his word.

Senators shouldn't have to walk on eggshells around here, afraid to exercise the rights they have under the rules of the Senate. There is no question that all Senators have a lot of power in this body. This body operates on unanimous consent. That means if any 1 of the 100 wants to deny that, it makes it hard. That is the way the Senate has been for a very long time.

I want the culture of intimidation by the majority in the Senate to come to an end. The way it can end is for the majority leader to say: My word is good, and we will quit having this culture of intimidation hanging over the Senate for the next year and a half.

I wish to conclude by thanking the Senator from Tennessee for a very impressive presentation and for his reminding us all of what makes the Senate great.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a selfless Kentuckian, Mr. Arnold Lee Watson of Letcher County, KY. Watson voluntarily devotes his time and skills to raise money for the Veterans Program Trust Fund.

Mr. Watson is the father-in-law of Letcher County Clerk Winston Meade. Together they have created a service that is becoming popular among many Kentucky counties. As license plates are dropped off in the Letcher County office, Watson turns the old plates into pieces of art. Meade and Watson build and sell license plate birdhouses statewide in an effort to raise money for veterans' homes in eastern, central, and western Kentucky.

Meade first saw these birdhouses after he purchased two at a meeting with the Kentucky County Clerks Association. Mr. Watson is retired and saw that he could spend time making birdhouses to raise money for H.A.V.E, or Help A Veteran Everyday. His interest in helping veterans is inspired by his brothers, all who have served our country.

Help a Veteran Everyday, or H.A.V.E, is a program that was adopted in 2005 by the County Clerks of Kentucky. Across the Commonwealth, counties are taking actions to collect donations for the organization which helps ensure that Kentucky's 339,000 veterans are provided for.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from a local publication extolling the work of Mr. Watson be printed in the Record. Since this article was published, Watson has built more than 7,000 birdhouses and raised $140,000 in proceeds for Kentucky veterans. In addition, he placed third in an arts-and-crafts competition at the Kentucky State Fair in 2010.

Mr. Arnold Lee Watson's dedication and hard work not only helped Letcher County raise the most funds across the State, but also provided Kentucky veterans with the support and benefits they deserve.

``He loves working on them,'' Meade said of Watson in regard to building the license plate birdhouses.

Mr. President, the Obama economy has been pretty rough on our Nation's young people. If you are a teenager looking for work over the summer break or if you are a high-schooler looking for a part- time job after school, good luck with that. The unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds is 25 percent--25 percent--which is near historic highs. If you are a college graduate, things don't look much brighter. In fact, the unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is over 13 percent.

It hardly needs mentioning at this point that many Americans are likely to see their hours cut or their jobs disappear altogether as ObamaCare continues to come online. That is because so far we know that the President's new health care law will impose about 20,000 pages of onerous regulations and probably many more than that when all is said and done.

Many of these regulations will hit small businesses, which create the majority of new jobs in our country. Many of these regulations will hit part-time workers very hard. For instance, the law punishes businesses if they allow employees to work too many hours. So it is no surprise when we read any one of the numerous stories about companies slashing hours. It also punishes businesses if they dare to give jobs to too many people, so, of course, it will probably lead them to slash jobs or actually limit hiring.

I am sure the Washington Democrats who drafted ObamaCare thought they were striking some blow for ``fairness'' with these job-crushing ideas. Well, now the youth of our country are finding out what Democrats' so- called fairness means for them. It means smaller paychecks or no paychecks at all. It must seem pretty unfair from where they stand.

It actually gets a lot worse. Many experts predict that ObamaCare will also cause health care premiums to skyrocket, especially for younger Americans. Some studies show that young men in particular could see rate increases of 50 percent--50 percent--or more. Think about that. You work your tail off in high school just to get into a good college. You spend 4 years pulling all-nighters and cramming for finals, all for the privilege of putting on a gown, accepting your degree, and potentially spending who knows how long frantically searching to find work. Then, if you are lucky--if you are lucky--your hours get cut after you find a job or maybe your job gets cut altogether. You get a letter in the mail that says: Sorry, your premium is going up by double-digits. Can't pay the higher premium? Too bad. If you don't, Uncle Sam slaps you with a penalty tax. And for all the talk of subsidies, the studies indicate these payments from taxpayers might not even make up for the higher costs.

Look, I would be pretty disillusioned if I were in that position, and I think everyone else would be also. Well, it could get worse if Washington Democrats don't start getting serious about working with Republicans on student loans too. As I mentioned last week, President Obama and Republicans actually agree in broad terms on the way forward for student loan reform. As the President's Secretary of Education told Politico yesterday--this is the Obama administration's Secretary of Education:

My strong preference would be for a longer-term solution,

and not to just keep solving it this year, and then the next

year and then the next year.

So it is time for Senate Democrats to stop blocking us from enacting permanent reform because Federal rates for new student loans are set to double--double--if we don't act soon.

Several Senate Democratic leaders have basically already admitted to the media that they would rather have a failed bill they can morph into a campaign issue than a signed bill that can help 100 percent of students.

It is time for that to change, and they should not assume younger Americans will be that easily tricked one more time in 2014. These young men and women may be drowning in the Obama economy, but it is not because they are dumb or lazy or apathetic. It is because of policies dreamed up in Washington during the years of the Obama administration.

As the days go by, these young Americans are discovering just how unfairly Washington Democrats have treated them in the past few years.

Keeping a Commitment

Finally, Mr. President, we have been discussing on a daily basis whether the majority leader will keep the commitment he made at the beginning of the last two Congresses that no rules changes would be made other than by following the rules. In other words, the commitment was: I will not break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate.

My friend the majority leader has made that commitment on two occasions. He made it in January of 2011 for the next two Congresses. We are in the second Congress now. At the beginning of this Congress, we had an extensive discussion about rules changes, after which the vast majority of Senate Republicans supported two rules changes and two standing orders, and in return for those changes we made, the majority leader committed once again that

for this Congress he would not pull the nuclear trigger, as we call it around here, use the nuclear option; in other words, turn the Senate into the House.

So the majority leader will be confronted with his promise, his commitment, on a daily basis until we understand fully that he intends to keep his commitment to the Senate and to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, I would like to wish a happy, if slightly belated, 70th birthday to Norm Brownstein--a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather, and a talented and effective advocate for the alliance between the United States and Israel.

Norm's story is a classic American tale of a young man rising from humble beginnings to achieve big things. Born to an immigrant family, Norm was orphaned at an early age and faced a number of hardships. But he did not let that stop him from working hard or realizing his dreams--even if they differed from his original goal of becoming a dentist. In fact, Norm became the first member of his family to graduate from college and received both undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Colorado-Boulder.

He then opened a law firm with two fellow UC-Boulder law graduates in the 1960s. In the ensuing decades, that firm would transform into an agency with hundreds of employees and offices in all corners of the country.

And, as a board member of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, Norm would also establish himself as a well-regarded supporter of the State of Israel and the relationship between our two countries. Clearly passionate on the issue, Norm has made his case effectively to numerous policymakers over the years--Republicans and Democrats alike.

As he looks back over his 70 years, though, I think Norm will be most proud of his role as a father of three, a grandfather of four, and as a husband.

So, today, please allow me to wish Norm a happy birthday, and to also wish him good health in the years to come.

Mr. President, I wish to send my sympathies to the many families in Kentucky affected by a terrible bus accident that occurred yesterday afternoon. A group of Waggener High School students were returning to Louisville after a visit to Eastern Kentucky University when their bus crashed on Interstate 64. Of the 42 people onboard, 34 were taken to area hospitals. Thankfully, news sources report no loss of life. I am going to continue to closely follow the details of this accident.

The people of Kentucky, always generous of spirit, have already responded to this accident with an outpouring of support for the crash victims. I am grateful for that and I am grateful also that this situation was not much worse.

Mr. President, Senate Democrats are not content with the additional powers they have--powers greater than those enjoyed by any previous majority--so they intend to manufacture a crisis over nominations as a pretext for a further power grab. Yet the Senate is treating President Obama's nominees very fairly. For example, let's just look at how the Senate has treated his judicial nominees.

Overall, the Senate has confirmed 193 lower court judges and defeated only 2--defeated only 2. That is a .990 batting average--a .990 batting average. After this week, the Senate will have approved 24 of the President's lifetime appointments compared to just 9--9--for President Bush at a comparable point in his second term.

I will mention my party actually controlled the Senate then, so we could have arguably confirmed a lot more. President Bush got 9 at this point in his second term; President Obama 24.

Last Congress Obama had more district court confirmations than in any of the previous eight Congresses--previous eight Congresses. He also had almost 50 percent more confirmations--171--than President Bush-- 119--under similar circumstances.

To support an unprecedented power grab, the administration and its allies in the Senate have resorted to truly outlandish claims about how the President's judicial nominees are being treated--sort of making this stuff up.

Washington Post Fact Checker gave the President two Pinocchios for extreme claims about Republican delays of his judicial nominees, noting that in some ways the President's nominees are actually being moved along ``better'' than Bush's.

The Washington Post cited CRS's conclusion that from nomination to confirmation--one of the most relevant indicators, according to a Brookings scholar--Obama's circuit court nominations are being processed about 100 days quicker--100 days quicker--than President Bush's: 350.6 days for Bush to 256.9 for Obama.

Factcheck.org:

. . . during Obama's first term, his nominees to federal

appeals courts actually were confirmed more quickly on

average than Bush's first-term nominees, measured from the

day of nomination to the day of the confirmation vote.

Politifact:

. . . the average wait for George W. Bush's circuit court

nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation.

So, as you can see, Mr. President, this is a manufactured crisis--one that does not, in fact, exist--in order to try

to justify a power grab to fundamentally change the Senate.

At the beginning of each of last two Congresses, we have had this discussion at length. At the beginning of the previous Congress, here is what the majority leader said back in January of 2011. He said:

I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules, and I will

oppose--

``I will oppose,'' he said. This is January of 2011--

any effort in this Congress or the next to change the

Senate's rules other than through the regular order.

``I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next''--the one we are in now--to change the rules of the Senate in any other way than through the regular order. The regular order is it takes 67 votes--not even 60 but 67 votes--to change the rules of the Senate.

Not being willing to keep the commitment he made in January of 2011, we went around and around again at the beginning of 2013--this year-- and the Senate this year, after considerable discussion, joined by a number of Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, passed two new rules and two new standing orders. In the wake of that action, an additional commitment was made, and here was the exchange on the floor on January 24 of this year.

I said:

I would confirm with the majority leader that the Senate

would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing

order or rules this Congress unless they went through the

regular order process?

We had just done that. We followed the regular order, and we passed two rules changes and two standing orders.

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.

Now, that was not a promise made based on the majority leader's view of good behavior. But, of course, by any objective standard, there has not been any bad behavior anyway, even if that would justify breaking a commitment that was not contingent.

Now my friend the majority leader has taken to kind of leaving the floor in the hopes that somehow this would go away if only he were not here. What will not go away is the unequivocal commitment made at the beginning of this Congress so we would know what the rules were for the duration of this Congress.

I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle have a right to know whether the commitment made by the leader of this body--the leader of the majority and this body--is going to be kept. That is the only way we can function. Our word is the currency of the realm in the Senate.

As you can see from the facts, this is a manufactured crisis. There is no crisis over the way the Senate has functioned. In fact, except for these periodic threats by the majority leader to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate, we have been operating much better this Congress than in recent previous Congresses. Bills have been open for amendment. We have been able to get them to passage. They have been bipartisan in large measure.

The Senate these days is not broken. It does not need to be fixed, particularly if your judgment to fixing the Senate is to not keep a commitment you made at the beginning of the year.

So I would conclude by saying that I am going to bring this up every morning, and the majority leader not being here or not responding does not make it go away. What my colleagues in the minority have on their minds is whether the commitment will be kept, and at some point the majority leader is going to have to answer that question because it is not going away.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today for the sad occasion of paying tribute to a brave and honorable police officer from my home State of Kentucky who has fallen in the line of duty. Officer Jason Ellis, a seven-year veteran of the Bardstown Police Department, was tragically killed on May 25. He was 33 years old.

Officer Ellis worked as a field-training officer and a canine officer; with his police dog, Figo, he fought illegal drug use in Bardstown. Bardstown Police Chief Rick McCubbin described Officer Ellis as one of Bardstown's top officers and credited him with making a serious dent in the town's drug problem. Chief McCubbin also said these words: ``[He] paid the ultimate sacrifice doing what he loved: being a police officer.''

Jason Ellis, a native of Cincinnati, OH, attended the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, KY, where he was a star baseball player. He set records for all time career hits, doubles, home runs, and career games played, the last of which is still a record at the school. He played minor league baseball in the Cincinnati Reds system.

Even as a star on the diamond, however, coaches and teammates remember Jason Ellis talking about becoming a law enforcement officer. His wife, Amy, says: ``He was always a go-getter. . . He was dedicated to his job and he wanted to clean the streets up. And that was the way to get the drugs off the streets.''

On May 30, Officer Ellis was laid to rest at Highview Cemetery in Nelson County. Fellow law enforcement officers from across the Commonwealth as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois came to pay their respects, and hundreds of police cruisers made up the funeral procession. Over a thousand people filled the church sanctuary, with more standing along the aisles, to show their gratitude for Officer Ellis's service and sacrifice.

It is incredibly moving to see the broad outpouring of support from Kentuckians and the law enforcement community for Officer Ellis, which I pray was of some comfort to Officer Ellis's family at such a difficult time. Officer Ellis leaves behind his wife Amy and two sons, Hunter and Parker.

It can't be stated enough, Mr. President, how deep our admiration and respect is for every man and woman who wears a police uniform and makes a solemn vow to defend the lives of others, even at the cost of their own. Police officers provide stability and justice in our civil society. I know my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in extending the deepest sympathies to the family of Officer Jason Ellis and the members of the Bardstown Police Department. We are very sorry for their loss.

Mr. President, at any given time in our Nation's history, lawmakers have been faced with many pressing challenges. Some, by their very nature, demand immediate action. Others simply build over time, so forcing action on them usually involves some combination of both foresight and persuasion.

The great challenge of our own day, in my view, is figuring out how to reform government programs that are growing so big so fast that, unless we act, they will eventually consume the entire Federal budget. This is an issue I have devoted a lot of time and energy to over the last few years and that I had hoped the two parties could resolve in a way that would win the support of the public and the markets. As it turned out, the President wasn't as interested in that kind of an agreement as I was, so last year I reluctantly concluded we wouldn't be able to do anything significant about entitlements anytime soon. Without Presidential leadership, something such as that is just simply impossible. Hopefully, the

President will have a change of heart at some point on the most important issue of our time.

None of this means we can't try to do something about any of the other big issues we face, and that includes immigration. There may be some who think our current immigration system is working, but I haven't met them. I haven't met anybody who thinks the current immigration system is working. And as an elected leader in my party, it is my view that at least we need to try to improve the situation that, as far as I can tell, very few people believe is working well either for our own citizens or for those around the world who aspire to become Americans.

Everyone knows the current system is broken. Our borders are not secure. Those who come legally often stay illegally, and we don't know who or where they are. Our immigration laws last changed almost three decades ago, and they failed to take into account the needs of our rapidly changing economy. So what we are doing today is initiating a debate.

We are all grateful for the hard work of the so-called Gang of 8, but today's vote isn't a final judgment on their product as much as it is a recognition of the problem--a national problem--one that needs debate.

The Gang of 8 has done its work. Now it is time for the Gang of 100 to do its work--for the entire Senate to have its say on the issue and see if we can improve the status quo.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the bill has serious flaws. I will vote to debate it and for the opportunity to amend it, but in the days ahead there will need to be major changes to this bill if it is going to become law. These include, but are not limited to, the areas of border security, government benefits, and taxes.

I am going to need more than an assurance from Secretary Napolitano, for instance, that the border is secure to feel comfortable about the situation down on the border. Too often, recently, we have been reminded that as government grows, it becomes less responsible to the American people and fails to perform basic functions either through incompetence--incompetence--or willful disregard of the wishes of Congress. Our continued failure to secure major portions of the border not only makes true immigration reform far more difficult, it presents an urgent threat to our national security.

Some have criticized this bill for its cost to taxpayers, and that is a fair critique. Those who are here illegally shouldn't have their unlawful status rewarded--rewarded--with benefits and tax credits. So the bill has some serious flaws, and we need to be serious about trying to fix them. The goal should be to make the status quo better, not worse, and that is what the next few weeks are about. They are about giving the entire Senate, indeed the entire country, an opportunity to weigh in on this important debate to make their voices heard and to try to improve our immigration policy. What that means, of course, obviously, is an open amendment process.

Let me be clear. Doing nothing about the problem we all acknowledge isn't a solution. Doing nothing about the problem is not a solution, it is an avoidance strategy. The longer we wait to have this debate, as difficult as it is, the harder it will be to solve the problem.

We tried to do something 6 years ago and didn't succeed. We may not succeed this time either, but attempting to solve tough problems in a serious and deliberate manner is precisely what the Senate at its best should be doing, and that is what we are going to try to do in this debate.

Mr. President, it has now been 138 days since the Senate reached an agreement on the issue of whether we would violate the rules to change the rules--138 days since we reached an agreement. In that agreement, the Senate adopted two rules changes and two standing orders, and the majority leader made an unequivocal commitment, not contingent on his judgment of what was good behavior, but the matter was settled for this Congress. In fact, 2 years before that, he said it was settled for the next two Congresses.

So let's take a look at exactly what the majority leader's pledge was. This was back in 2011 when the majority leader said:

I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules--

In those rules--

and I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next--

The Congress we are in now--

to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular

order.

So the commitment on January 27, 2011, was not just for that Congress but for the next one as well.

Then 2 years later, on January 24 of this year, I said in a colloquy with the majority leader:

I would confirm with the majority leader that the Senate

would not consider other resolutions--

We had passed a couple of resolutions, a couple of rules changes, and a couple of standing orders--

relating to any standing order or rules this Congress--

That is the Congress we are in right now--

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.

Now, the regular order for changing rules is that the Parliamentarian would rule that it would take 67 votes to do that. But after these commitments were made both in January of 2011 and in January of this year, the majority leader has consistently repeated: In spite of what I said in January of each of the last 2 years, if Members are not on their best behavior, presumably, I will do this anyway.

So I mentioned to the majority leader publicly--privately for a long time and then publicly over the last few weeks--that I intend to ask him the question every day: Does he intend to keep his word?

That is critical around here. It is important for all Senators to keep their word, but it is particularly important for the majority leader, who has the opportunity to be, shall I say, more important than the rest of us because he gets to set the agenda and he gets to determine what the Senate will debate. He has the right of first recognition and, as he repeatedly reminds me in these colloquies, he will always have the last word. So I think the currency of the realm in the Senate is one's word.

So those are my observations today and will be my observations tomorrow until we get this established because I think the atmosphere in which the Senate operates, with this threat of a nuclear option holding over it, is not conducive to the kind of collegial environment we need in processing nominations and in processing legislation. We expect the majority leader to keep his word.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would just add, I had an opportunity to meet with Jeff Chiesa and his wife earlier today. I think the Governor of New Jersey has made a wise appointment. We look forward to working with him in the coming months.

Earlier this week, I came to the floor and asked Senate Democrats to work with us on permanent student loan reform. This is an issue ripe for bipartisan cooperation.

Both the President and Republicans want to prevent rates from going up in July, and the ideas Republicans have put forward on the issue are actually very similar to what the President has already proposed. This actually should be a slam dunk.

Instead, Senate Democrats have put forward a bill that fails the very benchmarks that the President himself set--a bill that is nothing more than a short-term political patch funded by permanent tax hikes. The bill would cost taxpayers more than $8 billion, yet only save students about $6 a month. Worse still, it is a bill Senate Democrats know will fail. In fact, they actually seem to be indicating they want it to fail.

Why would that be? Undoubtedly so they could keep this issue alive for the permanent campaign that never seems to end. Top Senate Democrats have stated themselves that they are ``not looking for compromise'' and that they are determined to show ``the difference between the two parties on a key issue,'' even when there isn't one.

Two of the most senior Democrats said those things. Those are direct quotes, so basically they are determined to force a partisan fight regardless of the costs to students. By the way they set up this morning's votes, it is pretty clear those votes are intentionally designed to fail.

So when the Senate Democrats get their wish and the bill fails this evening, I hope the President will step in to work with us on a serious permanent solution because, as I said, our ideas for reform are not all that different from his on this issue. Students should not be made to suffer just because some in this town seem to see them as rooks and pawns in a political chess match.

Look, this isn't a fight young Americans need, and they especially don't need this fight right now. Young men and women are already having a rough enough go in the Obama economy. Those who make it through college face a highly uncertain future once they get out in the real world, as their parents like to call it. They are having a real tough time finding a job.

Once ObamaCare comes online, experts predict their health care premiums are set to skyrocket. Young men in their mid-20s to mid-30s could see rate increases of 50 percent or more, depending on which study we look at.

Here is the thing: Even if premiums end up going up by just a small fraction of that amount, it is still going to create an enormous headache for the next generation. While the administration's allies promised subsidies, studies indicate those payments from taxpayers may not make up for the higher costs.

Many young folks seem to be living largely from paycheck to paycheck these days, often because they literally have no other choice. These men and women are just getting by as it is. Do we expect these Americans to be able to afford to pay even more?

Apparently Washington Democrats do. Because if young folks don't cough up money for health insurance, they are going to get hit with a penalty tax. So one way or the other, many are going to start paying more. That is just one more reason why Senate Democrats need to get serious about the student loan issue.

This summer alone more than 9 million college students will take out

nearly $7,000 worth of loans and about $25,000 in total by the time they earn their degrees. That is a smart investment, but it is also a lot of money. We owe them certainty and stability and permanent reform along the lines Republicans and President Obama have called for, and those two proposals, as I said, are not that far apart and actually accomplish that result. It is time for the Democrats in Washington to put the campaigning aside and work with us to enact that kind of reform.

Mr. President, I have said repeatedly--and I will say again today--the Senate needs to know whether the majority leader intends to uphold a commitment he has now twice made, and this commitment was that he would not break the rules of the Senate to change the rules.

Specifically, both at the beginning of the last Congress and at the beginning of this Congress, he committed to the Senate and to the American people that he would not use what is referred to as the ``nuclear option.'' These were very clear commitments. They were not contingent commitments or commitments made with caveats. They were not contingent commitments or commitments made with caveats.

Here we have the exact words of the majority leader on this chart. At the beginning of the previous Congress, on January 27, 2011, the majority leader said:

I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules, and I will

oppose any effort in this Congress or the next--

and listen to this, I say to the Presiding Officer and my colleagues--

or the next--

or the next, meaning the Congress we are in now--

to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular

order.

No contingencies, no caveats, no saying unless I decide I don't like certain behavior.

In this Congress there was an exchange between myself and the majority leader. Here is what I said on January 24 of 2013, this year:

Finally, I would confirm with the majority leader that the

Senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any

standing order or rules this Congress unless they went

through the regular order process?

At the beginning of this session, we passed a couple of rules changes, a couple of standing orders. We made some changes and we made those changes in return for the majority leader's commitment, which follows. 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.

In other words, an unequivocal, noncontingent commitment, so that everyone knew the rules of the Senate for the entire Congress. There was no sort of hanging a sword of Damocles over our heads and saying, if Members don't behave as I wish, I will break my word. Now the suggestion apparently is, Members have to behave in a certain way to satisfy me or my word doesn't mean anything.

This is a serious matter. We are only one-half of 1 year through a 2- year Congress, and the Senate and the American people deserve to know whether the word of the majority leader will be kept.