Floor Statements

Mr. President, today is the 69th anniversary of the D- day invasion. On June 6, 1944, 160,000 allied troops landed along a 50- mile stretch of heavily fortified French coastline in a surprise attack against the forces of Nazi Germany. The cost was exceedingly high--more than 9,000 allied soldiers were killed or wounded that day--but the Normandy invasion was the beginning of a successful conclusion of the war.

I am also honored to recognize the distinguished group of World War II veterans from my home State of Kentucky who have made the trip to our Nation's Capital today--appropriately enough on D-day--to visit the National World War II Memorial on the Mall. This memorial celebrates their service, as well as the service of the brave warriors who landed on Normandy Beach, and every man and woman in uniform who fought to defend freedom in World War II.

This group includes 26 veterans who were able to make the trip to see their memorial thanks to the Honor Flight Program. The Bluegrass Chapter of Honor Flight has brought over 1,000 veterans, most of them from Kentucky, to Washington, DC for this purpose. This program provides transportation, lodging, and food for the veterans. Without Honor Flight many of these veterans would never be able to visit the Capitol or see the World War II Memorial.

As have many of my colleagues, I have been privileged to visit with groups of Honor Flight veterans on several occasions before, and I am pleased to report that I will be meeting with today's group at the Memorial as well. My father served in World War II. He got there after D-day and after the Battle of the Bulge. He was there from March of 1945 through the end of war when we were pushing the Germans back into their own country. I wish he had lived long enough to have had an opportunity to visit the World War II Memorial. I know it would have meant a lot to him, as it does to today's surviving veterans.

As World War II recedes further into the past, sadly, we are losing more of these living legends. We have just had to say goodbye to our friend Senator Frank Lautenberg, the last World War II veteran to serve in this body. The passage of time makes it all the more important to thank these heroes for their service before it is too late.

Today is a perfect occasion to do just that, and I look forward to meeting this group of courageous Kentucky veterans from towns such as Owensboro, Hartford, Louisville, Covington, Berksville, Lexington, Springfield, Mount Washington, and Taylorsville.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader with regard to our late colleague Frank Lautenberg. He was, indeed, a member of the greatest generation, having fought in World War II and also has had distinguished service in the Senate.

I would also like to mention to my friend the majority leader, before he leaves the floor, I indicated to him before the recess that I intended to bring up each day going forward a commitment he made to the Senate back in January of 2011 and again in January of 2013--the beginning of the last two Congresses--with regard to using the nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate.

The most important currency of the realm in the Senate is one's word, and my good friend the majority leader said in January of 2011: ``I will oppose any effort in this Congress, or the next, to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular order.'' It was not a contingent commitment, it was not a contingent based on my judgment of good behavior, it was a commitment.

Then again in January of 2013, in an exchange the majority leader and I had on the floor, I said 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. That was my question to my friend the majority leader to which he replied, ``That is correct.'' Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the Rules Committee.

My point is the commitment has been made, an unequivocal commitment has been made. In the Senate, of course, how we deal with all issues is related to keeping our word. It will be important for the Senate to understand, before we go much further this year, what the majority leader's intentions are. Does he plan to keep his word issued in January of 2011 and January of 2013 or not? I think the Senate is entitled to an answer. All Senators would be entitled to an answer, but particularly the minority would be interested in an answer to that before we go any further into this session.

Student Loans

With regard to the loan rates for students, I think it is interesting to note, as we go into this needless controversy because we are not that far apart, one of the driving reasons for the increase in the student loan rates--two of them--is directly related to the passage of ObamaCare. In ObamaCare, the Democratic majority, without a single Republican vote, abolished the student loan program. The government took it over and raised the rates. So that is one reason rates are going up. The second reason is the Medicaid mandate, which the Supreme Court said is optional, but States are now wrestling with whether to accept this additional responsibility for vast new numbers of Americans who will receive a free health care card.

The two biggest items in every State budget are Medicaid and education. As Medicaid expenses rise, what State governments all across America have done is reduced educational funding to public colleges and universities, and in response to that the colleges and universities raise tuition. So the new generation coming along is getting it both ways: The rates are going up and the tuition is going up, so they have to pay back more at a higher rate, all related to something young people had nothing to do with, which was the passage of ObamaCare.

Washington has had to grapple with a lot of big issues over the past few years and we have had some pretty heated debates because there were real philosophical differences over how to address those challenges. That is why it is so nice to work on an issue where the two parties are in relative agreement. We are not that far apart on this student loan issue now. Neither party wants to see the rates rise in July, and both the President and Republicans generally agree on the way to make that happen. So there is no reason we should be fighting over this issue at this particular point. There is no reason the President should be holding campaign-style events to bash Republicans for supposedly opposing him on student loans when we are in agreement on the need for a permanent reform and when the plan we put forward is actually pretty similar to his own. Yet, somehow, that is what we saw last Friday at the White House.

That is certainly not going to help the students. Having a true policy debate is one thing, but provoking a partisan squabble seemingly for its own sake is, frankly, ridiculous. Our constituents sent us here to govern, not to try to pick fake fights in some crusade to restore Nancy Pelosi to her speakership.

What I am saying to the President and my Democratic friends is this: Let's put politicking aside. There is no reason for a fight here. I hope we can finally begin to work. Students are counting on us to actually get something done.

Here is a quick rundown of where we are on the issue. There is the Senate Democratic plan that everyone knows is just a political bill--a short-term fix that would only apply to less than half of the students who plan to take out new loans--new loans--and it would impose permanent tax hikes--permanent tax hikes--in return for a temporary plan for half of the students. Let me repeat that: Another temporary fix paid for with a permanent tax hike. Even the President has dismissed this approach. So in my view it is not worth much of a discussion at this point.

The fact is the proposals Republicans put forward are actually closer to what President Obama has asked for. We both agree on the need for permanent reform that takes the decisions on interest rates out of the hands of politicians. The House has already passed a bill that would achieve those two goals, and Senate Republicans have put forward a bill that is also similar to the President's proposal, as both of our plans would employ a variable market rate that, as with a mortgage, doesn't change over the life of an individual student's loan. The President said he opposed a bill that didn't lock in rates. Ours gives students the certainty that the President agrees they should have. So if the President were serious about getting this done, he would have spent that time on Friday ringing up Senators to see how we could bridge our relatively small differences, not having a press conference and bashing Congress. This is one issue where both parties can find quick agreement, but only if Washington Democrats have the will to do so. Young Americans already have enough to worry about. They don't need Washington creating even more problems for them.

The youth unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is over 13 percent. In Kentucky it is more than 14 percent. Once many students graduate from college, they face a highly uncertain future. So the President has a choice to make: Does he want to push some campaign issue for 2014 or does he want to address the problem here and prevent this rate increase?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, according to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama has had his Cabinet nominees confirmed quicker than his predecessors during the same period in the second term-- quicker.

I don't know what the majority leader thinks advise and consent means. Listening to him it means: Sit down, shut up, don't ask any questions, and confirm immediately. I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Talk about manufacturing a problem--the Secretary of Energy, 97 to 0; the Secretary of Interior, 87 to 11; Secretary of the Treasury, 71 to 26; Office of Management and Budget, 96 to 0; Secretary of State, 94 to 3--in 7 days.

What we have just heard, I am afraid for my good friend the majority leader, in spite of the baseball analogy--and I read in the papers this morning he has been meeting with his members and trying to get 51 votes to blow the Senate up.

We have important issues coming down the pike. We want to finish the farm bill. We have been working hard to develop a broad bipartisan support for an immigration bill. We know what is going on here. What I fear is that the majority leader is working his way toward breaking his word to the Senate and to the American people, blowing up this institution, and making it extremely difficult for us to operate on the collegial basis we have operated on for over 200 years.

He wants to have no debate. Do what I say and do it now. This is the culture of intimidation we have seen at the IRS, HHS, FCC, SEC, and now here at the Senate: Do what I say when I say it. Sit down and shut up or we will change the rules. We will break the rules to change the rules.

We need to think over how we conduct ourselves in this body. The majority leader has a very important position. It is not only to lead the party of the majority, it is also to protect the institution. What I hear lacking in that speech is any interest whatsoever in protecting the traditions of this institution. What I hear is: We are going to get our way as rapidly as possible. You guys and gals, sit down and shut up. Don't ask too many questions; don't make it take a week longer. Do what we say, and if you don't, we will break the rules to change the rules. That is what this is about.

I want to make sure everybody understands where the majority leader is taking us. Make no mistake about it, the American people have given us divided government, but that doesn't mean they expect us not to accomplish things. We are on the cusp of beginning

an extremely important debate about the future of the country after the recess, but we know what is going on. What I hear is the majority leader does not want to keep his word to the Senate or to the American people. We will take that into consideration as we move forward.

With regard to this D.C. Circuit nomination--talk about a manufactured crisis. This well-qualified nominee came out of the committee unanimously. We have been operating on confirming judges on the basis of coming out of committee. So the majority leader decided that wasn't good enough and to do it now.

Yesterday I objected to that simply because--we did not have a problem here. We have been operating in a very collegial and sensible way. However, he has now manufactured something he can call a filibuster by filing cloture on a nominee we were prepared to confirm in an up-or-down vote in a week from now. So we ought to confirm him now.

Therefore, as I noted yesterday, Senate Republicans don't have a problem with an up-or-down vote on this pending nominee for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, the day after his nomination appeared on the Executive Calendar for the first time, we offered to have an up-or-down vote on the nomination. The only thing we asked was that Members who did not serve on the Judiciary Committee have at least a reasonable amount of time to review his record. Unfortunately, the majority would not take yes for an answer.

Instead, it moved to set a 60-vote hurdle by filing cloture on the nomination the day after it first appeared on the calendar. It was heavyhanded, and, frankly, completely mystifying. As I said, the nomination had been on the Executive Calendar for barely a day, but we are not going to let the majority leader manufacture an obstruction crisis where none exists.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled for Executive Calendar No. 95 be vitiated; further, the Senate proceed to executive session at 1 p.m. today for the consideration of Calendar No. 95; there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form, and at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, and that the President then be notified of Senate's action.

Let me make sure everybody understands where we are. Let's have no misunderstandings. What the majority leader is doing is trying to get 51 votes to break the rules of the Senate and change the rules of the Senate. We know what he is doing, and let's make no mistake what the stakes are: He is threatening this institution, which he elected, in part, to protect, by manufacturing a crisis that does not exist. As we all know, in the Senate every Senator has the ability to impact how we do business. Unanimous consent means exactly what it says, unanimous consent.

I hope the majority leader will think long and hard, and I hope my friends in the majority, who may some day be in the minority--I know there are a lot of new Democratic Senators who think that will never happen, but amazingly enough the American people do, from time to time, change their minds about who they want running the country. The shoe could be on the other foot, and we never know when. I could have the job the majority leader currently has.

I think we need to think long and hard about protecting this institution and its traditions, particularly manufacturing crises when they don't exist.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, now I wish to talk about a real scandal and not a manufactured crisis.

Nearly 2 weeks have now passed since we learned about the scandal at the IRS. The more we learn, the more troubling it becomes. It is now clear this was about much more than one or two employees going rogue at some far-flung office out in the administrative hinterlands as was first suggested.

The facts we have seen so far point to something far more systemic than that, and it shouldn't surprise anybody. This is the IRS we are talking about--the IRS. This is an agency that is basically a euphemism for mind-numbing bureaucracy--the kind of place where one would assume nobody does much of anything without signatures and countersignatures from section chiefs and subsection chiefs and deputy office heads and secondary assistant deputy subassociate directors; sort of like a Kafka novel without the laughs.

So what we first heard always stretched credulity. Employees at ground zero of the Federal bureaucracy going rogue? Come on. Think back to the testimony we heard this week--or didn't hear. Why did Lois Lerner and other senior and former IRS officials refuse to address questions they had previously misled Congress? Somehow I doubt it is because they had nothing of interest to say. We will look forward to hearing more from them and we will look forward to hearing from whomever actually made the decisions that led to these abuses, since no one we have heard from yet is able to take responsibility for what went on.

Let's not forget the administration continues to give us different timelines about who knew what and when.

So the long and short of the situation is this: The public doesn't know the full story yet. A number of my constituents have shared stories with my office about the IRS auditing their organizations and businesses during the recent Presidential campaign for the first time ever. All of a sudden they get

audited during the Presidential campaign for the first time ever.

These folks believe the audits were conducted for no other reason than the fact that their groups were conservative, and they believe the questions they have been asked have more to do with their political views than their business activities.

Without a proper investigation, frankly, we will just never know. So we owe it to our constituents to have a detailed and deliberate investigation. That is why both House and Senate committees have begun investigations into the matter.

That is why, last week, every Republican on the Finance Committee signed a letter to the Inspector General for Tax Administration requesting a probe into reports that the IRS leaked confidential information about conservative groups--actually, to their political opponents--leaked information about conservative groups to their political opponents, and that is why even the FBI is looking into the matter, because as Attorney General Holder recently testified, the IRS's targeting of conservative groups could have violated numerous criminal provisions.

I am willing to bet there is a lot more we will discover in terms of scope, in terms of timeline, in terms of who was involved and why. But we certainly can't go about fixing the problem--we can't remove all of those who need to be removed, we can't put safeguards in place if they are deemed necessary--until we find out all the details.

Here is another thing we shouldn't be doing: handing over the administration of ObamaCare to these folks--handing over the administration of ObamaCare to the IRS. Think about that, the deeply unpopular law being administered by an agency that has so betrayed the public trust. Even the IRS's staunchest defenders in this scandal describe their actions as a case of ``horrible customer service.'' That is the best they can say: ``Horrible customer service.'' Now they are going to be put in charge of a new $1 trillion program, one that will give them access to all sorts of sensitive and deeply personal information?

That is just what the administration and congressional Democrats are about to let happen. The IRS is in charge of administering some of the most important elements of ObamaCare, and for many Americans that is going to mean submitting to probing questions about their health insurance, questions such as--this is the IRS asking you, American citizens: Do you have insurance? What kind of insurance is it? Does it follow our rules? If the people at the IRS don't like the answers, Americans will be hit with new taxes. If the people over at the IRS don't like the answers to their questions about Americans' health insurance, they will be hit with new taxes.

For small businesses, the questions are going to be far more extensive and the consequences for noncompliance far worse. The agency will have broad discretion to define what constitutes noncompliance. The IRS will have broad authority to determine what is noncompliance with ObamaCare. This is nuts.

The potential for waste and abuse would have been there regardless of which agency was put in charge of administering this bloated law. ObamaCare is massive--about 20,000 pages of regulations already. That is about 7 feet tall. So waste and abuse is basically unavoidable, but now we are going to have Americans worrying they might be discriminated against too, just for having an opinion. Do my colleagues know what. We are not going to be able to tell them not to worry because we don't know the truth ourselves yet.

Guess who is heading the IRS office charged with managing ObamaCare. Get this. It is the very same person who led the division of IRS now embroiled in the scandal who oversaw the very office now under fire for the discriminatory and harassing behavior. I am not making this up.

Here is what needs to be done today: No. 1, the administration needs to work honestly and transparently with us to get to the bottom of this scandal once and for all. They can do that by working cooperatively with congressional investigators. They can do it by testifying openly and sharing key documents with House and Senate committees. They can help us conduct a thorough administrationwide review to ensure no other discrimination of this kind is occurring anywhere else--anywhere else-- in the Federal Government.

No. 2, the administration needs to suspend its implementation of ObamaCare until all the things I mentioned have been taken care of. The Supreme Court declared the individual mandate, the core of ObamaCare, to be a tax--a tax--so IRS involvement is going to be absolutely unavoidable. That needs to be halted.

Better yet, the administration could work with us to repeal the law and put in place health reforms that might actually work to control costs and provide better quality of care for our constituents. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, by the way, but here is what I do know. I know we need to get to the bottom of this IRS scandal because, at a minimum, Americans from the left, right, and center should not have to worry their government will harass or intimidate them for daring--daring--to have an opinion and express it. They shouldn't have to worry about that when partaking in the political process, and they certainly should not have to worry about it when it comes to an issue as personal and as sensitive as health care.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Monday, May 27, is Memorial Day--the day Americans set aside to honor the brave men and women in uniform who have made the greatest possible sacrifice for their country.

Memorial Day was informally begun by MG John A. Logan, the head of an organization of Union Army Civil War veterans, in 1868. It is believed Major General Logan chose a date in late May because flowers would be in bloom all over the country. He asked the Nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers.

Mr. President, 1.1 million Americans have died defending the country in our Nation's wars. Freedom as we know it--here at home and around the world--would not exist without their heroism.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has played a vital role in this Nation's defense during our history. I am honored to represent Kentuckians in the Armed Forces, including those stationed at Fort Knox, Fort Campbell, the Blue Grass Army Depot, and members of the Reserves and Kentucky National Guard.

At Fort Knox, the Memorial Day ceremony this year will continue a tradition of honoring the memory of one particular fallen soldier. This year, that soldier is PFC David P. Nash of Daviess County, KY.

While serving in Vietnam on December 29, 1968, 20-year-old Private First Class Nash valiantly rolled on top of an exploding grenade to save the lives of three other soldiers. We must not forget the deeds of Private First Class Nash, or the many other men and women in uniform who gave their lives in service.

Memorial Day is a day to honor their memories, and to let their loved ones know our country has not forgotten them. I know my fellow Kentuckians agree that we are honored to fly the flag which these brave heroes sought to protect.

Mr. President, recently we have seen troubling signs. There are some in the executive branch who would use the power of the Federal

Government to intimidate political opponents. For instance, there were reports that the IRS targeted conservative groups for harassment and discriminatory treatment because they sought to exercise their first amendment rights of freedom of association and speech, and during the debate on ObamaCare when the Department of Health and Human Services issued a gag order on insurance plans in an attempt to prevent them from telling their customers about problems with the bill.

Now there are published reports that the same department is trying to shake down some of these same companies for money so it can try to convince Americans to finally like ObamaCare.

Over at the FCC, the President's allies are trying to shut down or make it difficult for people who want to buy advertising to exercise their first amendment rights to criticize the administration. There are similar efforts over at the SEC. It all points to a culture of political intimidation.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the culture of intimidation is simply confined to the executive branch. The administration's allies in the Senate are trying to intimidate their political opponents as well. What I am talking about is the persistent threat by the majority to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate; in other words, to use the nuclear option if they don't get their way.

For example, Senate Democrats were incensed that Republicans had the temerity to exercise their advice and consent responsibility to block a grand total of just one nominee to the DC Circuit. What did our Democratic colleagues do in response? They consulted with the White House and pledged to pack the DC court with appointees ``one way or another''--meaning use the nuclear option.

They are certainly not doing this because the DC Circuit is burdened with cases--far from it. The DC Circuit is one of the least busy courts in the country. They want to use the nuclear option to pack the DC Circuit so it can rubberstamp the President's big government agenda-- the same big government we have seen over at the IRS and elsewhere.

That is not the limit of the culture of intimidation in the Senate. Let's look at the NLRB situation. Despite the story that the administration and Senate Democrats want to spin, Senate Republicans did not block the President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board; rather, it was the President who blocked the nominees to the Republican slots on the NLRB so he could, once again, pack a powerful branch of government, in this case, the NLRB.

The administration sat on one of the two Democratic vacancies at the NLRB for 4 months. Then it waited until the middle of December in 2011 to send up both nominees for the Democratic seats on the NLRB while refusing to send up any of the nominees for the Republican seats. In fact, the administration sat on the Republican nominees to the NLRB for 9 months.

Then, with no Republican nominees to the NLRB before the Senate, the President purported to recess appoint the two Democratic nominees to the Board when their nominations had been before the Senate for less than 3 weeks. It was so fast the majority leader didn't even have time to schedule a hearing. Our Democratic colleagues did not defend the Senate from the President's unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab. Senate Republicans had to do that.

Now that the DC Circuit has found these purported appointments to be unconstitutional--by the way, that was a unanimous three-judge court-- and other circuit courts are agreeing with its reasoning, what is the Democratic majority threatening to do now? It is planning to double down and aid the administration with its power grab at the NLRB.

Specifically, as with their effort to pack the DC circuit, the majority is threatening to use the nuclear option so they can push through unlawfully appointed board members over the principled objection of Senate Republicans. It doesn't seem that our Democratic colleagues want to respect the rules of the Senate or that they want to respect the rulings of our Federal courts. It appears they want to enable the President and organized labor to exercise power at a powerful Federal agency without anyone getting in the way.

Let's be clear. These threats to use the nuclear option because of obstruction are just pretext for a power grab.

What are the facts? The Senate has confirmed 19 of the President's judicial nominees so far this year. At this point in President Bush's second term when my party controlled the Senate, President Bush had a grand total of four judicial nominees confirmed. There have been 19 confirmed so far in the second term of President Obama with Democratic control of the Senate and four in the second term of President Bush with a Republican control of the Senate.

Moreover, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee just voted unanimously to support the President's current nomination to the DC Circuit. The Senate Republican conference agreed yesterday to hold an up-or-down vote on his nomination--which has only been on the calendar since Monday of this week--to occur after the Memorial Day recess. That way Members who do not serve on the committee, which is a vast majority of the Senate, could have at least 1 week to evaluate this important nomination.

Instead, the majority leader chose to jam the minority. He rejected our offer for an up-or-down vote, just 10 days or so from now, and filed cloture on the nomination just 1 day after it appeared on the executive calendar. This is just another example of the majority manufacturing a crisis to justify heavy-handed behavior.

As for the NLRB, Republicans are willing to support nominees who are not unlawfully appointed and who have not been unlawfully exercising governmental power. Regarding nominees generally, Senate Republicans have been willing to work with the President to get his team in place. The Secretary of Energy was confirmed 97 to 0, the Secretary of Interior was confirmed 87 to 11, the Secretary of the Treasury was confirmed 71 to 26, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget was confirmed 96 to 0, and the Secretary of State was confirmed 94 to 3, just 7 days after the Senate received his nomination.

These continued threats to use the nuclear option point to the majority's own culture of intimidation in the Senate. Their view is that we had better confirm the people they want when they want them or they will break the rules of the Senate to change the rules so we can't stop them. So much for respecting the rights of the minority and so much for a meaningful application of advice and consent.

Senate Republicans will work with the administration and the Democratic majority, but we will not be intimidated. We have principled objections to some of the President's nominees and constant threats to break the rules are not going to work. Constant threats to break the rules are not going to work. We want to work with the Democrats, but these tactics are not the way to go about getting our cooperation.

The majority leader has twice committed on the Senate floor not to use the nuclear option. The last time was just a few months ago. These were not conditional commitments. They were not commitments not to violate the rules of the Senate unless it became convenient for political purposes to violate the rules of the Senate.

The comments of Senators are supposed to matter. Our words are supposed to mean something around here. The commitments of the Senate majority leader need to matter. We simply cannot start breaking commitments around here, especially on something that goes to the very essence of the Senate. The majority leader needs to keep his commitments.

I indicated to the majority leader I was going to ask unanimous consent--and I assume he has a copy of it--on the DC Circuit Court nomination that the majority leader filed a cloture motion on last night. We have already stated that we agreed to a debate and a vote which came out of the committee unanimously.

We confirmed two judicial nominations Monday of this week, and we have an additional two scheduled for later this week. I have already indicated that confirmations of judges this year are stunningly fair to the majority compared to a time when President Bush was in his second term and my party controlled the Senate.

Again, I remind my colleagues that we confirmed 19 judges this year. We will have 21 judges confirmed by the end of this week.

Therefore, bearing that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion filed on Calendar No. 95 be vitiated and the Senate proceed to the consideration of this nomination at a time on Tuesday, June 4, to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader; further, I ask that there be 1 hour of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form; that at the expiration or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, the first time this nominee, who was reported out of committee unanimously, appeared on the Executive Calendar was 2 days ago. President Obama waited years before making any nominations to the DC Circuit. Then he made just one--Caitlin Halligan--and this is his second nominee to that court.

More broadly, the issue is, How has the Senate been treating President Obama? We have confirmed a total of 190 Obama judicial nominations. We have defeated two. That is 190 to 2. There are 70 percent of the Federal judicial seats without any nominees--70 percent of the vacancies without any nominees.

Look, this is a manufactured crisis. The core point here, I would say to my friend the majority leader: We have a good relationship. We work together every day. But the majority leader gave his word to the Senate that we would determine what the rules are for this Congress. A number of my Members felt it was settled. We voted for resolutions and some rules changes at the beginning of the year based upon the majority leader's word. It is important for his word to mean something, not just to his Members but to ours.

Statistically, it is not true. The math can't be denied. It is simply not true that we have been mistreating the President in any way with regard to the confirmation process. With regard to the way the Senate itself is working, the majority leader has been actually quite complimentary, and I give him credit for helping us to get back to normal here, to have a regular process on bills. WRDA is a good example of where we were calling up amendments. Many of them we are getting on without even a motion to proceed, based upon the majority leader's representation we are going to have votes and, by golly, we have been having votes and, amazingly enough, Senators like that. They are not marginalized by a process under which they don't get to participate. So I think we have made an enormous amount of progress. I wish to make sure the majority leader intends to keep his word, so we can continue to have the kind of collegial, constructive atmosphere we have had this year in the Senate throughout the balance of this Congress.

Mr. President, let me thank my friend the majority leader for confirming that he intends to keep his word.

With regard to judicial nominations, the facts are not irrelevant. Of the 33 nominations in the Senate we have acted on this year--this calendar year--cloture has been required on three: Brennan, Hagel, and Halligan, and cloture was not invoked on only one. We have confirmed 33 boards--actually judges, agencies--33 nominations confirmed this year. Cloture was required on only three, and cloture was not invoked on only one.

My only point to my friend the majority leader is, the math is hard to dispute. We have made a major effort here to move the Senate back in the direction that I know the majority leader and I agree on, the way the Senate ought to operate. We have made major progress. I think that progress needs to be recognized. My friend the majority leader said it on various occasions this year in connection with bills we have processed in a fair and open way with plenty of amendments and an opportunity for everybody to be involved. So let's tone down the rhetoric.

I want to say again I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to keep his word. It is important around here. It has a lot to do with how we go forward. I think the conversation this morning has been constructive, and I thank him. I am sorry he feels we can't wait 10 days to do this nominee, particularly since there are circuit judges, I believe, and maybe district judges as well, already on the calendar. The way we have been trying to do it around here that I thought the majority leader agreed with is we would take them up in the order they came out and appeared on the calendar. I know, for example, there is a judge from Wyoming that Senators from Wyoming in my party are for, and they are asking me why this particular nominee was jumped over, over their nominee, because we have been sequencing these, I believe, have we not, as they come out.

So here we have a nominee we all agree on for a court that is not overloaded with work--a nomination only recently made and recently confirmed--and the only dispute here seems to be over whether we do it this week or a week from now. Thus, my friend, that is why I call this a manufactured crisis. There is no crisis here. We are not arguing over this nominee. We like him. So the majority leader can make us have a cloture vote this week and we can skip over the judges who have been waiting who came out of committee and are on the calendar if he so chooses; there are some advantages to being the majority leader. But goodness gracious, we have enough arguments here over things we disagree on, and it sounds to me as though we are having an argument over something we agree on.

So I hope we can tone down the rhetoric and continue the good way we have been operating this year. We have big, controversial issues coming our way. Let's don't make being a Senator and functioning in the Senate any more difficult than it is anyway, because we have big differences about the future of the country. But let's have those debates in a collegial way and not manufacture crises that don't exist.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, I think what we are witnessing here is a manufactured crisis. We are doing four judges this week--this very week--four judges. There are five others on the calendar before the nominee the majority leader has been trying to get us to process this week. I think it is a better policy to continue to set votes that the facts show are in a timely way.

Why are we doing this? We are not having a problem confirming judges. I don't understand. Why are we doing this? It doesn't make any sense. We have big issues coming our way on immigration, for example, that are going to be very controversial. Members on both sides have been making every effort to tone down the rhetoric, to get us in the proper place to deal with a very difficult and contentious piece of legislation.

Why are we doing this? What is the point? All of these judges are going to be approved in a relatively short period of time in an orderly process we have been working on all year that has produced four times as many judicial confirmations for President Obama in his second term as President Bush had at this point in his first term when we had a Republican Senate.

This is an unprecedented, rapid pace for confirmations. So I would say to my friend, why are we doing this? I am going to object, but I would like to know what the point is. What is the problem?

Mr. President, I gather, listening to the majority leader, the whole purpose is to stack the court. So the real issue, I guess, is he disagrees with the rulings on the DC Circuit.

Look, we have been voting to confirm judges we know we will not prefer the outcome of their decisions. But it sounds to me like the majority leader has finally kind of fessed up to what the real problem is. The reason it needs to be done this week versus next week is because he does not like what the DC Circuit is doing. So it does not have anything to do with caseload or anything else. In fact, what is unprecedented is confirming a DC Circuit court judge 2 days after he has been on the calendar--2 days. Goodness. What is the difference between now and next week? I find it impossible to understand.

In fact, I do not understand why we are having this whole discussion this morning. We have plenty of things to debate around here and plenty of things we disagree upon. We have had an orderly process. This Congress has done well: 19 judges compared to 4 for President Bush at this point.

If there is still a consent request pending, I object.

I think the majority leader and I ought to sit down like we normally do and figure this out and eliminate a manufactured crisis and go forward.

Yes, I know the majority leader will always have the last word. That is the advantage of being in the majority and not the minority. I think it has been actually a good discussion this morning. I think we have demonstrated there is no real problem. We have confirmed the President's nominees both for the judiciary and for the executive branch in a very timely fashion, and we will continue to process these judges in consultation with the majority leader as they come along.

Since the majority leader always reminds me he has the last word, I am hesitant to speak again. But we will continue to process these judges in an orderly fashion, as we have all year long, and, hopefully, he and I can discuss this further off the floor and find a way forward.

Mr. President, we are all thinking today about the tragic loss of life in Oklahoma yesterday, so this morning I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to all who lost family and friends in this horrible disaster. It has been a truly heartbreaking loss of life--dozens injured and killed yesterday, including many children. The tornado that tore through Moore flattened entire neighborhoods and destroyed at least two elementary schools--Briarwood and Plaza Towers--just as students were about to be released for their last week of school before the summer recess. I don't think any of us can comprehend the searing grief of their parents. I am told that two crews from the Louisville Red Cross recently left for Oklahoma to help those who are now suffering.

Kentuckians understand the terrible toll these storms can take. Just last March I toured the wreckage after a deadly tornado in West Liberty, KY, where churches, businesses, and schools were reduced to rubble and where several Kentuckians lost their life. I remember full well the tornado that went through my hometown of Louisville back in the 1970s. It knocked down every house on my parents' street. My mother was in the basement, and mercifully it skipped over our house for some reason but leveled all the houses across the street and the ones next door. It is very hard to accurately describe the devastation a storm such as this leaves in its wake.

As first responders continue to dig through the rubble in Moore, I fear we will hear a lot more bad news in the days ahead. That said, I am sure we will also hear stories of hope and self-sacrifice, as we almost always do when tragedies such as this strike--of strangers shielding strangers, of neighbors helping others rebuild, of volunteers working through the night to sift through the debris to find survivors.

As we have seen time and time again in recent years, Americans are at their best when called upon to help each other in tragic circumstances, and this circumstance can hardly be more tragic. So we in the Senate offer our heartfelt prayers to those affected by this terrible storm. We offer our gratitude to the first responders. We offer our encouragement to Governor Fallin and the many Federal, State, and local officials who are working hard to assist in the recovery and who will aid in the rebuilding of homes and schools and families and lives.

Welcoming Burma's President

Later this morning the majority leader and I will welcome the leader of Burma, Thein Sein. He will be here to discuss the reform in that country and our bilateral relationship. Later today I will have more to say about the reform movement in Burma.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am going to proceed on my leader time.

For the past two decades, I have been coming to the Senate floor to condemn acts of the Burmese regime against its own people. For the past decade, for these same reasons, I have sponsored legislation to impose sanctions on the Burmese Government.

Beginning in 2003, import sanctions have been renewed annually through the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This act was later enhanced in 2008 through the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, a measure I also cosponsored.

Today, however, I come to the floor with a different message. After having given the matter a great deal of thought and review, I do not believe Congress should reauthorize these import sanctions.

Let me repeat that. I do not believe the Burma sanctions should be renewed for another year. There are several reasons why.

First, the objective of the sanctions effort is to change the behavior of the Burmese Government. To a significant extent that has actually taken place. As a result of the new Burmese Government's actions in the past 2\1/2\ years, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, has been freed from house arrest, has been permitted to travel abroad, and has been elected to office as a member of Parliament.

A free and fair by-election was held in Burma last year. Scores of political prisoners have been released. A freer form of government has begun to take root. I strongly believe the import sanctions we previously enacted were instrumental in promoting these reforms. They helped deny the previous military junta the legitimacy it had craved.

These positive changes, many of which I saw for myself during my visit to Burma in January 2012, should be acknowledged, and we do acknowledge them. As Suu Kyi herself said last fall during her visit to the United States, ``the sanctions need to be removed.''

Second, I believe renewing sanctions would be a slap in the face to Burmese reformers and would embolden those within Burma who want to slow or reverse the reform movement. We should

be strengthening the hand of these reformists to show the ``fence sitters'' that reform will be met with positive action by the United States. The administration has extended an olive branch to the new Burmese Government, and I believe it is time for Congress to do the same. Burmese citizens should not be made to feel that Congress will maintain sanctions no matter what they do.

Third, after renewal of the import ban last year, the administration waived most of the sanctions in response to the recent reforms. So as a practical matter--as a practical matter--even if the ban were renewed, its effect would be largely nullified through an administration waiver--a waiver, by the way, I support.

Let me emphasize a few points. By choosing not to renew the import ban, no one should fall under the misimpression that Congress would be giving up its leverage with respect to Burma. The current restrictions on importation of Burmese jade and rubies are likely to remain in place even without the renewal of sanctions. This is because the administration enjoys authority under other statutes to continue to limit the importation of Burmese gems. So, again, as a practical matter, the restrictions on Burma would be little different without the sanctions than they are right now under the sanctions we renewed last year, considering the fact the sanctions were waived last year anyway.

Moreover, there are other sanctions, apart from the law I was just talking about, which would remain permanent. They include the authority to freeze assets and the authority to deny visas to bad Burmese actors. Even if the import ban is not reauthorized, these provisions remain on the books.

In addition, a variety of other sanctions that expressly name Burma remain in effect and still require outright repeal or modification. They include provisions within the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriations bill, the Customs and Trade Act of 1990, and the Foreign Assistance Act.

If the Burmese Government continues to support political and economic reform, then at a later date Congress can consider whether these permanent restrictions warrant removal or modification.

Beyond the realm of trade, there are other statutes of general application that sanction Burma due to concerns over human trafficking, counternarcotics, and religious freedom, to name just a few such issues. Burma must take positive action in order to no longer qualify for sanctions under those measures as well. So, again, legislative leverage would remain even without the renewal of this law.

There also remains the annual appropriations process as Congress considers how much and what types of aid Burma should receive in the first place. For instance, there is some indication that Burma wants to improve its military-to-military relationship with us. Frankly, I think that is a good idea, and such programs and contacts provide additional tools for congressional oversight and action.

The European Union and Australia have also removed most of their sanctions against Burma. Congress, in choosing not to renew trade sanctions, would ensure that American companies remain on equal footing with their western competitors and bring greater certainty to those U.S. firms which are considering investment in Burma.

Finally, if Burma backslides, Congress can always reconsider the sanctions.

As a Congress, we need to be realistic about the fundamental challenges facing Burma on its road to reform. The country faces major challenges on many fronts stemming from a half century of bad governance and economic mismanagement. In this post-junta period the Burmese people need our help, and bilateral trade can do just that. It can help improve Burmese lives and show the people of Burma that a move toward greater political openness under a new government brings with it tangible benefits in their daily lives.

A Burmese Government that is more representative of its people and reforming economically will be positioned to contribute to ASEAN regional stability and grow increasingly independent within the region.

While I am pleased with the progress we have already seen, I would note I am not--repeat, not--fully satisfied with the progress Burma has made so far. Much more needs to be done. The 2015 elections will be a vital indicator of how strong the reform movement is within Burma.

In my view there are several other important benchmarks we will need to see achieved going forward. For example, all parties within Burma must work to reduce the clashes between the military and ethnic minority groups and begin political dialogue toward peaceful reconciliation. All parties within Burma need to work to diminish sectarian strife between Buddhists and Muslims. Any arms trade between North Korea and Burma needs to stop--now.

The Burmese constitution also needs amending in several areas. For example, provisions specifically designed to exclude Suu Kyi from running for President need to be changed. Complete and unconditional release of political prisoners needs to be undertaken. The military should increasingly be brought under civilian control. Finally, other reforms in progress involving enhanced rule of law, protection of private property, and government accountability need to take place.

I make this appeal to my colleagues in light of the visit of Burmese President Thein Sein to Washington this week. This is an important visit reflecting many of the dramatic changes that have taken place in Burma. It follows on the heels of Daw Aung Suu Kyi's landmark visit last fall and President Obama's visit to Burma last year.

Many of us who have followed Burma for years--in my case, two decades--never thought we would see this reform come to this troubled country. This is an important moment. I believe it is time for Congress to take responsible action to continue to promote progress by encouraging those who are risking much--very much--within Burma while still leaving in place other sanctions in order to encourage further reform. A decision not to renew the sanctions is an important step in that direction. To do otherwise could send the wrong signal to the wrong people.

So as a Congress, let's continue to vigorously support democracy and peaceful reconciliation in Burma, but let's do so by taking a positive step forward with regard to our sanctions policy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Military Order of the Purple Heart, MOPH. Membership in the MOPH is reserved for combat-wounded veterans who have been awarded the Purple Heart for their service in the U.S. Armed Forces. The members of the Kentucky MOPH have made extraordinary contributions and sacrifices in defense of the United States. Their brave and valiant actions during combat have been vital to preserving the freedom and way of life that Americans continue to enjoy today. I applaud the members of the Kentucky MOPH not only for their service to the United States but also for their steadfast commitment to their fellow combat-wounded veterans and to all of our Nation's veterans and their families.

On June 1, 2013, the Kentucky MOPH will gather in Paducah, KY, for its annual convention. In anticipation of this gathering, I would like to draw attention to two noteworthy milestones the Kentucky MOPH celebrates this year. January 2, 2013, marked the 70th anniversary of the Louisville, KY, Bluegrass Chapter 146 of the MOPH, and the Department of Kentucky MOPH will celebrate its 25th anniversary on October 22, 2013. At this time, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in extending gratitude and commendations to members of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Military Order of the Purple Heart for their dedication and service to America's military and America's veterans. America has the greatest military in the world, and the MOPH serves as a vital support system to veterans that make this a reality.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime friend and a fixture of the broadcasting industry in Kentucky and nationally, Mr. Steve Newberry. For more than 25 years, Steve, a resident of Hiseville, KY, has been a leader in Kentucky radio. He has earned the respect and admiration of his peers in the Commonwealth and throughout the country many times over. I am sad to note that next month, Steve will complete his service on the board of directors of the National Association of Broadcasters.

Over the course of his career, Steve has helped lead radio and television broadcasters on a national level, and he has had a significant impact on the broadcasting industry. This was recognized when in 2011 Steve received from his peers the prestigious National Radio Award, which is given annually to an outstanding leader in the radio industry.

Steve loved radio from an early age. He began his broadcasting career at the age of 14, when he got a job working at the local radio station in his hometown of Glasgow, KY. His parents were supportive of Steve's dream and drove him to work at that first job.

By the age of 21, Steve owned his first radio station. When he bought it, it was a 250-watt AM station that only broadcast in the daytime. Steve soon upgraded it to 500 watts and 24 hours of broadcasting a day.

Steve attended the University of Kentucky, where he received a bachelor's degree in telecommunications. While completing his senior year, he bought WKVE, an AM station in Cave City. Today he is the president and CEO of Commonwealth Broadcasting, based in Glasgow, and owns and operates 22 radio stations throughout the Bluegrass State.

As his business grew, Steve became more and more engaged in broadcasting industry matters. He was first elected to the board of directors of the National Association of Broadcasters, NAB, in 1999. He would go on to serve as part of the board's leadership, chairman of the board, and ultimately as the NAB joint board chairman, the association's top industry leadership post. Steve also served on the board of directors and executive committees for the Radio Advertising Bureau.

Steve's community service in Kentucky is equally impressive. He has served as the chairman of the Authority for Kentucky Educational Television and has worked with the Glasgow-Barren County Industrial Development Economic Authority, the Glasgow Rotary Club, and the Glasgow-Barren County Boys & Girls Club.

Steve is a past president of the Kentucky Broadcasters Association and in 2009 received their highest honor, the Distinguished Kentuckian Award. And as I already stated, Mr. President, in 2011 he received the very high honor from his peers of the prestigious National Radio Award.

It is the Commonwealth's loss that in June, Steve will end his service on the NAB board of directors. Whatever endeavors may lay ahead for him, I know he will dispatch them with the same success that has marked his career to date. I am sure his family, including his wife Vickie and his son Walker, are very proud of him.

Steve Newberry is one of Kentucky's finest broadcasters and a man of integrity. I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in congratulating him for his dedication to the radio profession, to his community, and to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. President, last night the President took an important symbolic step in accepting the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Miller. I had called for this resignation on Monday, when we learned Mr. Miller signed his name to one, if not more, letters that we now know couldn't possibly have been truthful--couldn't possibly have been truthful. But let us be clear: This symbolic step was just that, symbolic.

What Americans want right now is answers about what happened at the IRS, why it wasn't disclosed earlier, who is ultimately accountable for this behavior, and assurances this kind of thing isn't going to go on at the IRS or anywhere else in the Federal Government because the allegations of ideological targeting only continue to multiply. This is continuing to multiply.

This morning I would like to focus on just one of those incidents. It is the case of a group called the National Organization for Marriage. Last May Senator Hatch, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, sent a letter to the IRS inquiring about reports that someone-- someone--at the IRS had leaked confidential donor information from NOM--the National Organization for Marriage--to an advocacy group whose political goals were in direct conflict with its own.

NOM has since released documents suggesting that this information came from one source--from within the IRS itself.

All this took place, by the way, in the middle of a national political campaign. Significantly, one of the NOM donors whose name was leaked was none other than Mitt Romney.

And what about the group it was leaked to?

It was headed by a guy who was named a national co-chair of the Obama campaign, and who published the confidential donor information on the website of the organization he ran, an organization opposed to the goals of NOM.

So here is another situation that, at the very least, clearly merits investigation.

There are allegations here that someone at the IRS committed a very serious crime that had the effect of chilling the speech of a political organization that happened to be on the wrong side of the current administration.

Yet, a year later, Senator Hatch has yet to hear anything back from the

IRS. And, according to the folks at NOM, neither have they.

Last year the people at NOM said they brought their concerns about this potentially illegal activity to the IRS and the Justice Department. They say they even hired a forensic specialist to prove that the document that was leaked had originated at the IRS.

According to NOM, the forensics guy knew the document came from the IRS because it bore a watermark distinctive to the agency. And they say they had to hire him--get this--because the IRS asked NOM if they had leaked the confidential information themselves. So they say they provided evidence to show they had not leaked it themselves, and then earlier this year they asked the IRS to release all the information about their complaint, which had apparently reached a dead end at the IRS. And here is what they say they've gotten back: crickets.

They say they have not heard a thing from the IRS or the DOJ about this potentially illegal breach of their confidential donor information--even as they have poured significant resources of their own into the investigation, and, according to them, seen some of their supporters scared off.

Think about that: the IRS has not had the time to respond to this group, or the Finance Committee--a full year after their confidential donor information appears to have been leaked, from inside the IRS, to one of NOM's ideological opponents.

But when the liberal group ProPublica requested confidential information about conservative groups, the IRS got back to those folks with the information they wanted in about two weeks.

This is exactly the kind of thing I have been warning about for more than a year. Here is a group with an agenda that runs counter to that of the administration. Somebody over at the IRS gets a hold of their donor lists. And leaks it to their opponents.

Why? So anybody who thinks about supporting them thinks twice. This is what government intimidation and harassment looks like. It is completely unacceptable.

The idea that you have got to move heaven and earth to get somebody in the Federal Government to lift a finger to get to the bottom of it is an outrage. This is the kind of thing that people should be tripping over themselves to resolve. Yet Senator Hatch is still waiting on a response to a letter he sent about it to the IRS commissioner--last May!

No one should be intimidated by the government into shutting up as part of our political process.

That is why the Republican members of the Finance Committee are sending a letter today to Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration requesting investigation into this very issue.

Because, without this sort of inquiry, we may never have confirmed the inappropriate harassment of conservative groups that was going on at the IRS for two years.

Apparently, this is the only way to get this administration to take responsibility for its actions.

We are determined to do that, because there is a very dangerous precedent being set here. I will say it again: Americans, be they conservative or liberal, should be free to participate in the political process without fear of harassment or intimidation from their own government.

I would also like to note that, last month, the Secretary of Energy nominee, Dr. Ernest Moniz, was cleared by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with robust bipartisan support. The full Senate will likely vote on his nomination today.

A number of my colleagues and I are optimistic about Dr. Moniz's pragmatic approach to solving America's energy challenges.

In particular, I look forward to working with him on finding a sustainable, long-term solution for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant--a facility that benefits our country, its community, and the many dedicated workers who work there.

I yield the floor.