Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not be objecting, I wish to make sure the Senate is aware of an understanding the majority leader and I have that the substitute amendment referred to in paragraph 1 will be limited to an actual amount when it is offered.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize two young pages who are actually on the floor with us today. Martin Charboneau and Mikhaila Fogel are the pages who energetically volunteered to stay until the Senate adjourns and actually have sacrificed some of their Christmas vacation. Also, they both volunteered their service over the weekend before the Thanksgiving break.

We typically have seven pages at a time on each of the sides, the Democratic side and the Republican side, but both Martin and Mikhaila marvelously have worked hard and dutifully, on both sides of the floor--both the Democratic side and the Republican side--to make a 14- person job work with just two people.

One can imagine how hard a task it must be for just two individuals to prepare for the numerous speeches we have had over the course of the past week. I know Senator Reid joins me in thanking them for their gracious and impeccable service to the Senate.

If I may say to my friend from Arizona, he is absolutely right. I have had an opportunity to observe Senator Kennedy over the years. That is exactly the way he operated.

If I may, just to make a point with regard to the observation of the Senator from Mississippi about Congressman Stupak, as I understand it, Congressman Stupak was not asking for some special deal for Michigan in return for his vote. He was, rather, trying to establish a principle that would apply to all Americans. Is that not the case?

Could not be same thing be said for our colleague, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut? I am sorry he ended up voting for this 2,700-page monstrosity, but you have to stay, as I understood his position--and Senator McCain certainly knows him very well--his position was, if the government goes into the insurance business, I can't support this bill, not: I am open for business and what you can you do for Connecticut.

Mr. President, tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. Passions have run high, and that is appropriate because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine whether our children can afford the Nation they inherit. It is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take, and none of us take it lightly. But make no mistake, if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they would not be forcing this vote in the dead of night.

Here are just some of the deals we have noticed: $100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the United States. The bill does not say where and no one will even step forward to claim it. Mr. President, 1 State out of 50--1 State out of 50--gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself while taxpayers in the other 49 States pick up the tab. The same Senator who cut that deal secured another one that benefits a single insurance company--just one insurance company--in his State. Do the supporters of the bill know

this? I say to my colleagues, do you think that is fair to all of your States? What about the rest of the country?

The fact is, a year after the debate started, few people would have imagined this is how it would end--with a couple of cheap deals--a couple of cheap deals--and a rushed vote at 1 o'clock in the morning. But that is where we are. And Americans are wondering tonight: How did this happen? How did this happen? So I would like to take a moment to explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what has happened and, yes, what is happening now.

Everyone in this Chamber agrees we need health care reform. Everybody agrees on that. The question is how. Some of us have taken the view that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we proposed targeted steps to do it. Our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach, and the result has been just what you would expect. The final product is a mess--a mess. And so is the process that has brought us here to vote on a bill that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the outset of the debate and reminded us all of how these issues have typically been handled throughout our history. The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but six Members of the Senate. The Medicare Act of 1965 only had 21 dissenters, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 only had eight Senators who voted no.

Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the Nation. The proponents of this bill felt differently.

In a departure from history, Democratic leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion that, in the end, their biggest problem wasn't convincing Republicans to support it, it was convincing the Democrats.

In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the reforms Americans were promised, it was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake, which is exactly what this bill will be if it is passed. Because in the end, this debate isn't about differences between two parties, it is about a $2.3 trillion, 2,733- page health care reform bill that does not reform health care, and, in fact, makes the price of it go up.

``The plan I am announcing tonight,'' the President said on September 9, ``will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government. My plan,'' the President said, ``would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. I will not sign a plan that adds a dime to our deficit,'' the President said, ``either now or in the future.'' And on taxes, ``No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase,'' he said.

He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. He said people who liked the plans they have wouldn't lose their coverage, and Americans were promised an open and honest debate. ``That is what I will do in bringing all parties together,'' then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, ``not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting these negotiations on C-SPAN.''

Well, that was then and this is now. But here is the reality. The Democratic bill we are voting on tonight raises health care costs. That is not me talking, it is the administration's own budget scorekeeper. It raises premiums. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle-class Americans, and it plunders Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion. It forces people off the plans they have, including millions of seniors. It allows the Federal Government, for the first time in our history, to use taxpayer dollars for abortions.

So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted to lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn't raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. And that changed too.

And 12 months and $2.3 trillion later, lawmakers who made these same promises to their constituents are poised to vote for a bill that won't bend the cost curve, that won't make health care more affordable, and it will make real reform even harder to achieve down the road.

I understand the pressure our friends on the other side are feeling, and I don't doubt for a moment their sincerity. But my message tonight is this: The impact of this vote will long outlive this one frantic snowy weekend in Washington. Mark my words: This legislation will reshape our Nation, and Americans have already issued their verdict: They do not want it. They do not like this bill, and they do not like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.

Let's think about that for a moment. We know the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill, and yet the people who wrote it will not give the 300 million Americans whose lives will be profoundly affected by it as much as 72 hours to study the details. Imagine that. When we all woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we are being asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight.

When we woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we are going to be asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight.

How can anybody justify this approach, particularly in the face of such widespread and intense public opposition? Can all of these Americans be wrong? Don't their concerns count?

Party loyalty can be a powerful force. We all know that. But Americans are asking the Democrats to put party loyalty aside tonight, to put the interest of small business owners, taxpayers, and seniors first.

And there is good news: It is not too late. All it takes is one--just one. All it takes is one. One can stop it. One can stop it or everyone will own it. One can stop it or every single one will own it.

My colleagues, it is not too late.

Mr. President, on December 31, 2009, the current biodiesel tax credit will expire. This tax credit increases domestic demand and provides an incentive for U.S. producers to increase investment and output. It is essential in producing biodiesel and allowing it to compete with petroleum diesel. Without the tax credit, petroleum marketers will be unwilling to purchase the more expensive biodiesel, and demand will be heavily reduced.

As all of my colleagues know, the biodiesel tax credit provides a $1- per-gallon credit for biodiesel made from soybean oil or yellow grease and animal fats. The original version of this tax credit was passed in 2004 and has been extended twice, most recently in October 2008.

As a result, the U.S. biodiesel industry has grown significantly over the past several years, providing not just jobs but also the green jobs this administration and many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have so adamantly supported. However, the combination of volatile commodity prices and weak motor fuel demand caused by the current recession has severely affected the biodiesel industry for the worse and therefore increases our urgency to extend the credit today.

In Kentucky, public school districts, universities, National and State parks, local governments, and the Transportation Cabinet are using biodiesel blends. These institutions and many Kentucky employers, including manufacturers in Kentucky, will be hurt beginning on January 1 if we allow this tax credit to expire. One executive of a biofuel manufacturing facility wrote to me to say:

The $1-per-gallon tax incentive is truly the difference

between the survival and collapse of this important industry.

Without this tax incentive, thousands of jobs will be lost

with plants closing down almost immediately after January 1.

And the nation will lose a vital link in its effort to reduce

our dependence on foreign oil.

As we continue our important business, I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work to get the extenders finished this year and to include the renewal of the biodiesel tax credit.

I say to my friend from North Carolina, if that were not bad enough--and it may have been referenced here on the floor before I came out--we have an announcement from the Congressional Budget Office just today. The Senator from North Carolina may have referred to this. On the Director's blog today--the Director of the Congressional Budget Office--is the headline: ``Correction Regarding the Longer-Term Effects of the Manager's Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.''

CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday-- yesterday--related to the long-term budgetary effect of the manager's amendment. They go on to say they were about $\1/2\ trillion off in looking at the long-term effects beyond the 10-year window, which further illustrates why we ought not to be rushing this thing through, and we ought to have further opportunity to discover what other problems there are, in addition to the ones the Senator from North Carolina has outlined with regard to special treatment for some States which all the rest of our States have to pay for.

No.

I object.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

What is the pending business?

Is it necessary to report the last amendment?

I object.

The regular order is the reading of the amendment, I understand.

Mr. President, I just want to take this opportunity to thank the clerks. I know it has been a challenging experience to have to read for the last 7 or 8 hours, but I just wanted to thank them for their good work and good spirits in the holiday season; and for those who substituted during the process, I hope you will extend to them our thanks as well.

Madam President, Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we are considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider--I think, I would argue, the most significant piece of legislation certainly in my time here. So it stands to reason we would devote significant time and attention to it.

Indeed, some would argue we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most--if not every--previous bills we have considered.

The majority, obviously, disagrees. Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare--a literal political nightmare to them--as evidenced by more and more public opinion polls, including the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll out this morning. They know Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to it, so they want to get it over with as quickly as possible.

Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democratic leaders took their eyes off the ball, rushing the process on a partisan line that makes the situation even worse.

Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care. Instead, Democratic leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare. And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas? They want to rush this bill through by Christmas that does all of these destructive things. One of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history, and they want to rush it.

Here is the most outrageous part. At the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the majority leader's conference room has seen yet. No one has seen it. That is right. The final bill we vote on is not even the one we have had on the floor of the Senate. It is the deal Democratic leaders have been trying to work out in private. That is what they intend to bring to the Senate floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

So this entire process is essentially a charade. But let's just compare the process so far with previous legislation for a little perspective.

Here is a snapshot of what we have done and where we stand on this bill.

The majority leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend--4 days from now--on this $2.5 trillion mistake. No American who has not been invited into the majority leader's conference room knows what will be in the bill.

The bill has been the pending business of the Senate since last November--less than 4 weeks ago--but we

have actually only started the amendment process 2 weeks ago--just 2 weeks ago on the amendment process.

We have had 21 amendments and motions--less than 2 a day.

So let's look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation, arguably of lesser consequence than this one.

No Child Left Behind in 2001: 21 session days over 7 weeks, 44 rollcall votes, 157 amendments offered.

The 9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act in 2002: 19 session days over 7 weeks, 20 rollcall votes, 30 amendments offered.

The Energy bill in 2002: 21 session days over 8 weeks, 36 rollcall votes, 158 amendments offered.

Now, Madam President, this is not an energy bill. This is an attempt by the majority to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy--to vastly expand the reach and role of government into the health care decisions of every single American--and they want it to be done after one substantive amendment--one large, substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday. This is what she had to say Tuesday of this week. ``Given the enormity and complexity,'' Senator Snowe said, ``I don't see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.''

And I think Senator Snowe's comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point. Here is what Senator Snowe said in November of this year--late November:

I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic

debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic

issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our

ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most

crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is,

the most consequential health care legislation in the history

of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health

care spending over the coming decade shouldn't be determined

by one vote-margin strategies--surely--

Surely--

we can and must do better.

Well, Senator Snowe is entirely correct.

The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming--overwhelming--opposition of the American people. Democrats know the longer Americans see this bill, the less they like it.

Here is the latest from Pew; it came out just yesterday. A majority-- 58 percent--of those who have heard a lot about the bill oppose it, while only 32 percent favor it.

There is no justification for this blind rush, except a political one, and that is not good enough for the American people, and that is not justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill that none of us have seen.

Americans already oppose the bill. The process is just as bad. It is completely reckless and completely irresponsible.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Arizona, with reference to the issue of the process, it

has been a bit of a charade--in fact, a whole charade. We have been out here for 2 weeks on the amendment process. We have had 21 votes, many of them have been side-by-sides, in order to cover the majority against the potential downside of voting to cut Medicare and voting to raise taxes.

But there is no serious effort to engage in any kind of genuine amendment process, such as the Senator from Arizona and I have been involved in here for quite a while. Then the bill, which we are actually only allowed to have about two votes a day on, is not the real bill. The real bill--we know the core of it, but there are a lot of things around the edges being slipped in and slipped out, and they want to jam the public before Christmas, as the Senator from Arizona indicated.

How arrogant is that? They think: We know better than you, we know better than the Republicans, and we know better than the public. Why don't all of you--the Republicans and the public--sit down and shut up and leave it to us and we will take care of it before Christmas.

It makes this bill, in addition to all of the other problems, a job killer. With unemployment at 10 percent, there is a big tax increase on a variety of different Americans, as Senator McCain pointed out, in addition to all of its other problems--substantive problems, process problems. It is a job killer in the middle of a very difficult recession.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Before we proceed to the vote, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry: I believe it is the case that a simple motion to recess or adjourn is not amendable; is that correct?

Further inquiry. I also believe that a motion to recess or adjourn to a time certain is amendable with time changes.

I will not offer an amendment to change the time to convene later, but so everybody will know, with regard to their own personal schedules, this vote could occur at any time tomorrow. It wouldn't have to be at 1 a.m. The majority leader has the discretion to do that. We are, of course, prepared to talk around the clock and happy to have a vote at 1 o'clock. I just want everybody to understand it is my understanding that the majority leader does have the ability to set the vote later than 1 a.m.

Mr. President, I would ask my colleague, the majority leader, was it his intention to propound a unanimous consent request on this issue?

All right. I will go ahead and make my opening remarks. I don't know when the chairman of the Finance Committee wanted to make this request. Did he want to make a speech in connection with it as well?

I would say to my friend from Montana, it would be helpful if you could go ahead and do the unanimous consent agreement, if you want to speak to the issue later.

Mr. President, reclaiming my leader time, the longer the debate over health care goes on, the clearer it becomes that the problem the Democrats are having isn't with some of the provisions we keep hearing about on the news; their problem is the fundamental opposition of the American people to the core components of the bill-- the core of the bill.

Americans oppose the Democratic plan because they know the final product is a colossal legislative mistake. Not only does this bill fail to achieve its primary goal of lowering the cost of health care, it makes matters worse by driving up premiums, raising taxes, and wrecking Medicare for seniors.

The bill is fundamentally flawed, and the American people know it can't be fixed. That is why they are asking us to stop and start over with the kind of commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will address the cost problems.

Fortunately, a growing number of Democrats are beginning to listen to the voices of the American people. We have, just today, a Washington Post poll indicating, once again, the polls are unanimous that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill, and seniors in particular, by a very wide margin, do not favor this bill.

So our friends on the other side of the aisle face a choice. They can either side with those who are making a call to history or they can side with their constituents who say a vote on this bill would be a historic mistake.

That is what is unfolding behind the scenes: As a handful of Democratic leaders press ahead in a blind rush of frantic dealmaking to find 60 votes by Christmas, a handful of other Democrats are wondering which side they want to be standing on when the dust settles--with those who are pushing them to support a bill they don't like or with the American people who are imploring them not to do it.

This is an important moment in the life of our Nation. This is one of those moments when the free decisions of a handful of elected leaders are the only difference between America going down one road or another. History will be made either way. History will be made either way. But in this case, as in

many others from our history, Americans want history to show that a determined few took their side and triumphed over a powerful majority-- a majority who clearly misread its mandate.

Mr. President, early yesterday, the administration announced what can only be viewed as the latest in a string of seriously misguided decisions related to the closing of the secure facility at Guantanamo Bay. It plans to move dozens of terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay Cuba to a prison in northern Illinois.

The explanation we used to get for moving detainees onto American soil was that Guantanamo's existence is a potent recruiting tool for terrorists. But even if you grant that, it is hard to see how simply changing Guantanamo's mailing address would eliminate the problem. Does anyone believe Al-Jazeera will ignore the fact that enemy combatants are being held on American soil? It is naive to think our European critics, the American left, or al-Qaida will be pacified by creating an internment camp in northern Illinois, a sort of ``Gitmo North'' instead of ``Gitmo South.''

As I said, this is just the latest in a series of misguided decisions. First, there was the decision to close Guantanamo by an arbitrary date without a plan for doing so. Americans expect their Government to protect them. That is why Americans overwhelmingly rejected the idea of closing Guantanamo.

Then there was the decision to bring the self-avowed mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and his fellow 9/11 plotters into New York City for trial. We learned just this week, the administration plans to give other terrorists the benefits of a civilian trial in the United States.

Now there is this: According to the reports we have seen, the administration intends to bring as many as 100--100--foreign terrorist fighters from Guantanamo Bay to America, a plan that would make our Nation less safe, not more so. What is worse, the defenders of the proposal don't even seem to get the implications.

Rather than even attempt to reassure people about safety, politicians in Illinois are trumpeting this decision--get this now--as a jobs program, a jobs program. That is how out of touch they are. Democratic politicians are so eager to spin the failure of the $1 trillion stimulus, they are now talking about national security in the language of saved and created jobs.

The advocates of closing Guantanamo without a plan can't seem to make up their minds as to why it is a good idea. First, we were told we had to bring them here because Guantanamo is a dangerous symbol--the whole symbolism over safety argument. Now, with unemployment in double digits, it is being sold--incredibly--as a jobs project, some kind of shovel-ready plan.

But leaving aside the absurdity of marketing this as a jobs program, let's get to the core issue. The core issue is this: Moving some of the worst terrorists on Earth to U.S. soil on its face is more dangerous than leaving them where they are. Nobody could argue with that. Make no mistake, this decision, if implemented, will increase the threat to security at home. Let's count the ways in which it increases the threats of security in the United States.

There will now be another terrorist target in the heartland of America--an obvious one at that, right near the Mississippi River.

The FBI Director has already stated his concerns about the radicalization of other prisoners that could happen by moving terrorists here.

There is also the danger of detainees communicating with terrorists on the outside, as has happened in the past--a danger that would undoubtedly increase with the additional legal rights detainees will enjoy once they are moved into the United States.

Then there is the danger that the detainees could sue their way to freedom--yes, that the detainees could sue their way to freedom. Before the first detainee has even set foot in the United States, their lawyers stand ready to challenge in court the administration's decision to incarcerate detainees indefinitely in the United States. By purposefully moving detainees here, the administration is making it easier for detainees and their lawyers to succeed in doing so.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that foreign nationals have more rights if they are present on U.S. soil than if they are not. We have already seen the application of this principle. We have seen a Federal judge order detainees released into the United States--only to be reversed because the detainees at the time didn't enjoy the advantage of being present in the United States--an advantage the Obama administration intends to confer on them.

Then there is the case of the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, who narrowly failed in his effort to blow up a passenger jet in midair. Americans might recall that Reid ended up in a supermax facility in Colorado. They might not recall what happened next. Not satisfied with his conditions of confinement, Reid sued the government. He said he wanted to be placed in less restrictive conditions where he could watch TV, order periodicals through the mail, and learn Arabic. He got his wish. The Obama administration acceded to Reid's demands. He has been placed in the general prison population, a less restrictive environment where he can speak to the media and where his visitors and mail will no longer be regularly monitored by the FBI. Is this how we should treat people who attempt to blow up commercial airliners? We will no longer have the FBI routinely monitor their mail? This is an outrage, an absolute outrage. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated case.

Just a few years ago, this same supermax allowed terrorist inmates to communicate with terrorist networks abroad. At the time, our Democratic colleagues criticized these security lapses harshly. The senior Senator from New York said Federal prison officials were ``incompetent when it comes to detecting possible terrorist activity in Federal prisons.'' He noted ``past evidence of terrorists communicating with live terror cells from inside prison walls.'' That was the senior Senator from New York.

Our Democratic colleagues now raise concerns about similar potential lapses at the proposed ``Gitmo North.''

This decision is ill-advised on multiple levels. It is also prohibited by law. Fortunately, if and when the Obama administration submits its plan for closing Guantanamo, Congress will have an opportunity to revisit the prohibition in current law that bars the transfer into the United States of Guantanamo detainees for the purposes of indefinite detention. That is against the law. At that point, we will decide whether this prohibition ought to be removed and whether millions of dollars ought to be appropriated to make this ill- advised decision a reality.

In short, Congress will have a chance to vote on whether we should treat the national security needs of the country as just another local jobs project. I suspect the American people will be no more supportive of this idea than they were of the administration's plan to close Guantanamo by an arbitrary date. Security can't take a backseat to symbolism, and it certainly should not take a backseat to some parochial jobs program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is nothing more outrageous to the American people than the thought that they will have to visit both the IRS and the undertaker on the same day.

Surveys indicate that Americans, even after informed that estate tax may not apply to them, object to it in principle.

I am going to ask that the chairman of the Finance Committee modify his request in the following way:

That there be an amendment considered that reflects a permanent, portable, and unified $5 million exemption that is indexed for inflation, and a 35-percent top rate; and further, that the amendment be agreed to, the bill then be read the third time and passed, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Before the Chair rules, I want to acknowledge my good friend Senator Kyl, the Republican whip, who has been our leader on this side of the issue. He has crafted a proposal, along with the leader on this on the other side, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, that is consistent with the consent agreement and with the modification I am now asking the chairman of the Finance Committee to make. This approach would provide certainty and clarity to all taxpayers, especially small businesses and farmers; whereas the UC propounded by the chairman would only create additional confusion, with three different rates coming into effect in the course of a 12-month period.

Summing it up, I ask that my friend from Montana modify the agreement in the way I described.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise to make some observations about a matter that occurred in the Senate earlier this afternoon.

The plain language of the Senate precedent, the manual that governs Senate procedure, is that unanimous consent of all Members was required before the Senator from Vermont could withdraw his amendment while it was being read--unanimous consent.

Earlier today, the majority somehow convinced the Parliamentarian to break with the longstanding precedent and practice of the Senate in the reading of the amendment.

Senate procedure clearly states:

Under rule 15, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an

amendment shall be read by the clerk before it is up for

consideration or before the same shall be debated unless a

request to waive the reading is granted.

It goes on to state that:

. . . the reading of which may not be dispensed with,

except by unanimous consent, and if the request is denied,

the amendment must be read and further interruptions are not

in order.

Nothing could be more clear.

You may have heard that the majority cites an example in 1992 when the Chair made a mistake and allowed something similar to happen. But one mistake does not a precedent make.

For example, there is precedent for a Senator being beaten with a cane in the Senate. If mistakes were the rule, then the caning of Senators would be in order. Fortunately for all of us, it is not.

It is now perfectly clear that the majority is willing to do anything--anything--to jam through a 2,000-page bill before the American people or any of us have had a chance to read it, including changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.