Floor Statements

Mr. President, I object on behalf of the ranking member of the banking committee. This bill has not been through the committee process and would undo the important rate reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program that were put in place in the most recent flood reform bill to address the program's $25 billion debt to the taxpayer. We must ensure that all Members have the opportunity to understand and weigh in on the changes being made by this action. This unanimous consent request would bypass this important step in the legislative process, and I object.

Mr. President, I wish to take a short time here to discuss a situation which I think is gaining some attention in the actual news media on a continuing basis.

But with the Affordable Care Act and what we are doing or not doing here on the floor of the Senate with regards to the 51-50 controversy, perhaps we overlooked the number one obligation we have as Members of this body, and that is our national security, the defense of our individual freedoms, and the part we play in determining the same kind of objectives--liberty and freedom--all throughout the world. I am talking about foreign policy, and I am talking about the very dangerous situation that we face with regard to Iran.

On November 24 the United States, Germany, France, China, Great Britain, and Russia signed an interim

agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program. The President and Secretary John Kerry, former colleague, have applauded this deal.

The President has claimed: We have opened a new path forward toward a world that is more secure. The Secretary of State, who came before us this week and gave Senators a briefing, argues: This is why we had sanctions in the first place.

With all due respect, I disagree. The world, it seems to me, is not a safer place, and in 6 months I do not believe we will be one step closer to dismantling Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon.

This administration is asking us to trust a regime which has been clear on its intentions, quite frankly, to wipe Israel off the face of the planet--their words--and, is the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism, sponsor of the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

I don't think that represents a step toward security. I think that is misguided at best. This, to me, is not a good plan. I would even reverse that to say it is a bad plan.

At this moment, the administration is asking--rather pressuring-- Congress to back down from additional sanctions which many of us have supported and think would certainly a better thing to do at this particular time. At any rate, this is not a request that I can oblige. Sanctions are, indeed, the reason that Iran has decided to come to the table. But coming to the table and honestly negotiating are certainly two different things.

If the reports are true, the administration has been holding secret talks with Iran for months. I do not know what was discussed during those talks. I am not sure that anyone in the Senate really does know. What did the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the President offer to bring Iran to the public stage? It seems to me that should be transparent. So I think the Congress and the American people are left to wonder with regard to transparency what was arranged before this deal or this peace plan?

The bigger problem is that it has taken painstaking effort on the part of those like myself and others in this body who care about our Nation's security and the security of our allies to implement sanctions to the strength that we have today. It has taken a decade. It has taken six actions by the Security Council of the United Nations, 10 years of work, and a tremendous effort to finally get people on board. But now the President is asking us to back off after we have gained the support of the international community and just begun to make inroads.

The administration is offering to cut back now on these sanctions and to allow the Iranian government to continue enriching the uranium. Why? It is widely accepted that the Iranians have no real use for enriched uranium to use for nuclear power because Russia provides fuel supplies for its sole operational nuclear power plant. But they do have use for enriched uranium to contribute to the assembly of a nuclear weapon.

Why should we back off and only get promises? Why should we not keep applying pressure on Iran through sanctions until they give up their entire program? It seems to me that it would be in our best interests that Iran would commit to several things for this deal to be a true step for security. I am just going to mention a few. No. 1, let's just get to the heart of the matter: Public acceptance for the Jewish State of Israel and to allow for the peaceful coexistence of the Israeli people in the Middle East. Nobody in Iran has agreed to that. That is the main issue, the right of Israel to exist. That should be the foundation that we have to start all talks.

Then we should have reporting and inspection access to the Parchin facility, and full details of the undeclared nuclear activities.

Third, dismantling of Iran's plutonium-producing heavy water reactor at Arak. Fourth, the construction of new centrifuges has to stop. Last, an end to all enrichment. Unfortunately this agreement fails to include any of these points.

If the purpose of sanctions was to get Iran to the negotiating table, how did we walk away without getting what we need, a complete end to Iran's nuclear program? Difficult, but certainly the overarching and primary goal. For a decade, Iran has openly disregarded the tenets of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement, legally binding resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council, and mandatory inspections by the International Atomic Energy Association, the IAEA. All of this, completely disregarded by Iran's regime.

But the President believes we should trust them. Why? Because Hassan Rouhani has been elected President? On the international scene he certainly is a smiling presence. It is well accepted, however, that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, does actually control everything in Iran, including its nuclear policy, meaning that Mr. Rouhani's election equates with no change in Iran, except in regards to its public face.

It seems to me this is why we cannot back off now. Many of my colleagues, in particular--Senator Kirk and Senator Graham--are working on a new phase of sanctions. They are tough sanctions and I am right there with them.

I do not have any faith with regard to where the Iranians claim they will be in six months. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has called this a ``dangerous blunder.'' He has warned ``Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself against any threat.''

It concerns me that the administration has no Phase II plan in place for the end of this 6-month period. If in fact we ease the sanctions, which we are doing, and people take advantage of easing those sanctions and are doing business with Iran, to put those same sanctions back in place, or tougher sanctions back in place, is going to be very difficult. One of my colleagues described this as once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back. Ten years, six different attempts in the Security Council finally taking a stand--how do you put back the sanctions that we have had in place that brought Iran to the table if in fact at the end of this period no progress is being made? Not to mention the tougher sanctions that we have proposed.

It is a real concern. The administration's hope, of course, is that this leads to a stronger long-term agreement. I hope this works out but I am highly skeptical. When the interim agreement is up, I think Iran will remain capable of producing a nuclear weapon in a mere few weeks because we are not asking more of this regime. At that moment we must have very strong sanctions in place to make sure that Iran does not weaponize with regard to its nuclear capability.

I fully support a new round of sanctions, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that these are passed before the 6-month period is over. Unfortunately, if we do not take this kind of action, Iran is set to gain everything while the United States loses, not just the United States but Israel and Europe as well. Ending Iran's nuclear weapons program entirely is what I consider a path toward a world that would be more secure.

In today's issue of the Wall Street Journal, there is an editorial called ``Mood-Music Diplomacy On Iran.'' Basically, it simply states more sanctions would strengthen the United States leverage with Tehran. It closes by saying that Secretary Kerry ``now likes to quote Ronald Reagan's `trust but verify' mantra for dealing with Iran.'' But it goes on to say, ``But the Gipper's real legacy was to show resolve when it counted. The Obama administration and their opposition to new sanctions with a delayed trigger feeds suspicions,'' according to this editorial, ``that it is eager to accept just about any agreement with Iran.'' And it states, ``Members of Congress from both parties who want a good and credible deal can help by passing this sanctions bill.''

I think that is advice well taken.

I yield the floor.

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

Would the distinguished Senator yield?

There is a good reason for that. We both came to the House at the same time. We were sorry to lose the Senator to the Senate.

I truly appreciate what the Senator has said. It reflects conversations we both have had to try to educate, to get to know or understand a little better what our colleagues across the aisle are doing and why this is taking place and describe what our frustrations are. But the Senator has summarized them very well.

I urge my colleagues across the aisle to take the Senator's suggestions--and plea on behalf of us all--to heart and would encourage everybody who has nothing else to do around here to read the Congressional Record and the Senator's remarks and take them to heart.

I remember so well, when I came to the Senate in 1996--and the Senator was here--I had an amendment I wanted to offer. Being a Member of the House for 16 years, what we had to do in the House was to check with the chairman. We served in the minority and then the revolution came in 1994 and things changed. But then, we had to go to the Rules Committee, which the Senator has pointed out was a very unique experience. I remember then what I had to do to get anything done in the House is I basically had to find a Democratic colleague--a friend who was serving in the majority--to cosponsor the bill which I had, put his name first, and then go to the Rules Committee to make it in order so that my bill and his bill could work. My partner in this effort was Congressman Charlie Stenholm.

When I first went to the Rules Committee in the House, I had not been to the Rules Committee and I thought the debate would be about germaneness or whether this bill should be considered or was it timely, et cetera. I find out it was just a debate all over again on the merits of the bill. On a partisan, party-line vote, they would deny any Republican amendments.

So Stenholm was a partner in that effort with that bill. I can't even remember which one it was at this particular time, but it was my first big attempt and it was on the farm bill. We had mutual concerns and we thought it was a good amendment. It was the Roberts-Stenholm bill. It didn't take me very long to figure out that the Roberts-Stenholm bill was going nowhere. So Charlie leaned over and said: It might be a good idea if this was the Stenholm-Roberts bill or maybe just the Stenholm bill, and I said: I think you have got a pretty good idea.

So for a while it became the Stenholm bill, and it was made in order. Then, on the floor, Charlie Stenholm, being the kind Member he was, all of a sudden it became the Roberts-Stenholm bill again and it passed and, voila, my first amendment on the floor of the House.

So I had another amendment, this time in the Senate--and I know the Senator remembers well, because we were standing right about down here and I was asking him--I had checked with the ranking member and the chairman. At that time we were in control and we had the majority. I had a very simple amendment. I will not go into it, but it was referred to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I was checking around with the ranking member and whomever, and they looked a little surprised that I was even checking with them.

The chairman of the committee, a Republican chairman, indicated: I would just as soon you wouldn't do that because we have a completed bill. We'll put it through the committee. I think your amendment has merit.

I knew I had bipartisan support for it and I knew it was a very easy amendment that would pass. But he told me: Just wait. We will take that up sometime down the road.

``Down the road'' in the Senate means way down the road. So I was sort of grumpy, and you asked me what was wrong. I said: The chairman doesn't like it. You said: Listen. This is the Senate. You can offer any amendment at any time whether it is germane or not. This is the Senate. You have rights.

I knew that. I had gone to the Robert C. Byrd lecture as a new Member. He lectured me on minority rights and how we should conduct ourselves. He was the institutional flame of the Senate.

Then Senator Coats urged me to offer the amendment. I should have done it, but I thought: All right. I will wait. I will defer to the chairman's advice. I have often regretted that. Later--I am talking about 2 or 3 years later--the same subject came up. I happened to be on the floor, and Senator Ted Kennedy was in charge. They had taken back control. He knew about the amendment. He said: Would you like to get your amendment passed? He was standing on the floor and there was hardly anybody else here and, bingo, using the parliamentary procedure that you could do in the majority, my amendment was passed. It was not the Kennedy-Roberts bill, by the way. It was still the Roberts bill that was authorized. We didn't get too much money for it, but at least we made the effort.

I have gone into a long personal history just to demonstrate exactly how this works.

Now we have a farm bill that has been hung up for over 2 years. We have a farm bill that the principals are meeting on in secret. There are 37 of us who are also on the conference wondering where on Earth is the farm bill. The House has just passed by unanimous consent an extension of the current farm bill as we did last year.

Last year, we passed a farm bill. Last year, the majority leader in a discussion with me said: If you can get it done in 3 days, I will let it happen. Note, ``I will let it happen.'' Chairperson Stabenow certainly was working extremely hard on her side, I was working on my side, we were going to the steering committee and said: I think we can get regular order. I think you can get your amendments up. Nobody believed me.

We had 73 amendments. We did it in 2\1/2\ days. Once that tipping point hits and people start withdrawing amendments, you get your work done. But the minority had every opportunity to offer amendments.

So one year ago, considering the farm bill, the first amendment was by Senator Rand Paul considering the Pakistani who helped us with regard to the Osama bin Laden raid. He was in prison, and so Senator Paul thought it would be a good idea to hold the aid to Pakistan until they released the prisoner.

What did that have to do with the farm bill? Nothing. It was the first amendment considered. It didn't pass, by the way. But many other amendments that came from folks who had never had the opportunity for an amendment to be brought up and discussed, well, those amendments were discussed in the farm bill. I would say that probably, of the 73 amendments that were considered, there were 300 offered. People would get up and they would have their say. They discussed the amendment. They knew probably it would not pass, and they would withdraw it. But they at least had an opportunity to present their opinion and represent their States and their constituents and we made sure they had that opportunity.

This year's farm bill wasn't 73 amendments. We only voted about 10 times. Senator Thune, a respected Member of the Agriculture Committee; Senator Johanns, former Secretary of Agriculture, Senator Grassley, and myself, we all together had a total of about 12 amendments. We withdrew those from consideration during the committee markup and said we will take them up on the floor--except, on the floor, the majority leader cut debate off, saying: Time out. No more. So none of us got those amendments.

As the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House and the ranking member last year, I have to wonder, what is that all about? You have a farm bill, you have people on the Agriculture Committee, they have pertinent amendments with regard to the direction of the bill--and, bingo, you are cut short. That causes a lot of frustration, to say the least.

I have gotten into the weeds on this simply because of our friendship and the Senator's advice to me, which I treasure. But the Senator's willingness to come and speak from the heart to demonstrate to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Think about this. Think about why we are doing this. Why we are doing this is because if you break the rules--which they have--to change the rules, it can't be upheld. More especially on nominations, what is happening is we are packing the District Court in Washington, which is the appeals court-- probably more important than the Supreme Court in deciding on all the regulatory matters that come up; i.e., the President's Executive orders, the President's waivers, the President's interim final rules or any agencies interim final rules--we have government by regulation today. We do not have government by legislation today. We have government by regulation and this court becomes the Senate.

We had an even number of judges, and now we are going to have three more. Consequently, the President--who says he can't work with the Republicans but in fact it is he who will not work with Republicans--is going to have his way because this is going to be jammed down our throats.

When the Senator goes back to Indiana and when I go back to Kansas, one of the top issues we hear about from any economic sector of our economy is: What on Earth is going on with all these regulations? Somebody holds up a piece of paper and says: Pat, are you aware of this regulation? No, I am not, but I will check on it. What is our ability to deal with that? Almost nothing.

So we have government by overregulation.

That is what this is about. The agenda by the President to add more regulation to get his agenda done is being challenged and going through the courts as opposed to the Senate of the United States. That is why we are faced here with this situation. That is why I was here from 8 to 9 talking about Iran. The Senator is talking about the issue at hand, and I truly appreciate it.

I thank the Senator for coming to the floor. I thank the Senator for making these comments. I just wish people would understand why we are feeling this frustration and have a more accurate reflection of what is going on here. I know that is not reflected much in the media. I understand that, but that is simply the case.

When the President said if you like your doctor, you can keep him, period, that isn't really what he meant. Really he meant, if you like your plan, you can keep it--semicolon--if I like it. He really meant: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor if it is possible and we think it is all right.

These were called lemon plans, shoddy plans, substandard plans, plans that were denigrated even though the families involved had a plan they liked. I am sure the same is true in Indiana as it is in Kansas. More people have lost their insurance after they have signed up.

We understand that we have a lot left to do with health care reform, and I would say that almost every Senator has a 5-point plan on what they would like to do, and it is certainly more market oriented.

I will tell you what also isn't working, as opposed to the rollout, is the advertising for this. Some of it is unbelievable. Thank goodness the media is now watching and paying attention to this issue. There is a rap group that is on television that said it is cool to sign up for ObamaCare. Why on Earth are the taxpayers paying for that when every day Secretary Sebelius is changing the game, along with the President?

The President changed this plan about 17 times. Maybe that is a low number now, but if that's what he wants he should come back to the Congress for that. I think a lot of these changes are unconstitutional. At least he should come back to the Congress, which gets me back to my friend's basic point.

What would have happened if we had gone ahead with regular order and sworn in Scott Brown as the new Senator from Massachusetts and then it would not have been on a one-vote margin with regard to ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, or whatever it was called back then, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The acronym for that, by the way, is PPACA, which I think pretty well sums it up.

At any rate, had that happened, they would have had to have some kind of bipartisan agreement, which is really what we are talking about when we talk about breaking the rules now. They didn't have to do that because they would not swear in Scott, and so there we were on Christmas Eve.

None of us knew what was in the bill because it was in Harry Reid's office. As a member of the HELP Committee, I was privileged to consider this bill. We worked hard. I had three amendments on rationing--I am still worried about rationing. There are four rationers that I will not get into now.

IPAB is the No. 1 issue I am worried about. They decide the reimbursements that your hospitals in Indiana will get, and that my hospitals will get, and that is why we are trying to do the SGR reform and the Doc Fix.

We were in the HELP Committee, and we had three amendments, and all three were defeated by a party-line vote. That mark--I don't know where that bill is now--I think it is collecting dust. Then my amendments were considered by the Finance Committee. Then I wanted to offer the amendments on the floor.

I did this because we are going to have a lot of problems with the rationing boards making decisions as opposed to individual patients and their doctors--if they can even have their doctor, period.

So we get back, again, to regular order. We get back to respecting the minority's rights. We get back to protecting minority rights. Had we had those amendments, I think this bill possibly could have been worked out. I now believe that this bill was proposed by those who really prefer national health insurance, and this was a stalking horse for national health insurance. I don't think anybody on that side of the aisle realized that this bill would be like Thelma and Louise going off into the canyon, but that is what happened. So now we have this mess on our hands and every day we learn about something new.

The Secretary came out with something yesterday with additional changes. It doesn't really mean anything because she is just simply urging the insurance companies to go back and talk to those folks the Senator from Indiana was talking about--about the plan they would like to have or the plan they would like to keep. She is just saying to the insurance companies: We urge you to do that.

What is that all about? The toothpaste is out of the tube. I don't know how on Earth you can get that done. There were other suggestions. I am getting off subject here because my friend started out talking about the rights of the minority, and the health reform bill didn't pass with any Republican votes and very little Republican input. I think, in part, that is why it has crashed and is burning right now.

If we had just had regular order input during that particular time, I think there would have been a better product. I probably still would have voted no because I don't want national health insurance. I feel a lot better that I expressed my rant to my friend from Indiana, and it has been a better morning as a result.

I think anybody listening to us could finally understand the depth of our frustration. We want to be a part of this Senate and we have a right to be a part of this Senate, but that right and privilege everybody had for 225 years has now been taken away.

It will be interesting when, in fact, the pendulum does swing back and Republicans are in control. What will we do? Will we go back to the 225-year precedent or will we say: Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander? Will we seek a pound of flesh or two? I don't know what we will do. I hope that we will go back to the 225-year precedent. It would be the right thing to do, but it will be interesting to see.

I thank the Senator from Indiana for allowing me to share his time.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, it isn't as if we haven't tried.

As the Senator knows, Senators are under that obligation--and their staffs. The committee staff is different, the leadership staff is different, and as the Senator pointed out, the executive is different. What is that all about? It should be uniform or not all, and it should be uniform for everybody who had a hand in this debacle.

I even thought about an amendment saying that those who didn't vote for it--I voted against ObamaCare three times: Once in the HELP Committee, once in the Finance Committee, and once it came out of Harry Reid's office. My colleagues said: Did you read the bill? Nobody read the bill because it had been changed, so then we had to wade through it, and then, as different events came about, one problem led to another problem, that problem led to two problems, and those problems led to other problems, so we are still finding out about that.

But back to the point of the Senator from Indiana, we can name Senators who said: Look, let's make this uniform. If it is good enough for Americans, it ought to be good enough for us. And that just has not happened.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield.

My wife is much more adept at the social media capability, and so it was up to her. I thought we were confirmed, only to find out almost before the deadline--it was midnight, and there was a desperate attempt on the part of my staff and myself. I needed help to get this done, so I had to redo it. Then the thought occurred to me, we are going to have two Pat Roberts in there: one that my wife did and then the new attempt. I hope that is not the case. I think maybe we have it cleared up, but I am not sure, so we will find out. I hope we don't have to work to find out, but we will find out.

I think that is just a duplication of what everybody in the country is going through. And then what do you do if, in fact, you can't have insurance and you find out about copays and deductibles and all of this. I am repeating a sad story that I think everybody knows.

I thank the Senator from Indiana once again for his heartfelt plea to make the other side understand the error of their ways. I hope we can fix this. I hope they can see fit to fix this down the road. I doubt that will be the case, and I don't think the country will be better off as a result.

I thank the Senator.

Right.

Will the Senator yield for one more observation.

I was watching the news last night, and many more millions of dollars are now being spent to hire more navigators, so the Senator's constituent should have had a navigator. In many cases they want navigators, and now they are being hired from various community organizations, some of which I really wonder about. But in some States where only hundreds have signed up, there will be more navigators than people who have signed up. So obviously it has gotten to the point where everybody has a problem, where insurance ought to have a navigator. This is at considerable expense--I don't remember now how many millions it totals--and a brand new group of navigators is being hired at considerable expense to make this work. And the advertising rolls on, and then the news media discovers more and more about all the problems.

I appreciate the Senator bringing this to the attention of the American people.

I note the distinguished Senator from Nebraska is here, and he even has a chart that will educate the American people.

Would the Senator yield?

I am assuming that his situation is very similar to the situation that I find myself in. About a year ago we brought the farm bill to the floor. I was the ranking member of the committee. We voted 73 times. We had over 300 amendments offered. The amendments came forth, and the first amendment had nothing to do with agriculture. Basically, we were able to get through it in 2\1/2\ days.

Fast-forward to this year's farm bill. I think there were 10 votes. Senator Thune has been on the committee for a long time. We respect his voice, and we respect his amendments. He had about four amendments. Senator Grassley has been on the committee a lot longer. He always has amendments on the farm bill. Senator Johanns is a former Secretary of Agriculture. He is an excellent Senator for Nebraska and a real voice for Agriculture. He had several amendments. I had two or three amendments that I would have liked to have had considered.

The reason I mention them is because we all agreed to hold off in committee as long as we could bring them to the floor. We wanted to expedite it because the big issue was time. They said: Well, we don't have time for a farm bill. Usually a farm bill takes 1 to 2 weeks. That is just not the case anymore. Last year we got through it in 2\1/2\ days.

This year we expected to have votes, but none of us got amendments. After 10 votes, bingo, it was cut off. The majority leader controlled the effort. This is like the Rules Committee in the House.

When I was in the House, we had a Roberts-Stenholm amendment.

That is correct.

Madam President, if I could respond to the distinguished Senator. We had a Roberts-Stenholm amendment at that point while the Republicans were in the minority. Charlie Stenholm was a Democrat. As we went in he whispered: You might want to make this the Stenholm- Roberts amendment. I figured that out pretty fast, and we got our amendment made in order.

As a younger member of the House at that particular time, I thought the Rules Committee was based on the merits of whether it was germane or pertinent, et cetera. It wasn't. It was just a complete rehash of what went on with the authorizing committee.

One of the reasons I decided to come to the Senate was that you can offer an amendment at any time on any subject, unless it was something involving national security or whatever. I understand that. What we have now is a one-man rules committee. I deeply resent that.

I feel sorry for the Senate, and I feel sorry for the Members who come here and are not able to have their amendments considered.

One of the first things I did as the ranking member of the Senate agriculture committee last year was to promise that amendments could be brought to the floor. A lot of people on our side never had the opportunity to offer an amendment before. I said: You will have that opportunity if I can get this thing done. And we did. We opened it and it was one of the few bills that went under regular order, and we got things done.

There is only one House. There is the House and there is the Senate-- just like the House--and that is a shame.

I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his remembrance of those days that were so special to him and also for really commemorating them so they will be special to all of us. I thank him for his comments.

Rules Change

Madam President, I am going to speak as the ranking member of the Senate rules committee, and I am going to speak in regard to the rules changes that have occurred today.

Under the rules of this body, it takes 67 votes to end debate on a rules change. As a continuing body, our rules carry on from one Congress to the next--or at least they used to--and can only be changed pursuant to these rules. Our rules have always ensured a voice for the minority in this body. Unlike the House, where I served, where a simple majority has the power to impose a rule change at any time, in the Senate the minority has always been protected. Here, the rules protect the minority and cannot be changed without their consent--unless, of course, the majority decides it wants to break the rules to change the rules. I am saddened that is what happened today.

The Washington Post reported the other day that President Obama's approval rating has hit a record low; his disapproval rating has hit a record high--the worst of his Presidency. This is obviously the result of the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare which has caused Americans to question both the President's trustworthiness and his basic competence.

In light of these developments, one would think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might be reconsidering the wisdom of some of their past decisions. One would hope it would occur to them that maybe it was a mistake to pass the health care reform bill on a straight party-line vote. I am one of the few who voted no in the HELP Committee, no in the Finance Committee, and no on the Senate floor on that Christmas Eve night.

One might expect them to have some doubts about the competence of this administration, as most Americans clearly do on this particular issue especially and on a lot of other regulations; that it would dawn on them that maybe now might be the right time to reassert congressional authority to rein in and redirect the administration--the executive, if you will--and use the power of the Senate to move the administration in a different direction. I am sorry that has not happened. Instead, in the face of the obvious failures of this President and his plummeting approval ratings, the majority has decided it would be a really good idea to give him more power. That is right, the majority thinks our biggest problem is that the President can't do whatever he wants to do and we should change our rules to allow him to do that. That is incredible.

The majority has permanently undermined this body, robbed it of a vital tool to check the untrammeled authority of this or any other President, so this sinking ship of an administration can make whatever appointments it wants. What a tragedy.

In Kansas, when you walk old ghost towns you will see buildings where nothing remains but the facade. Literally the entire building is gone and all that is left is the facade. To prevent that facade from collapsing, you may see beams propping it up.

In recent weeks this administration has been exposed as a facade. It still looks nice at first glance--the slick campaign-style appearances go on as usual--but when you look behind it, you see there is nothing there. It cannot perform the most basic tasks. It cannot even fulfill the responsibilities it has assigned to itself. It is collapsing. So now we, the Senate, are going to prop it up. The U.S. Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body, has been reduced to being a prop. We have reduced ourselves to rubberstamps, forfeiting our historical and constitutional authority to subject Presidential appointments to advice and consent so this administration can do whatever it wants. Again, what a tragedy. Never has so much been given for so little.

We have permanently undermined this body--for what? So this President can appoint a few more judges and stack the DC Circuit Court that oversees the constitutionality of Federal regulations? Yes, ObamaCare regulations, IRS regulations, EPA regulations--all of the regulations that come like a waterfall over basically every economic sector we have. This is unbelievable. What happened today will surely lead to complete control of this institution by the majority. I hope not, but that is what has happened in the past, more especially in the House.

Do not listen to those who would seek to minimize the importance of what has been done. The claim that what they have done is limited-- applying only to executive nominations--misses the point. The change itself is less important than the manner in which it was imposed. Once you assume the power to write new rules with a simple majority vote, to ignore the existing rules that require a supermajority to achieve such a change, you have put us on a path that will surely lead to total control of this body by the majority.

Before today, there was only one House of Congress where the majority has total control. Now there are two. We have become the House. By its action today, the majority has ensured that for many years to come, Members will not have any rights beyond those which the majority is willing to grant.

When he was in the minority, our current majority leader recognized this. In his book ``The Good Fight,'' Senator Reid wrote about the battle over the nuclear option back in 2005. This is what he wrote:

Once you opened that Pandora's box, it was just a matter of

time before a Senate leader who couldn't get his way on

something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular

business as well. And that, simply put, would be the end of

the United States Senate.

I repeat, ``the end of the United States Senate.''

Senator Reid further wrote:

. . . there will come a time when we will all be gone, and

the institutions that we now serve will be run by men and

women not yet living, and those institutions will either

function well because we've taken care of them, or they will

be in disarray and someone else's problem to solve.

He described the nuclear option this way then:

In a fit of partisan furry, they were trying to blow up the

Senate. Senate rules can only be changed by a two-thirds vote

of the Senate, or 67 Senators. The Republicans were going to

do it illegally with a simple majority, or 51 . . . future

generations be damned.

If only today the majority leader had recalled his own words. Instead, by his own hand, he has brought on the end of the Senate as we know it. Instead of taking care of this institution, he will leave it in disarray--future generations be damned.

Our former Parliamentarian Bob Dove and Richard Arenberg, a professor and onetime aide to former majority leader George Mitchell, wrote a book on this subject called ``Defending the Filibuster,'' and this is what they said:

If a 51-vote majority is empowered to rewrite the Senate's

rules, the day will come, as it did in the House of

Representatives, when a majority will construct rules that

give it near absolute control over amendments and debate. And

there is no going back from that. No majority in the House of

Representatives has or ever will voluntarily relinquish that

power in order to give the minority a greater voice in

crafting legislation.

Do not be fooled by those who would try to minimize the impact of what happened today. Again, the rule change itself is less important than the manner in which it was imposed. Now that the majority has decided it can set the rules, there is no limit to what it or any future majority might do in the future. There are no constraints. The majority claims these changes are necessary to make the Senate function. If it decides further changes are needed, it will make them. The minority will have no voice, no say, no power. That has never been the case in the Senate--never. Until now.

It saddens me that we have come to this point. It saddens me that the Members on the other side of the aisle who should know better have taken this course. We have done permanent damage to this institution and set a precedent that will surely allow future majorities to further restrict the rights of the minority. That is not a threat; it is just a fact. We have weakened this

body permanently, undermined it, for the sake of an incompetent administration. What a tragedy.

This is a sad, sad day. When the future generations we have damned by today's actions look back and wonder ``Why are things in such disarray? When did it go wrong? When did the demise of the Senate begin?'' the answer will be today, November 21, 2013.

Mr. President, Beth from Tribune, KS, is a single mother of a 3-year-old son with significant physical disabilities. Her son's insurance is being canceled. To replace this policy with a similar plan, it is going to cost far more than the $750 monthly premium Beth pays now.

She writes:

How can this be? My little boy needs health insurance. . .

. Now our insurance company is telling us this policy no

longer exists because it doesn't meet the government's

requirements and if we'd like to get another plan it's going

to cost even more for the same child . . .

We didn't change children . . . it's the same child!! This

doesn't make sense. We frequently visit multiple specialists.

We need this insurance. It baffles me as to why this is

happening. It's not rocket science . . . it's healthcare.

ObamaCare is affecting those that need it the most and NOT in

a good way . . . It's very stressful raising a child with

significant needs . . . I'd like to be concentrating on the

health and well-being of my son and not on stressing out over

health insurance.

For Beth and her son, we must repeal this law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the Drug Quality and Security Act, H.R. 3204. Getting this bill to where it is today--and I thank the leader for just making that possible, along with our minority leader--has been a long and sometimes very difficult road, one on which I have been working for over a decade--yes, 10 years.

This is an issue that hit far too close to home in Kansas. Several years ago, a pharmacist in Kansas City, Robert Courtney, was found to be diluting cancer drugs for his patients. Unfortunately, over 4,000 patients were affected before authorities could stop him. Senator Kit Bond at that time and myself worked together to hold the first Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on pharmacy compounding.

Since that time I have continued my interest in the compounding- related issues. Unfortunately, last September, over a year ago, the tragic meningitis outbreak began. This outbreak was the result of contaminated compounded medications produced by the New England Compounding Center.

Of the 751 people who became ill, 64 people lost their lives. Many of those who became ill are still suffering and have experienced painful relapses in their condition. Unfortunately, that is not the only occurrence in the last 10 years. Without proper safeguards and clear authority, I fear that these tragedies would only continue.

We acknowledged then that we had to buckle down and really get something done. Since that time, I have been working with my colleagues to draft the pending legislation before this body, the Drug Quality and Security Act, with the desire to protect patients and improve regulation of the pharmacy compounding industry.

I think that we have finally achieved what we all intended from the beginning, which is a bipartisan, bicameral product that is supported by a majority of the stakeholder groups and a variety of those groups. This legislation has the support of the pharmacists led by the National Community Pharmacists Association and the American Pharmacists Association. It has the support of the patient advocacy groups such as the Cancer Leadership Council and of industry groups such as the Pharmaceutical Distribution Security Alliance. In fact, this is quite a long list. I will not take the Senate's time to go over that list. But I would ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record at this point in its entirety.

Title I of the Drug Quality and Security Act addresses the oversight of compounding pharmacies, and Title II provides a mechanism for securing our pharmaceutical drug supply chain. Together, we are making patients safer and ensuring that they can better trust the drugs that they take.

This took a significant amount of time and effort. I especially thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senators Burr, Bennett, and Franken for sticking with it. This is a true bipartisan effort. Personally, I thank my staffer Jennifer Boyer for her determined dedication and the many hours of work to get this job done.

In September, with the leadership of Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman in the other body, this legislation was passed by the House by a voice vote. I am hoping we can see a similar outcome in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and encourage its swift passage and the signature by the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

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

I understand we are in morning business. I ask consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to talk a little bit about the government shutdown--what else. It is my understanding that my colleagues across the aisle, I understand I will not have the opportunity to speak to any one of them, but should they come out on the floor--they are out on the Senate Capitol steps exhorting the House to send something they prefer over or to simply end the shutdown with a clean bill. I however would have suggested they would go over to the House steps as a gesture of good will. I am not sure any Member of the House--I know when I was in the House, I am not sure I would have appreciated either party getting on the Capitol steps and urging me to doing something when I was in the House. But be that as it may, perhaps it is a good will effort as opposed to further demands.

I want to make sure everybody in Kansas is aware--and I know I speak for everybody on our side--the Republican side of the aisle did not want to shut down the government. As everybody knows, we have the current continuing resolution. I am sorry we have to continue to go through continuing resolutions. This is where we bundle up everything from appropriations bills, some of which have already been worked through, and then simply meld them together into a continuing resolution. We do not do appropriations bills anymore. That would be called regular order. I truly resent this. I find this most unfortunate.

So here we are, trying to consider how to fund the government. Many of us believe this funding measure should do everything possible to also control spending. That seems to be the real issue. Chief among these proposals would be to defund or at least delay the health care reform law. My colleagues and I have supported multiple measures to try to avoid a shutdown.

In the past few weeks Republicans have offered no fewer than three solutions to avoid the government shutdown, and I voted to keep the government open every single time. Most recently, the House is passing mini-CRs to open the government piece by piece because we cannot come to an agreement on a continuing resolution. Most

people, if they pay attention to the media--or if the media even covers this--understand what the House is trying to do, which is to open the government piece by piece. The first item of business would be to certainly fund the Veterans' Administration. We have all seen what is going on down at the World War II Memorial and, unfortunately, at the Marine Corps War Memorial as well, where we have yet to break the barrier. Being the senior marine in the Congress, I may lead a charge at the memorial sometime later this week. I have not made up my mind yet.

At any rate, that is just not reasonable. There are a lot of things being done, including no death benefits for people who have paid the ultimate sacrifice recently in the current wars that continue to go on. That is abhorrent. Why that decision was made by the Department of Defense I do not know.

At any rate, the House is trying to target these particular items, most of which have been identified by the President. So these mini-CRs by the House mirror what the President says in regards to the hurt that is being caused by the shutdown. What the President identifies, the House is trying to fix and then send over to the Senate. It is very unclear whether the majority leader will even allow a vote in regard to these measures. Senator Cruz spoke to this in regards to a plan A, when we were discussing this in the Republican conference.

At any rate, the majority leader has refused to consider a single one. So this debate is not about shutting down the government, it is actually in part to protect Americans from what I call the disastrous health care law that is damaging our economy, raising taxes, and costing people their jobs. It is about a President who is unwilling to lead, unwilling to even come to the table to negotiate.

The President is now indicating he might want to negotiate on a short-term continuing resolution, but we do not have an agenda. We have had quite a few people offer plans. The distinguished Senator from Maine, Susan Collins, has a plan--it should be a bipartisan plan--that calls for a short continuing resolution, repeal of the medical device tax, and then fixing the sequester so the different agencies would have the authority to pick and choose how to meet the guidelines with regard to the Budget Control Act. Then it allows oversight responsibility to the Appropriations Committee to take a look at what the various Secretaries would do and make sure that is all right. This would be plan B.

We have a plan C by Paul Ryan that I just read about in the Wall Street Journal. So we are not lacking in plans. What we are lacking is a room. We don't have a room, we don't have a table, we don't have chairs, and we don't have anybody in the chairs, they don't want anybody in the chairs. By the way, I would just as soon not have another supercommittee that turned out to be not very super, selected by leadership. We could have the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction, and the Ways and Means Committee in the House, which has jurisdiction, and I will bet we could come up with something that would be reasonable. At any rate, it is still about the majority leader insisting, no, he is not going to consider something like this. Unless, of course, the President would change his mind--and I hope he does.

My colleagues across the aisle have refused to consider even the most moderate proposals such as repealing the medical device tax as recommended by Senator Collins and ensuring that Members of Congress and their staff are treated the same as the average American in the ObamaCare exchanges.

Let me repeat that: that Members of Congress and their staff are treated the same as average Americans in the ObamaCare exchanges. When that came up in the Finance Committee, long before ObamaCare was passed or, for that matter, before it left the Finance Committee to go behind closed doors, in the majority leader's office--where I think he was singing with Mr. Rich, in terms of singing behind closed doors, but that is another story--at any rate, that first time I think it was Senator Grassley who said he thinks it is only right that Members of Congress and their staff live under the same rules. He proposed that amendment. I voted for it then and I would again. It did pass then and, of course, now it is defeated by those across the aisle.

After failing to pass a budget last year and the 3 years prior to that or to pass a single funding measure this year, the Federal Government has been operating under a stopgap measure, as I mentioned before, called a continuing resolution. This is not what the people of Kansas expect from their government.

Despite multiple disruptions and critical delays, the exchanges became active as of October 1, about a week ago. However, since then we have heard feedback that the exchanges are off to a rocky start, are unusable or totally disappointing, fraught with frequent error and messages from a failure of a major software component. That is also not what people expected from any government program, and certainly not what has been sold as the President's signature domestic achievement.

Unfortunately, this was not unexpected for those of us who have opposed the law since the beginning, but it does bring up an issue. If you watch the news media--and for that matter, the comedy shows that follow later in the evening--there is always somebody who is trying to sign up on a computer and following the instructions given by the Department of Health and Human Services.

After you log on, the first page shows a smiling face, and then you get maybe three questions. I was interested in one of the questions I heard had been asked: What do you eat? What is your favorite food?

If that's true what on Earth does that have to do with signing up for ObamaCare? Maybe they are concerned with somebody they feel might be obese or something like that, and maybe that is the person who ought to be signing up. I just don't know.

I know when I went through the first 16 pages--when I was reviewing as a member of the Finance Committee--of the draft on how you sign up, I got to page 3, and must say I would not give any database that kind of personal information. I think part of the delay is probably caught up on that. But you can't even get past page 3, and then it says you must wait.

I don't know how long we are going to wait. I know the President has called it simply glitches and bumps in the road. I think the front page of the Washington Post saying that many people had warned the administration that this was not going to work is certainly pertinent with regards to this discussion. I would offer up that these are system failures as opposed to bumps and glitches. I don't know when this is going to be worked out.

Despite a government shutdown, my colleagues across the aisle will not even consider solutions which acknowledge the widespread concerns expressed by the American people have with ObamaCare.

Let me also point out something else. The nominee to be the new head of the IRS--I asked him first why on Earth he would want to take on that job. He said, I am Mr. Fix-it, and that is what his resume says. I asked him a couple of questions, and I wished him well. I said: How are you going to implement and enforce this fine that is going to be on everybody if they don't sign up? I understand, from the administration, that nobody has to submit their eligibility requirements with regards to income. This is going to lead to fraud, abuse, and scamming. Second, you can't even sign up to begin with, and third, how on Earth is the IRS going to find anybody when they do not have the information or capability to do that?

I asked the distinguished nominee, who will come before the Finance Committee, where I will ask him again: How are you going to do that? He said: I need 8,000 more people. I said: What do you think the chances of that happening are around here? They would have to be trained, right? He said: Right.

They don't even have the people to enforce this if, in fact, they are going to enforce the fine. So why not just tell the American people: I am sorry, but we are not ready to fine people. We are not ready to have people declare their eligibility with regards to income, and we are not ready to sign people up yet because of the glitches, bumps, or failures in the system. So just delay it. Maybe they could delay it--as one prominent newscaster has proposed--

and just say: Look, if you want it, sign up for it, do. If you don't, you don't have to. You won't have to anyway because you are not going to get fined because the IRS has no capability to fine people. How are they going to do that? Are they going to cut your rebate check? Most of the people don't even get rebate checks. This is a mess that is just falling apart.

I, for one, am going to do everything I can to not let this stalemate stand. I am a senior member on the Finance Committee. I would encourage my colleagues basically that we meet, and that we discuss a continuing resolution that would extend funding out and allow us to try to work together on the systemic problems that face us with regards to the national debt.

I want to work toward a solution. I am going to do everything in my power to bring my colleagues to the table. I think they want to come to the table. We have a lot of responsible and good people interested who want this to end just like this side wants it to end. But we race headlong into another debt ceiling debate with the President in the exact same position as he is in the shutdown--unwilling to lead, unwilling to even come to the table, and we still have the majority leader saying no. We have White House officials running to the media declaring that we will default on our debt, the sky will fall, and this will be the fault of Republicans. These claims of inevitable default are false given the operation of the government and the cash flowing into the Treasury each month. They are clearly posturing--and dangerously posturing at that. No one wants a default or a shutdown by shotgun. Nobody wants a default--least of all me. It is the height of irresponsibility to make these claims and all along the way refuse to negotiate.

What we are asking for, and what we must do, is very simple: Consider a debt limit extension and budget changes at the same time, which would allow us to address our debt problem. Contrary to what Secretary Lew and other administration officials say, this is how these issues are handled. This is regular order. The debt limit, for at least the last 27 years, except for one small extension, has been attached to larger spending cuts and budget reforms. This is not unprecedented. This is how we do business. This is regular order.

The President's position is at odds with the stance taken by his predecessors from both parties. They saw the common sense of coupling deficit reduction with the extension of the debt limit. It is hard to figure out the President's thinking on this. Maybe now that a huge portion of Federal spending is on autopilot, he simply wants a blank check to fund the government with automatic increases in the debt limit. I want to mention something else that bothers me. I would like to go into negotiations with at least certain things that are guarantees, things which have been guaranteed before. I am talking about guarantees in the Budget Control Act, and I am talking about the so-called fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff protected 99 percent of Americans from a tax increase and had an estate tax reform that made sense and some real progress on capital gains.

The Budget Control Act, as we all know, led to the sequester. Again, Senator Collins has a plan that would fix the sequester and would give people more flexibility on how to do it, but also with oversight by the appropriations committees to make sure it is done right.

In meeting with the President--and he indicated in a press conference the other day that maybe he would invite more people to the White House. I appreciated being invited to the White House about 6 months ago. The subject came to a grand bargain. We were asking how this would work out.

Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes if I may have it.

Thank you, Madam President. I will try to wrap up. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator who wishes to speak. I will try to get this done.

We were meeting with the President. I was bringing up the issue of regulations, but the rest of the people were talking about a grand bargain and what could happen. The President said on tax reform: Why can't we start with a clean page? Basically everybody agreed. And then he said we could also take mortgage interest, charitable giving, retirement, and we can means-test those and start from there. I thought, oh boy, here we go again--income redistribution. That is not the answer.

I would just say that before we enter into any negotiations, we ought to make sure that the Budget Control Act and the fiscal cliff bill, which were negotiated in good faith with the Vice President and which have resulted in lower spending, in the first actual decreases in spending by the Federal Government since the Korean War. That is unbelievable.

So in going to negotiate, I don't want to give up in regards to those decreases, and I don't want a situation where the President has said: I gave to you on CPI so I need $800 billion in revenue. The distinguished majority leader has said it is $1 trillion. So if we are going to raise $1 trillion in revenue, then here we go again and whatever negotiations come down the pike are going to be more spending and more taxes. People are just figuring out what their tax bill is going to be with ObamaCare. We don't need a situation where we sit down and negotiate simply for more taxes and spending. Without going into the constitutional implications of granting any authority on autopilot to the President, I would say I am adamantly opposed to giving any President that much control over the budget.

Why does all of this matter? Why am I making this speech? Why is my friend across the aisle going to make her speech? The debt limit is currently $16.7 trillion. The debt has increased about $6 trillion since the President took office--more than any other President in our history. The main source of this tremendous growth in our debt is entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Paul Ryan has a plan to fix that. It ought to at least be on the table, and that way we can see a path for where we can go with it.

Without changes, spending on these programs is expected to grow by 79 percent over the next 10 years. In fact, by law, there is no upper limit on how much we spend on these programs. This spending--added to interest payments on the debt--will make up close to 65 percent of the budget in 10 years. By then we won't have any discretionary spending.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that we remain on an unsustainable path. All we are asking--prudently, I hope--is that any increase in the Federal debt limit needs to be coupled with real, tangible cuts in discretionary spending and meaningful, structural reform to entitlement spending. We need to get this done to rein in our unsustainable debt and to ensure that these programs are there for our children and our grandchildren.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution from Stanford University be printed in the Record at this time.

I yield back any time I may have.

Would the courageous Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Let me ask the Senator a question to cut to the chase. Let's get to the bottom line. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, our respected leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, because of his position, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and President Barack Obama have all said publicly that the Affordable Care Act is the first step to a single-payer system. Listen to the folks on the other side of the aisle, and many of them say the same thing.

We can call it a single-payer system, we can call it national health insurance, but is this not the first step toward socialized health care--socialized health care--and is stopping socialized health care worth pulling out all of the stops and fighting the fight?

Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from Texas yield for a question?

How is the Senator doing?

I saw a black car down there in the parking lot with a Texas license plate, and I figured that was the Senator's. Didn't see him in it. Everybody was wondering as they got up this morning, after listening to the Senator last night, whether he would still be standing, but here he is. I appreciate this.

I think the thing I appreciate the most--and the question will follow, Mr. President--is how the Senator has conducted himself because throughout the night he has had some folks at least making their point of view, which is obviously very different from his. Sometimes folks in this body get a little critical--arrows and slings--and although not necessary, those wounds heal. But in each and every case of a person who has brought a different point of view, the Senator has very deftly and very skillfully, acting like a Senator, respected their point of view. Not once did I see him do anything else.

I gave up about midnight, by the way, my wife about 11. She fell asleep. But I thank the Senator for that. I thank him for being truly senatorial and basically doing what Senators do; that is, respect everybody's point of view.

I especially liked the comment of Bernie Sanders, whom I also like. You wouldn't know it, but he does have quite a sense of humor. A different point of view but very honest about it. So I thank the Senator for that.

If the Senator wants breakfast, if he is about ready to sit down, I will be happy to buy him breakfast. But we will let that go.

The other thing I want to ask is how does the Senator feel coming here as a new Senator and knowing how the Senate used to operate and knowing that in the Senate I came to, every Senator, on an important issue, had the opportunity to offer an amendment. It could be germane or it could not be germane. But for the last 5 years that has not been the case. There have been a few exceptions when we have had what is called regular order. Folks back home don't know what regular order is, but it is the way the Senate used to operate. It is the difference between the Senate and the House. It is the reason I left the House and ran for the Senate, because I wanted to have that opportunity to be an individual Senator.

Last year I made a reference to the farm bill, which has somewhat something to do with what the Senator is talking about because it involves the ability of America to feed not only us but a very troubled and hungry world. Of course, food helps your health, obviously, but you show me a country that cannot feed itself and I will show you a country that is in chaos. So we do farm bills. They are much maligned. Right now not too many people even care about them, but they are terribly important. And farmers and ranchers now see no certainty out there because, like the health care law, at the end of this fiscal year the farm bill is going to expire, and they wonder what on Earth we are doing. We are in a perfect storm.

In the last farm bill--not this one, in the last farm bill--in talking to the majority leader--whom I affectionately call Smoking Joe because he is a fan of boxing and Joe Frazier--I said: We can do this in 2\1/2\ days. And the chairperson of the committee, Senator Stabenow, also obviously weighed in, but we did the farm bill in 2\1/2\ days. That was a record.

The first amendment on the farm bill was the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky dealing with Pakistan and saying no more aid to Pakistan until they freed that doctor who was very helpful to our intelligence community with regard to what happened with Osama bin Laden. What did that have to do with the farm bill? Nothing.

Rand Paul came to me and said: Do you think we can get this amendment?

I said: Yes. We have an open rule.

There were 73 amendments considered--73; this last farm bill, only about 10, probably less than that. Senator Thune had very key amendments, Senator Johanns had very key amendments, Senator Grassley had key amendments, and I, the former chairman of the House agriculture committee, the former ranking member, had some key amendments. All of the senior members on the agriculture committee, all of us who had contributed to that process were locked out--sorry, it is over, no amendments. What is that all about?

We have a one-person rules committee in this Senate. And if there is anything I am upset about, it is the lack of ability and the lack of opportunity for the Senator from Texas or Kentucky or Kansas or anybody else in this body to offer an amendment.

So here we are--what is it--5 days away from the law that says: Prescribed by law, these exchanges and everything that has anything to do with the unaffordable health care act is going to take place. And the Senator has demonstrated time and time again, with every allegory one can possibly come up with, how this is a train wreck.

Yesterday afternoon, when the Senator started--well, it was in the evening--I came to the floor and said: Look, isn't it worth the fight, isn't it worth the effort--and the Senator is making the effort, and I appreciate that so much--knowing this is the first, second, and third step--skip to my Lou, my darlin'--going right into socialized medicine? And who says that? Well, let's start with the President; then the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius; then Nancy Pelosi in the House; and then the distinguished majority leader here saying: Yes, we want a single-payer system.

A single-payer system means national health care; it means socialized medicine; it means, as the Senator has pointed out during all of this rather unique and incredible time he has taken before the Senate, the government pays for it, which means we all pay for it and premiums go up and the insurance companies have a heck of a time and there will be exactly what the Senator has described in Cuba. I am hoping it won't be that bad, but at least he has pointed it out.

So my question to the Senator is, after all of that rambling rose, wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be in the best interests of this body, wouldn't it be in the best interests of Americans to open this Senate, go back to regular order, and at least have an opportunity to offer amendments?

Some of the folks who were somewhat critical of the Senator said: Well, what are you going to offer?

There are about five amendments I would like to offer. I don't know what the Senator thinks the key amendments are that he would like to offer as a positive answer as opposed to shutting down the Affordable Health Care Act with a lack of funding. We could only do that partially because a lot of it gets in with taxes, and that is the mandated funds we allegedly can't touch. But would the Senator please list about two or three amendments he would like to offer.

I think I would like to see the medical device tax repealed, but, again, that is one of those mandatory things we have to deal with in the Finance Committee, of which I am a member. But let's get on the positive side of this and say: OK, if the Senator had the opportunity to offer amendments and everybody else had an opportunity to offer amendments--and the Senator has spent a great deal of time here overnight. What was it--2:40 in the afternoon? That is what they keep flashing on the news. Quite frankly, I was listening to Ray Price singing ``For the Good Times,'' and I flipped over to FOX News, and there you were again. I thought, my Lord, there he is, still standing and still talking.

So give me just about three amendments the Senator might offer. We shouldn't do more than three things because people forget about it after three.

There is one other thing I want to mention. I got a lot of derision and a lot of criticism when this bill was first passed. I serve on the HELP Committee--Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We spent a great deal of time on this bill. I had three amendments to prevent rationing by the rationing board. Everybody says they are not rationing, but they are. So those decisions are not being made by the patient and doctor, they are being made by appointed bodies or we can use the term ``bureaucrats.'' That is usually a pejorative term. At any rate, I was upset, and I said: We are riding hell for leather into a box canyon, and there are a lot of cactuses in the world. We don't have to sit on every one of them, but, by golly, we are. We are about to do that. And I had some other allegories we use in Dodge City, KS, and I had a few marine stories to tell, and then I got derided even on national news: Oh my gosh, here is this cowboy from Dodge City. I am not. I am an old newspaper person.

At any rate, I am in here saying we are going into a box canyon only to find out four or five other people now have referred to it as a box canyon. We are in it. Everybody understands what a box canyon is, and we have to ride out. So when we are riding out, what are we going to do, I would ask the Senator from Texas. Give me three amendments.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Well, the question is, some people are funny and some people are humorous. I may be one of the most humorous, but Senator Graham is truly funny.

On that point, would the Senator yield for a question?

There are six Federal agencies in the meta database that are involved in it. When I kept inquiring, when the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, asked the representative from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services--CMS, referred to in the health provider community as ``It's a Mess''--and said, Who is the navigator? This is before we understood that it was pretty much all community organizers. There are three basic organizations in Kansas, 1.5 million, and so they are out there knocking on doors.

The problem is we don't know what people are signing up for, or they don't know and I don't know, and we have made all sorts of inquiries.

Finally I got the 16 pages that you have to fill out to be eligible to sign up and the 61 pages that you had to fill out then to be a member of the exchange. That got a lot of news. So they reduced the number by simply reducing the font size from about 16-point or 12-point down to 8-point. They said, Just read more carefully. I got to page 3.

I would not put down the information they wanted to know. There have been stories about scammers who are looking at these regulations or these signup sheets--no matter how big they are--saying, Aha, if they have to give their Social Security number, I can call them and say it is the law and you are going to have a lot of fraud and abuse. Maybe the IRS can take a look at that.

One other thing about the IRS. The Finance Committee in a bipartisan effort--we haven't held many hearings, but we are getting closer and closer to what happened with the IRS denying people First Amendment rights. I would give a lot of credit to Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus working in a bipartisan effort.

Along about November there is going to be quite a story. There is a V, and we have Lois Lerner here, and it goes up here to the Justice Department and it goes wider. We are getting a lot of communications. We are not making a lot of hearings about it, not standing in front of the mirrors. So we will get there.

But the Senator makes an excellent point about the IRS. With all the problems they have had over this denial of First Amendment--not only to the tea party groups, conservative groups, but pro-Israel groups and a whole bunch of other groups, and they are still doing it.

Consequently, the Senator has made an excellent point. Why on Earth would we want the IRS to be in charge of your health care, not to mention five other agencies, in a huge database? That information should be between you and your doctor, and you should have to break down the doggone doors in the dead of night in order to get that kind of information, as opposed to giving it to the Federal Government with all those different agencies with all sorts of opportunity for fraud, abuse, and virtually everything else.

I am sorry to get wound up on that, but the Senator made an excellent point and I am trying to think of a question to make this legal.

Doesn't the Senator think this is a trail we don't want to go down?

Reserving the right to object, my remarks will only take 4 minutes to identify myself with Senator Cruz's effort on Benghazi. I know Senator Inhofe would like to say a few words.

So perhaps I could start?

I think it was 15 minutes.

I am not going to take all of the 15 minutes.

Reserving the right to object, it is a 15-minute slot that we had intended, and I am sure the Senators will arrive.

I withdraw any objection.

Mr. President, Senator Cruz is now on the floor, and he will be speaking right after me.

I thank Senator Cruz for his efforts to keep the focus on the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

It seems to me to be a great shame that 1 year after the heinous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and four Americans being murdered and--this is tremendously important--shaking the confidence of our men and women deployed in service to this Nation that the United States would never leave one of their own behind--I was told that when I joined the Marine Corps a long time ago--it is a great shame that we are still in the same place.

Justice has yet to be seen or done. The families of those killed at the consulate in Benghazi are waiting for answers about what happened that night, and they simply want to know that this President and this administration are working to seek justice for what actually happened. Yet it appears that what is happening is that the administration is doing everything but seek justice. Quite frankly, I think Americans-- and I share their concern and frustration and anger--are sick and tired of hearing excuses, delays, and even silence. The President and his administration have stonewalled us on this case, in my personal view.

This should have been called a terrorist attack a long time ago. The Intelligence Committee should be handling this, but that is not the case. Today the FBI continues to seek tips from Libyans. The FBI has even posted an entire page on their Web site dedicated to finding suspects. There are photos of 29 suspects on that page. Twenty-nine. No arrests have been made. CNN and The New York Times have even had access to one of the chief suspects, Ahmed Abu Khattala, to interview him while he mocks the U.S. investigation. This is unbelievable.

The administration refuses to answer simple questions:

Who told the military to stand down?

Who is responsible for misleading the American public and the victims' families?

What actionable intelligence did our government have?

I know that there was actionable intelligence. People asked for that security. Why was it ignored? This is why we need a joint select committee.

At the very least, this deserves a vote. So I urge my colleagues, please drop your hold. Let us at least have a vote. If you want to defeat it, defeat it. But at least allow the Senator from Texas to have an opportunity to debate this bill.

I thank Senator Cruz for introducing this legislation. I believe this should be a top priority for our government.

I yield back any remaining time I have to the distinguished Senator.

Would the distinguished ranking member yield for one quick question? I know the Senator has prepared remarks, and I know he is not feeling well, but I am stunned by this. I am a member of the committee, as the Senator well knows.

You have been promised full cooperation by the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Werfel. I have been present when he has tried to inform the committee of full cooperation. Now we find out what full cooperation is, more especially as the President has indicated these scandals are so-called phony scandals and repeated by Mr. Lew.

The Senator stated there are 65 million pages that should be available to the committee, which is stunning--stunning--in the job we would have to do. But out of those requested, only 21,500 documents have been presented. Of the 21,500, only 15,000--well, 15,000 pages, but those are nonpriority documents.

Thereby, if you try to figure out when this would be done, it would be in 2016; is that correct?

I am stunned by this.

I would imagine, if you do the math--and if you know how much time we have to actually do this--but I am stunned. This isn't what we were promised. This wasn't the understanding of the full committee and the bipartisan effort.

I don't know what we are going to have to do. We are going to have to do some drastic action if this is any indication of what we are taking.

The Senator pointed out that we have been thorough, we have been bipartisan, and we have kept absolute integrity with this. The key word was ``painstaking.'' If we have this information, there is a lot of pain, but there is no take.

I am extremely upset about it. I thank my colleague for bringing this to the attention of the Senate.

Madam President, I would like to again thank the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee for his presentation and asking very pertinent questions with what I thought was going to be not an easy task but at least a task where we would receive cooperation from the IRS and, for that matter, the administration.

Nobody likes to be audited, and surely nobody likes to say they have been audited, as the distinguished ranking member pointed out about all the conservative groups. But let me point out that this has gone on not only with regard to them but to individuals as well. We are getting reports from the senatorial campaign committee indicating that people are hesitant to give, that people who have given in the past significantly to the Republican cause have been audited, and audited for the first time in their lives, to pro-Israel groups--and I can go on and on with a list of the organizations.

This is a very serious situation. This really surprises me, that having said we were going to do this in a painstaking, bipartisan way, that this is simply not the case.

I am going to be joining the distinguished ranking member. I am very interested in the further questions we feel we can boil down that simply have to be answered first, and then obviously there are many more.

Affordable Health Care Act

This really goes to the subject I want to talk about. The American people now, as a result of this, do not trust the IRS, and they sure as heck do not trust the IRS to be in charge of their health care. That is the subject I want to touch on, and I will try to make it very brief.

It has been more than 3 years since the Affordable Care Act--referred to by some or most in the press as ``ObamaCare''--was signed into law. At the time, I can recall, after months of markup in both the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Finance Committees, I had many concerns. I remember I was very frustrated with my amendments being defeated on partisan votes, most of them having dealt

with rationing. I remember distinctly comparing this rush to government health care to a western or Kansas analogy of riding hell for leather into a box canyon to eventually finding the only alternative would be to turn around and ride back out to a more realistic market-oriented health care reform trade.

As it turned out, we never even saw the bill before we voted on it. I voted no, and so did every other Republican Senator and Member of Congress. And I regret to say to my colleagues that I told you so. Premiums are going up. Taxes are going up. Overall health care costs continue to rise. Burdensome, costly, and, I might add, difficult-to- understand regulations are confusing and confounding health care providers. Many of these folks will not even know about a particular regulation until they are fined by outside contractors. The results have been terribly counterproductive to any economic recovery. Regulations such as these this have a way of dampening anything we are trying to do.

The current and growing problems are so large and complicated with this government takeover of health care that it has been difficult, if not impossible, for the administration to get ObamaCare off the ground. I mentioned what happened 3 years ago at the beginning of my remarks. Let's now talk about what is coming down the pike in just a matter of weeks.

October 1 is the deadline when, according to the Affordable Care Act, according to the law, according to promise, millions of Americans who do not receive insurance through an employer will be forced to purchase health insurance in an exchange overseen by the States and the Federal Government--except for Georgia. Yesterday, Georgia was the first to announce that they will not be ready by the October 1 deadline and have asked for a delay.

I am going to make a prediction that what Georgia did, others will do, including the Federal Government. In fact, as we all know, the administration--in a weekend blog, no less--announced they would delay the employer mandate due to take place January 1, 2014, by a year, to January of 2015. I might add, that just happens to be after the midterm elections. This just means another delay for businesses that complained about the redtape and costly burdens the mandate placed on their operations. Many are already laying off employees or moving them to part-time status to avoid the costly mandate. And all of this follows the thousands of waivers granted to corporations, unions, and other groups.

Again, my question is, Where is the waiver for the average family in Kansas and around the Nation? Where is the permanent delay for the taxes that will affect individuals?

As we warned, things are starting to crumble and get worse, which is why we need to sunset the exchanges and the individual mandate-- literally, a tax on families.

This evening or tomorrow those of us privileged to serve in the Senate will leave Washington for the month of August, and we are going to get an earful regarding all of the problems associated with ObamaCare and the impending deadline. Will exchanges be ready? If they say they are ready, will they really be ready? Many Kansans who will be forced into a Federal exchange or see another last-minute delay--a Federal exchange, by the way, that doesn't exist as of my remarks--will ask how much the new plan will cost. They will say: What will it cover? Will they be able to see their family doctor? Will their personal health information remain private and safe or end up in a six-agency database? Some people call it seven agencies. Will they be losing the health insurance they like? Will the high costs force their employer to make them a part-time employee, change their plan, or just drop their coverage altogether?

Right now Kansans and everyone else in the country cannot answer these questions--and neither can the administration. And when we get back, we will have only 4 weeks until the October 1 deadline. That means, really, if we are going to do something about this, we are only going to have 3 weeks in which something can be done to sunset, delay, defund, or repeal the law and replace it with real health care reform that works and to restore the all-important relationship between patients and doctors.

Well, I do have an answer. Some time ago, when the ObamaCare storm clouds were first forming, I introduced legislation to sunset the exchanges and the individual mandate if they are not, as promised, up and running and ready to enroll by October 1 so that the exchanges can meet the requirements prescribed by law. Simply named the ``Exchange Sunset Act of 2013,'' S. 1272, my bill aims to make sure that if the exchanges are not ready, they go away and so does the mandate.

I realize, as we travel down this road to the October 1 deadline at ever-increasing speed, there will be those who support continued advertising and encouraging thousands to sign up in the exchanges. The question is, Sign up for what? The chances of the exchanges, State and Federal, being ready--and I mean ready and accessible to all that the advertising is trying to bring in--are remote at best. Obviously, there will be some kind of a delay, and once again we will have the administration rewriting laws which they had a direct hand in writing and which were passed exclusively by the Democratic majority. I submit, changing the law by the Executive--the Office of the President--without approval by the Congress is unconstitutional.

Three weeks, three weeks before the ObamaCare train wreck. When this body comes back, let's talk about it, and I urge immediate consideration and hopefully passage of S. 1272, the Exchange Sunset Act of 2013. It is a train wreck, folks, and we have to get America off the track.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, thank you for being able to maintain order in this very crowded Chamber.

It should be a crowded Chamber. It is not. I say it should be because this should be a required debate. As a matter of fact, we should have had the debate.

I am the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee. The distinguished Senator from Texas just pointed out if we went to regular order, we would be having a meeting of the Rules Committee, having a very interesting debate, a very educational debate. I think especially for the class of 2010 and the class of 2012 on the majority side, who did not have the advantage of listening to Bob Byrd's lecture to every class that came in, his sermon to every class that came in--we all became born again to our responsibilities as Senators, seeing the light with only his advantage of being both in the majority and the minority. I regret that is not the case. I regret we are not in the Rules Committee.

I rise, like the distinguished Senator from Texas and others who have spoken about this, our leader, Senator Alexander in particular, giving us a real history on what is going on here or what is not going on. We are trying to discuss the so-called nuclear option that the majority leader reportedly wishes to employ.

We are apparently brought to this point as a result of the leader's frustration. I was here when, obviously, he was simply frustrated with the pace of the Senate and how the Senate operates. This really comes down to the NLRB and the appointments to the NLRB and the fact that two courts found these appointments were illegal. That is what our side objects to. It is not especially to the appointments.

Apparently, we are going to have a cloture vote on it, and apparently the nuclear gun is cocked and ready to be pulled. There is a country western song, ``Don't take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home.'' Harry, don't take that nuclear gun to this body. Take it back to Searchlight, NV. Put it back in its holster if in fact the nuclear gun has a holster. That would be my advice.

I would say this about the majority leader. I have known him for a long time. We worked together on the Ethics Committee--and I mean we worked together. As majority leader I have had a good relationship with him. He has a good sense of humor. Sometimes that doesn't show, but he actually does.

I remember one time he was conducting a mini-filibuster. I don't remember the issue. I was the Acting Presiding Officer. I was listening to him talking about how rabbits were eating the cactus in front of his home in Searchlight, NV; whereupon I took the floor and we engaged in quite a colloquy about rabbits and cactus and not to sit on cactus. There are a lot of cactus in the world.

This is probably the biggest one we are attempting to sit on, and I just don't think it is a good idea.

The majority leader was a boxer. He was a good one. His hero is Smokin' Joe, Smokin' Joe Frazier. So when I talk to him, I call him Smokin' Joe. My appeal to him, if he is listening--he probably isn't, but if he reads about this, or if his staff tells him, tell him your old friend from the Ethics Committee had some advice. Smokin' Joe used to wait until the late rounds. He was in better shape. But he knew when to hold them and when to fold them. He was a great champion.

We do not need to go down this road. We really don't need to go down this road. Apparently, the majority leader has determined that--and this is my view--he will have to destroy the Senate in order to save it.

Those are pretty strong words. Those are harsh words, but I intend them to be. We should not be confused about this. By breaking the rules to change the rules the majority seeks to destroy what has made the Senate great, unique in the history of the world. I am repeating the advice we all got from Senator Byrd, the institutional flame of the Senate. Again, every time a new class came in, he would give his sermon or his lecture or his advice or his counsel, and we all took it, regardless of whether we were Democrat or Republican.

The Senate has always been the one place where all Americans could be assured they would have a voice. Every American, no matter what State they happened to live in or what political party they belonged to, knew they would be represented here. Kansas, Massachusetts, wherever; they knew they would be represented. Minority views were respected. Even if your party was not in power, you still had a voice.

Unfortunately, if you pull that trigger on that nuclear gun, the majority will abolish that. If you take that step, that is surely going to lead to complete control of this institution by the majority. That has been predicted by virtually everybody who has spoken, and I intend to quote a lot of majority leaders and a lot of people in the Senate on the Democratic side who have pointed this out.

I know some on the other side, especially those who have never been in the minority, will seek to minimize the import of what they are doing. Oh, it is just a small change. They will claim what they are trying to do is very limited, applying only to executive nominations.

I wish I had a chart. But if you look at the difference of 68 percent on civilian nominations that were confirmed in past administrations in the 106th Congress, and you are talking, 68, 72, in that neighborhood, and then you move clear up here to the 112th Congress, and President Obama is 82 percent, 86 percent--what is the deal? Other than being upset about the NLRB.

Make no mistake. The change itself will be less important than the manner in which it is imposed. Let me repeat that. The change itself will be less important than the manner in which it is imposed. If the majority decides to write new rules with a simple majority vote, regardless of the issue, ignoring the existing rules that require a supermajority to achieve such a change, it will put us on a path that will surely lead to total control of this body by the majority.

As of today there is only one House of Congress where the majority has total control. The majority wishes, apparently, now, there were two--or there will be two.

We do not have to wonder what the Senate will become if they get their wish. We only need to look to the House of Representatives. We will become the Senior House. I don't know about the Upper House or the Lower House--perhaps we will be the Upper House--but we will become the House.

I know that doesn't mean much to many of my colleagues who have never been in the minority or served in the House. I served as an administrative assistant to a wonderful House Member for 12 years and was in the House for 16 years. I have the privilege of now serving my third term in the Senate. I have been in the majority and I have been in the minority. The Senator from Texas is surely right, the majority is better.

Many of you folks who should be here have never served in the House. Many of you have never served in the minority. I have done both, as I have indicated. Let me explain what it means to serve in the minority in the House to those who have never had this wonderful privilege.

In the House, no bill comes to the floor without a rule. The rule governs the length of debate and the amendments that will be considered. If you want to even speak on the bill, you have to get the bill manager to give you some of the very limited time available under the rule. If there is not enough time, you will not be able to even speak on it.

The majority in the House writes the rule, and they decide how much time they will allow. The rule also determines what amendments will be considered. If the rule does not allow for consideration of your amendment it will not be considered, it will not be debated, and it will not be voted on. The majority in the House decides what amendments will be considered.

If you are a member of the majority, they might allow consideration of your amendment--if you are in good standing with the Rules Committee. If you are a member of the minority, you can forget about getting a vote on your amendment. If the majority does not want to allow it, it will not happen. As a member of the minority there is nothing that you can do about it.

I know about this. I remember when I first went to the House Rules Committee under a very determined, aggressive chairman of the Rules Committee. I had an amendment that I thought was well placed, well taken, pertinent. It was on agriculture. It was on something that dealt with the farm bill or agricultural program policy. But I was a Republican. I went in and I thought this amendment would be considered under parliamentary procedure whether it would be germane or not. Guess what. It was just a rehash of a partisan debate because it was not bipartisan. We had a lot of bipartisan support for it.

So my amendment was not allowed. Then I figured it out. Charlie Stenholm was from Texas--well, he still is from Texas and he is still active in the agriculture community. Very active, very respected. Charlie wanted the same amendment. So I finally figured out, let Stenholm introduce my amendment, but don't tell them it is my amendment.

So Stenholm introduced my amendment and then as soon as it was approved by the House Rules Committee, then it became the Stenholm- Roberts amendment. If it passed, obviously, it became the Roberts- Stenholm amendment in Kansas and the Stenholm-Roberts amendment in Texas, and that is how we got things done. So we had the Stenholm- Roberts for quite a few years. I never went into the Rules Committee because if I did I knew I would lose. Boy, talk about one-party rule.

We don't want to do that. Guess what. We had a revolution back in 1994. I became chairman of the Agriculture Committee. All of a sudden the Stenholm-Roberts amendment became the Roberts-Stenholm amendment, and that is how it worked in the House of Representatives.

I don't think we want to do that. It is precisely for this reason that many Members of the House choose to run for the Senate. That is why I did it. The Senate is supposed to be different. Here, if you want to be heard on a bill, it will happen. We haven't been living up to that recently, but that is how the place is supposed to work. In the Senate the Senator's right to speak is not supposed to depend on the whim of the majority. Now it is on a whim and a prayer. That is why people run for the Senate. That is what has distinguished this body from the House since we first convened in 1789.

The majority, unfortunately, wants to erase that distinction. It wants to assure that Members do not have any rights beyond those which the majority is willing to grant.

You don't have to take my word for it. The distinguished majority leader--

whom I affectionately call Smokin' Joe--himself has recognized this. As my colleague, Senator Alexander, from that desk right over there, has previously noted, Senator Reid addressed this topic in his book--how appropriate--``The Good Fight,'' from a boxer and now our majority leader. Senator Reid wrote about the battle over the nuclear option in 2005. Things were a little different. This is what he wrote:

Once you opened that Pandora's box, it was just a matter of

time before a Senate leader who couldn't get his way on

something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular

business as well. And that, simply put, would be the end of

the United States Senate.

The end of the United States Senate.

The distinguished majority leader said:

It is the genius of the Founders that they conceived the

Senate as a solution to the small state/big state problem.

And central to that solution was the protection of the rights

of the minority. A filibuster is the minority's way of not

allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust

debate, the Senate is crippled.

Senator Reid went on to say:

Such a move would transform the body into an institution

that looked just like the House of Representatives where

everything passes with a simple majority.

Senator Reid also wrote:

there will come a time when we will all be gone, and the

institutions that we now serve will be run by men and women

not yet living, and those institutions will either function

well because we've taken care of them, or they will be in

disarray and someone else's problem to solve.

Boy, that is pretty heavy stuff; that is meaningful. That is something everybody here should consider.

He described the nuclear option this way at that time:

In a fit of partisan fury--

I am not quite sure we are there yet. I would say it is more of a partisan frustration.

they were trying to blow up the Senate. Senate rules can only

be changed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, or sixty-seven

Senators. The Republicans were going to do it illegally with

a simple majority, or fifty-one. Vice President Cheney was

prepared to overrule the Senate parliamentarian. Future

generations be damned.

Do you think the Senator was upset then? He was upset then a heck of a lot more than he was this morning. If only the majority leader would recall his own words.

The Vice President also recognized the damage this would do. This is what Vice President Biden said on the floor when he was still a Member of this body. This is important stuff. We all know Joe Biden. We are all a friend of Joe Biden. He is the Vice President of the United States. When he was a Senator he said something very important:

Put simply, the nuclear option would transform the Senate

from the so-called cooling saucer our Founding Fathers talked

about to cool the passions of the day to a pure majoritarian

body like a Parliament.

Republicans control the Senate, and they have decided they

are going to change the rule. At its core, the filibuster is

not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about

compromise and moderation. That is why the Founders put

unlimited debate in. When you have to--and I never conducted

a filibuster--but if I did, the purpose would be that you

have to deal with me as one Senator. It does not mean I get

my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to

see my side of the argument. That is what it is it about,

engendering compromise in moderation.

Joe Biden went on to say:

If there is one thing I have learned in my years here, once

you change the rules and surrender the Senate's institutional

power, you never get it back.

Folks, we are about to break the rules to change the rules.

He went on to say:

The nuclear option abandons America's sense of fair play.

It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the

playing field on the side of those who control and own the

field.

Then he said to the Republican side of the aisle, which was then in the majority:

I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the

field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God

when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind

of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will

teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.

We are only in the Senate as temporary custodians of the

Senate. The Senate will go on. Mark my words, history will

judge this Republican majority harshly, if it makes this

catastrophic move.

I hope the Vice President will listen to his own prayers. We don't need any divine intervention here, but maybe he can share his concerns with the majority leader. It could help us avert a real catastrophe.

The majority leader and the Vice President are not the only people who recognize the damage that would be done by triggering the so-called nuclear option. Our former Parliamentarian, named Bob Dove--a man whose advice I sought when I had the privilege of being the acting Presiding Officer--and Richard Arenberg, a professor and one-time aide to former majority leader George Mitchell, wrote a book on the subject, ``Defending the Filibuster.''

I know I am quoting a lot, but these are important issues. I hope they stick like a burr under your saddle so they make you stop and think about this. They wrote--

If a 51-vote majority is empowered to rewrite the Senate's

rules, the day will come, as it did in the House of

Representatives, when a majority will construct rules that

give it near absolute control over amendments and debate. And

there is no going back from that. No majority in the House of

Representatives has or ever will voluntarily relinquish that

power in order to give the minority a greater voice in

crafting legislation.

Do not be fooled by those who would try to minimize the

impact of what the majority is actually contemplating.

The rule changes themselves are less important than the manner in which they will be imposed. Once the majority has decided it can set the rules, there is no limit to what the majority might do in the future. I hope you understand that. There are no constraints. The majority claims these changes are necessary to make the Senate function. If it decides further changes are needed, it will make them. The minority will have no voice, no say, no power, and that has never been the case in the Senate.

Tragically, what the majority contemplates is at once both calamitous and totally unnecessary. The filibuster is a product of our dysfunction, not the source.

I know many Members--and I have harped on this--do not even know what it is like to serve in a functioning Senate. They hardly know what it is like to operate under regular order where bills are referred to committee, amended, brought to the floor, debated, amended, and passed.

This matter should be before the Rules Committee. We should have a complete hearing and then bring it to the floor. We averted this at the first of this year. I know people think the filibuster is to blame for this breakdown, but they are wrong. We don't operate under regular order here because the majority leadership doesn't want to. They have an agenda. I understand that.

They have been trying to operate this place like the House of Representatives for years. They want to control debate and to control the amendments.

I know a little bit about this. When we were talking about the farm bill last year, Senator Reid said: We can't do a farm bill in less than 3 weeks. I said: We will do it in 3 days. Senator Stabenow and I worked very hard to get common agreement on the farm bill, but we did it. We needed regular order. We needed to open it up. We needed to give Senators here on our side a chance to at least offer amendments, and we did it. We had 73 amendments. We did it in 2\1/2\ days. We had regular order and people said: Gee, is this what the Senate used to be all about? And that was the case. So it can work.

I know there are folks over there who think the filibuster is to blame for this breakdown, but they are wrong. Rather than give up that control, they have decided during the past 4 years--with the exception of a few bills I have just mentioned--I think they want to make it official. I think they would rather blow up the Senate rather than let it work its will.

It will be a tragedy. They think it will save the Senate, but it will destroy it. That threat of destruction may not be obvious to some today, but it is real. If the nuclear option is deployed, one day it will become clear to all. And when that day comes and people wonder: What happened to the Senate? When did it die? We will know the answer. It died the day the nuclear option was triggered. That is what nuclear devices do--they destroy. This is not just

a minor shot across the bow to be used only once. This is a mushroom cloud over the Capitol.

Again, I urge the distinguished majority leader: Don't take your nuclear gun to town.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd at the orientation of new Senators, December 3, 1996, printed in the Record.

I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd's final speech before the Rules Committee called ``The Filibuster And Its Consequences'' be printed in the Record.

We might have a heck of a test on it next week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true patriot, and fellow U.S. Marine, Col. Harold R. Van Opdorp. While some know him as ``Odie'' and others as Colonel V, we all know him as Marine. After more than 3 years of service leading the Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs in the U.S. Senate, Colonel Van Opdorp has assumed the responsibilities as commanding officer of the Marine Corps' Officer Candidate School. I would like to recognize Colonel Van Opdorp's distinguished service and dedication to fostering a relationship of mutual benefit between the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Senate.

With more than 2 decades of dedicated service to his country, Colonel Van Opdorp has selflessly given to the cause of freedom across the globe, from Somalia to Iran, from Norway to the South Pacific. His service leading young Marines as a platoon, company, and battalion commander, in garrison and in combat, is emblematic of the caliber of his character. His diverse service reflects the traditions of the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor that he wears and the nature of the Corps.

Over the course of the last 3 years, Colonel Van Opdorp has been instrumental to facilitating the oversight responsibilities of the Senate. Known for his in-depth knowledge of legislative issues and the operational requirements of the Marine Corps, he ensured that Members of the U.S. Senate with an interest in national security were armed with timely information on Operation Enduring Freedom, humanitarian assistance in Haiti, flood relief operations in Pakistan, Marine Security Guards at our diplomatic missions around the globe, and other forward-deployed Marine forces. Colonel Van Opdorp worked hard to ensure all Senators were fully briefed of the programs which make our Corps special, programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, and the MV-22 Osprey. In 2011, I had the pleasure of working closely with Colonel Van Opdorp during our efforts to recognize the significant contributions of the Montford Point Marines, our Nation's first African American Marines, with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Colonel Van Opdorp's absence will be felt in the Senate. I join many past and present Senators in my gratitude and appreciation for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Marine Corps. I know my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee wholeheartedly join me in this tribute. I wish Colonel Van Opdorp and his wife, Rebecca, fair winds and following seas as he continues to serve his Nation, charged with the great responsibility of molding our future Marine Officers. ``Ooh-rah'' and Semper Fi, Marine.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for his wonderful eulogy to a wonderful man, a teacher, a State legislator, and just a very nice individual. I thank the Senator for that excellent eulogy. We will miss him.

Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished chairperson of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee will be on the floor to lock in amendment No. 965 by Senator Sanders.

I rise in opposition to that amendment. The amendment would allow States to require--let me emphasize the word, ``require''--that any food, beverage, or other product be labeled if it contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

Now, that is how it is described mostly in this debate: a genetically engineered ingredient. I think it would be more accurately called modern science to feed a very troubled and hungry world.

We already have policies and procedures, I would tell my colleagues, in place at the Food and Drug Administration to address labeling of foods that are derived from modern biotechnology. The U.S. standards ensure that all labels for all foods are truthful and are not misleading to the public.

FDA has a scientifically based review process to evaluate all food products.

The Food and Drug Administration states:

FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods

are different from other foods in any meaningful or uniform

way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new

techniques present any or greater safety concern than foods

developed by traditional plant breeding.

The FDA reviews products and determines that they are safe. I think we need to trust the science of their review and allow this process to work.

The amendment by Senator Sanders would result in additional costs to food producers, and that is going to come right back to consumers. The FDA has determined that approved biotech crops are not materially different than conventional crops and therefore do not require segregation from conventional crops.

The only difference--if you have a bioengineered product, and let's say you come from Africa, one of the countries over there that continually has a very difficult time trying to feed themselves--the only difference is if you use a bioengineered product that makes that crop more resistant to heat or to rain or to a particular insect that is causing a lot of problems--you have a choice: You can have a crop or you can have no crop or you can have perhaps a crop with a pesticide or you can have a bioengineered product that is perfectly safe.

Furthermore, a change in policy would place additional costs on farmers by potentially requiring them to segregate crops and change their equipment. It would also be very problematic for grain processing facilities. I know some fail to recognize--and I know many criticize-- the importance of biotechnology or criticize the safety of the product. I just say, let science be the judge. Each product goes through extensive tests to ensure safety to both human health and the environment.

There are different views, of course, on farming, and some of my colleagues in the Senate believe we should focus on those that only farm a few acres--the small family farmer; somebody about 5 foot 3 inches from Vermont--and then grow organic crops and sell them to the local farmers market. There is nothing wrong with that. I encourage that. There is nothing wrong with organic farming, and there is certainly nothing wrong with regard to farmers who farm less acres. God bless them.

However, if we are going to supply enough food for this growing population around the world--9 billion more people in the next several decades--we need agriculture of all types, and that includes organic and conventional and biotech crops. The more nations we can help to feed and bring economic prosperity, the more stable the world will become. That is good for our families, our Nation, and the world, and the world's stability. We can only do that through commonsense policies based on sound science that will allow our producers to do what they need to do to get the job done.

My colleagues--and I see the distinguished chairperson. I will conclude in just about 30 seconds. I am glad she is here. I will just say to my colleagues in the Senate that we should not be putting on lab coats individually and taking action on this amendment. We have a clear scientifically based review process that works. If we pass this amendment, probably in Vermont, California, you will have a requirement; some other States may or may not; in Kansas we will not, and so our State legislature would have no need of putting on lab coats.

At any rate, the FDA has guidance for voluntary labeling, and companies can choose to voluntarily label food and products if their customers want it, if they demand it. Let the consumer decide.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back.