Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United Nations.

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie ``Argo''--you don't have a better bad idea than this?

It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist.

In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and their captivity an act of ``international terrorism.'' I do not believe that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter.

It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the United States and poses a national security threat.

The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national security threat to the United States.

I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from South Carolina.

This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain entry into the United States.

I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law

so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist.

I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place.

There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason.

On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis-- what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran.

After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a ``very, very bad deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, ``world powers had surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend.

Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring that the Nation of Israel is ``a cancerous tumor that must be removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner.

The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan.''

It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran.

The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries.

In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President.

I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of Iran.

One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that the United States might grant the visa application a ``disgrace,'' and he said, ``It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.''

I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, ``never set foot on American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Wyoming for their leadership on this important issue.

The crisis in Ukraine has riveted our attention for the last 4 months as we have seen brave men and women standing in freezing cold, standing for freedom, standing for their desire to stand with the West, to stand with Europe, to stand with America, and to be free from the domination of Putin's Russia.

We all strongly support the efforts of the Ukrainian people to choose a different path from subjugation to Russia, to choose a path toward economic and political liberty and toward a close friendship with the West.

Madam President, all of us on both sides of the Chamber are united in decrying the military aggression of Russian strongman Vladmir Putin, as he has invaded a sovereign nation with military force, committing an act of war. No one should be confused as to what Mr. Putin is attempting to do. Indeed, acting Ukraine Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said very clearly that Putin is trying to reestablish the borders of the old Soviet Union. He is expanding, sadly, into a vacuum of leadership the United States has not been filling. Russia is filling that vacuum, and the seizure of Crimea is only the beginning of Putin's aggressiveness. He will continue, I would predict, to be aggressive unless and until he meets significant resistance.

We are also united in believing there is an important role for the United States to play in responding to this crisis. I believe we should take concrete actions to respond to Russia's invasion of Crimea.

No. 1, we should press to expel Russia from the G8.

No. 2, the administration should immediately begin enforcing the Magnitsky Act--which he has failed to do up to this point--designed to punish human rights atrocities by Russian Government officials. Indeed, we should expand it to include Ukranian human rights abusers.

No. 3, we should immediately install the ballistic missile batteries in Eastern Ukraine that were scheduled to go in that President Obama mistakenly canceled in an effort to appease Mr. Putin. That effort did not succeed, and we should go forward with allowing eastern Europe to defend itself.

Additionally, there is a great deal we can do to aid the people of Ukraine.

The President should immediately offer the Government of Ukraine a free-trade agreement indicating that their goods are welcome in the United States and our goods in their country.

We should explore other options to assist them in economic recovery consistent with free market principles, including moving as expeditiously as possible to allow them access to U.S. energy exports and in particular liquidified natural gas. Russia uses natural gas and energy as a tool of economic blackmail. It is critical to the source of Russia's power not just over Ukraine but over much of Europe. The United States is blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas. It is only foolhardy government policy that stands in the way of our exporting that natural gas, meeting the need and helping Ukraine be free of the economic blackmail. We should move immediately in that regard not just because it would help Ukraine, not just because it would represent a serious blow to Russia when Russia relies on the revenue from those energy exports--if the United States steps up and provides it to them instead, that would be a serious economic blow to Russia--not just that but because it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the United States of America, our economic interests at a time when we have the lowest labor rate participation since 1978. When millions of people are out of work and hurting, we should be developing and expanding our resources, and energy provides an opportunity to transform the geopolitical playing field, to use our abundant resources in a free market manner to respond and help liberate the people of Ukraine.

There is also a financial component of the assistance for--Ukraine that it makes a world of sense should come from the International Monetary Fund, to which the United States is a contributor. That is what the IMF was created to do, and the IMF today stands fully capable of meeting that need.

My friend from Arizona has an admirable passion on this issue for the people of Ukraine and for standing up to Mr. Putin, and I commend my friend from Arizona for his passion in this regard. However, the reason this bill has not passed today is because the majority of this Chamber--the majority leader made a decision, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a decision to inject into the aid and sanctions plan for Ukraine an extraneous issue, an issue of the IMF that has nothing to do with the underlying issue. That was a mistake. That was a mistake.

I would suggest that the so-called IMF reforms are misguided policy. They don't make sense for four separate reasons.

No. 1, they are unnecessary. There is no need whatsoever for these reforms. Indeed, the IMF is perfectly capable of managing the task on hand, and estimates have shown that Ukraine aid would cost no more than 5 percent of its current resources. So the IMF portions are unnecessary, extrinsic. I agree with the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who says these so-called IMF reforms are unnecessary and extrinsic to this bill.

No. 2, these IMF provisions, if passed into law, would dramatically expand the financial exposure of the United States of America, effectively doubling our contribution, expanding our exposure. If that is good policy, that should be debated on its merits. We should not be opening the U.S. taxpayers to billions in additional financial liability without a debate on the merits. It shouldn't be just tied to Ukranian aid and forced through the Senate. That is the wrong approach.

No. 3, most inexplicably, these so-called reforms, if passed, would diminish U.S. influence on the IMF; would reduce our ability to control the decisions of the IMF; indeed, would move the funds from a fund in which we have veto authority into one in which we no longer have veto authority. We would have a smaller portion of influence over the IMF.

Astonishingly, No. 4, this bill would expand Russia's influence and control over the IMF. Let me repeat that. A bill that is being ostensibly introduced to punish Russia for their acts of war and aggression would expand Russia's influence over the IMF and decrease the influence of the United States of America.

I agree with my friend from Alabama who suggested moments ago that this is ``Through the Looking Glass.'' This makes no sense. I would challenge any of my friends here to stand here and explain why a sensible response to what Russia has done is to expand Russia's influence in the IMF and to diminish America's influence. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Madam President, I wish to close with two points. No. 1, we could pass aid for the people of Ukraine right now--today. The Senator from Wyoming rose and asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill that has already passed the House. Had the majority leader not stood up and objected on behalf of Senate Democrats, that bill would have passed into law. It would be already headed to the President's desk for signature. It is only because the majority leader objected that we are not sitting here today having already passed aid for the people of Ukraine.

I would note, by the way, that the majority leader had extended commentary about two businessmen, the Koch brothers, who I am beginning to think are characters almost out of ``Dr. Seuss'' in the majority leader's mind. They are the grinch who stole Christmas in his telling. I would note that the majority leader focuses on the IRS rules--not focusing on the abuse of power by the IRS, the Treasury inspector general chronicles, but instead on the need for a vote to regulate the IRS's abuse of power.

Let me say very simply that the House bill on Ukraine doesn't mention the IRS at all, doesn't mention P4s at all. So when the majority leader stood on the floor, this is all because of the nefarious Koch brothers. Set aside the impropriety of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate picking two private citizens--individuals engaged in political speech, standing up for what they believe, and the majority leader using his position of political power to lambaste them, to target them.

Interestingly enough, the majority leader does not seem to have a problem with the California billionaire who has publicly pledged to put $100 million behind Democrats to press them to pass climate change legislation that would cost millions of jobs across this country from blue-collar workers, from hard-working Americans. That billionaire, in the majority leader's view, is perfectly free to spend $100 million in the election, but the Koch brothers, because the two of them have stood and expressed their views, are subjected to vilification and personal attack from the majority leader.

The Senate rules allow a Member of this body, if his or her integrity is impugned, to raise an objection. Let me ask you something, Madam President. What Senate rule allows a private citizen to raise an objection when his integrity is impugned by the majority leader?

Those two brothers are not Members of this body, so they can have their reputation dragged through the mud. Yet they are denied a point of personal privilege to come and defend themselves. That is not the job of the U.S. Senate, to vilify private citizens.

I would note that the provision he is talking about is not in the House bill, which means when the Senator from Wyoming stood and asked for consent to pass the House bill, if the majority leader had simply refrained from objecting, we would have passed aid to Ukraine tonight. It has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, nothing to do with the IRS. That is not in the House bill. The reason the majority leader objected is that he wants to hold aid to Ukraine hostage to force through these misguided IMF reforms. That is the wrong decision.

One final point I wish to make. The world should understand, Russia should understand, the people of Ukraine should understand, and Mr. Putin should understand that all of us are united in standing with the people of Ukraine, that the United States will act. I am convinced it will act decisively to impose sanctions and serious consequences on Russia for this unprovoked act of war. We will act decisively to stand with the people of Ukraine. There should be no doubt in any observer's mind that this will unify both parties. We will stand together. We would have done so tonight had the majority leader not made the cynical decision to hold aid for Ukraine hostage to force a partisan bill that does not enjoy sufficient support in this body to pass otherwise. Politics

should end at the water's edge, and I think it is unfortunate to see the majority leader trying to use the crisis in Ukraine for political advantage. That is a mistake.

But there should be no ambiguity. We will impose sanctions. We will stand with Ukraine. And the people of America understand that Mr. Putin's aggression is reliving the days when the Soviet Union was an evil empire. It is reliving those days Mr. Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of modern times.'' Well, all of us surely hope he does not succeed in his intentions of restoring the Soviet Union, restoring that evil empire, restoring the cloud of oppression across Europe and across the world, and we stand united with the people of Ukraine and with the people surrounding Russia in support of freedom and against his unconscionable act of war.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women across the country serving as police officers who protect law-abiding Americans. It is out of this respect for our Nation's police officers that I also rise to oppose the nomination of Debo Adegbile to be the head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

We must always remember our Nation's fallen police officers who have bravely given their lives to serve our Nation and to protect us.

Police officers help form the backbone of our country that supports the rule of law. They risk their lives every day to help keep law- abiding citizens safe. According to the FBI, in 2012, 95 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents and 52,901 officers were victims of line-of-duty assaults--52,901.

The New York Times in 2012 observed: ``As violent crime has decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of police officers are being killed.''

In 2008, 41 officers were killed; in 2009, 48 officers were killed; in 2010, 56 officers were killed; in 2011, 72 officers were killed; and in 2012, 95 officers were killed.

Unfortunately, as Byron York noted today, the New York Times has not reported on the controversial nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the DOJ Civil Rights Division.

It is out of respect for all of our Nation's police officers that I rise to oppose Mr. Adegbile's nomination. Under Adegbile's leadership and supervision, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund brazenly politicized the murder of a Philadelphia police officer, Officer Daniel Faulkner. On December 9, 1981, 25-year-old Officer Faulkner was murdered by Wesley Cook, who is widely known as Mumia Abu-Jamal. Officer Faulkner was shot several times. The fatal shot was when Abu-Jamal pointed the gun inches from Officer Faulkner's face and pulled the trigger.

During the trial it was made known that Abu-Jamal was a supporter of the MOVE Organization, an anarchist group that explicitly advocates for violence against police officers.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Faulkner described that during the trial, when her husband's bloodstained shirt was displayed by the evidence handler, Abu-Jamal turned in his chair and smirked directly at her, the grieving widow. The jury convened for a matter of hours before they came back with a guilty verdict and a death sentence. That was 1982.

Fast forward 27 years to the year 2009. Adegbile was at the time the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund Director of Litigation. In 2009, the Legal Defend Fund began advocating for Abu-Jamal--first as an amicus and then as cocounsel. To be clear, every criminal defendant is entitled to an attorney, but Adegbile's representation of Abu-Jamal was pure advocacy.

Abu-Jamal's guilt was not in doubt. Four eyewitnesses saw the shooting. Abu-Jamal confessed and stated in front of three witnesses that he hoped Officer Faulkner died.

There was significant ballistic and forensic evidence. For example, the murder weapon was registered to Abu-Jamal and found at the scene with spent shell casings.

Abu-Jamal already had a team of high-priced lawyers working pro bono, who had filed decades of post-trial petitions and appeals, delaying the carrying out of his sentence.

Under Adegbile's supervision, LDF lawyers fanned the flames of racial tension. Through rallies, protests, and a media campaign, all portrayed Mumia Abu-Jamal, an unrepentant cop killer, as a political prisoner.

For example, a 2011 LDF press release said: ``Abu-Jamal . . . is widely viewed as a symbol of the racial injustices of the death penalty.''

That press release also said: ``Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.''

LDF lawyers under Adegbile's supervision went farther than that. They held rallies and protests.

This is advocacy. This is political advocacy. This is extreme and radical advocacy. This is not legal representation. They even went so far as to travel to France to hold multiple rallies for Abu-Jamal. The French had already named a street after Abu-Jamal in a suburb of Paris.

This prompted the House of Representatives in 2006 to vote 368-31 to condemn the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner and to urge the French town to change that street name.

After fanning those flames of racial tension in the court of public opinion, Adegbile pressed aggressive arguments on race in our courts of law. Thankfully, the State and Federal courts rejected those arguments.

Under Adegbile, the LDF initially argued in court that Abu-Jamal's death sentence should be overturned because he believed there should have been more African Americans on Abu-Jamal's jury.

During his Senate confirmation on January 8, Adegbile said the LDF filed a legal brief regarding merely jury instructions about the death penalty. LDF did make those arguments eventually, but Adegbile's initial arguments had nothing to do with jury instructions. They were arguments that Abu-Jamal's jury was unconstitutional because it didn't have, he argued, a sufficient number of African Americans serving in the jury.

The courts rejected those arguments. The jury that convicted Abu- Jamal had two African Americans serving on it. It would have had a third African American serving on it but Abu-Jamal instructed his lawyers to strike that person.

The Fraternal Order of Police vehemently opposes this nomination. According to a letter written by the president of the FOP, Adegbile's nomination only exacerbates the ``growing division and distrust'' toward local law enforcement agencies--a trend that has continued from the time now-Labor Secretary Thomas Perez was leading the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

Peter Kirsanow, a member on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, wrote:

Responsible people should agree that going out of your way

to defend a convicted cop-killer long after it has become

unequivocally clear that he was guilty and had suffered no

violation of his civil rights disqualifies one from serving

as the head of a division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Obama administration's message with the nomination is clear: It wants even more politicization of the Department of Justice. This is insulting to law enforcement officers everywhere. I stand with the Fraternal Order of Police and oppose Adegbile's nomination, and I urge my Democratic colleagues to join the Democratic senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bob Casey, and vote no on this nomination.

This is not a matter of leftwing or rightwing. We all should agree that violent criminals should be punished, and we all should agree that those who go out of their way to advocate for, to celebrate, to lionize convicted cop killers are not suitable for major leadership roles at the U.S. Department of Justice.

I urge every Member of this body to oppose that nomination.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to commend the words of my esteemed colleague, the junior Senator from Florida, who has just spoken powerfully about the threats facing our Nation. On Monday evening he spoke powerfully on the Senate floor about the brutal human rights abuses that have been endemic in communist Cuba over the past 50 years, and the sad reality that Cuba is playing a leading role in the repression of the opposition protests that are currently taking place in Venezuela.

I commend the sentiments of the Senator from Florida, and I offer a few additional thoughts of my own on this important topic.

Brave Venezuelan protesters persist in crowding the streets in Caracas, San Cristobal, Merida, and Valencia despite the detention, torture, and murder of their compatriots in recent days. They are not alone. They have been joined by darker figures, representatives of Hezbollah, Iran, and Cuba, all of whom have a vested interest in propping up the increasingly authoritarian socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro. The appearance of the Iranians, and their Hezbollah agents in Venezuela, is concerning, but it should not be surprising.

Iran has long maintained one of its largest embassies in Caracas, where it has been able to exploit the Venezuelan financial system to evade the international sanctions that--up until a few weeks ago--were placing a real burden on Iran's economy.

Now that the administration has eased the sanctions on Iran, Iran is in a significantly stronger position. Not only have they received the first $500 million in unfrozen assets, but they have also reaped considerable collateral benefit.

Iranian President Rouhani recently tweeted: ``You are witness to how foreign firms are visiting our country; 117 political delegations have come here.''

The Dutch ambassador to Iran tweeted in mid-January that he participated in ``speeddate sessions to meet business[es] interested in Iran.''

China has emerged as Iran's top trading partner with nonoil trade hitting $13 billion over the past 10 months, according to Iranian media.

According to documents seen by Reuters, Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million--a move that would break the U.N. embargo on weapons sales by Tehran.

What could a reenriched Iran offer Venezuela, given that the joint plan of action that has enabled this economic detente has done nothing to reverse their nuclear program. The answer is chilling. The longstanding commercial ties between Iran and Venezuela, not to mention their mutual hatred for the United States, raise the specter that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons technology, it might be inclined to share it with Venezuela, which would then act as a surrogate threat to the United States in our own hemisphere.

We need to act immediately to reimpose sanctions on Iran and stand unequivocally against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I am sorry to say there is one reason--and one reason only--that we have not done so, and that is because the senior Senator from Nevada has been single-handedly blocking the Senate from voting on a bipartisan bill on Iranian sanctions. Given the broad bipartisan support in both Chambers, both the senior Senator from Nevada and the rest of the Democratic leadership need to be held accountable for this obstruction and standing in the way of defending U.S. national security interests and standing in the way of defending our friend and ally, the Nation of Israel.

As alarming as the increasing collaboration is between Iran and Venezuela, there is no country that has a greater stake in preserving the status quo in Venezuela than communist Cuba. Over the 15 years of Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela and Cuba have engaged in a mutually parasitic relationship in which Venezuela has exported free oil to Cuba and imported the repressive apparatus of a police state that Raul and Fidel Castro have carefully nurtured other the last 50 years.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, many former Soviet satellites have moved towards freedom and prosperity promised by closer ties

to the West--some even joining the historic NATO alliance. But Cuba, tragically, has remained mired in the communist past in no small part because Chavez provided the economic lifeline that sustained the Castro brothers' brutal oppression.

While some hoped that after Raul Castro replaced his brother in 2008, a new era of moderation might dawn, the opposite has occurred. Despite minor cosmetic reforms largely targeted toward beguiling the Western media rather than helping the Cuban people, the Castros have consolidated their control of the island with a significant uptick in human rights abuses.

Last year I had the opportunity to visit and interview two Cuban dissidents to help provide a forum for them to tell their stories. They described the oppression as ``Putinismo.'' That said it was following the strategy of Russia's President Putin, appearing on the outside to make cosmetic reforms while brutally repressing the people at home. That is what is happening in Cuba.

The Castro playbook includes targeting family members of the opposition, brutal attacks and even murder, as well as keeping inexorable control over communications in and out of Cuba.

An American citizen, Alan Gross, was thrown into prison in 2009 for the crime of handing out cell phones to Havana's Jewish population. Alan Gross should be released, and the United States should be calling for Alan Gross's release.

In a tip to the information age, heavy Internet censorship, among the most repressive on the planet, blankets the island to preempt the spontaneous organization facilitated by social media.

First Chavez, and now Maduro, have learned these lessons well under the tutelage of agents from the Cuban intelligence services, and their work has been on grim display during the protests that have taken place this month. The death toll is now at 13, and climbing, as police bullets have taken the lives of not only activists, but of students, innocent bystanders, and even a beauty queen.

Maduro's agents have also borrowed the tried-and-true Castro tradition of summarily detaining opposition leaders, including Leopoldo Lopez who helped organize the protests. But Mr. Lopez's real crime has been to propose an alternative to the socialist catastrophe into which Chavez and Maduro have plunged this once prosperous nation, and to suggest that real economic freedom is the only path out of the rampant inflation and chronic shortages that are making life in Venezuela intolerable.

Recent polling by Gallup reveals a dramatic shift in Venezuelans' attitude toward the economy, as the socialist policies continue to depress growth and to worsen the lives of hard-working Venezuelans. In 2012, just a couple of years ago, 22 percent of the population thought the economy was getting worse and 41 percent thought it was getting better. In 2013, those numbers reversed, with 62 percent believing it was getting worse while only 12 percent believed it was getting better. These numbers suggest there has been a sea change in how the majority of Venezuelans see their situation. These protests are different, and it is little wonder that so many have taken to the streets to demand something better.

America should stand with the protesters. America should stand on the side of freedom. America has a tradition for centuries of presenting a clarion voice for freedom because every heart yearns to be free across the globe, and the United States should unapologetically defend freedom.

Maduro appears to understand the threat of his people demanding freedom, but the unprecedented scale of his crackdown on the protesters has largely been masked from the rest of the world by a heavy veil of Internet and media censorship designed to simultaneously disable the opposition and to mask the scale of their oppression from the outside world. Some ingenious remedies have emerged, including Austin, TX's, own Zello--a direct messaging service that allows members to communicate freely either privately with individuals or over open channels that can support hundreds of thousands of users. Despite the best efforts of the Venezuelan censors to block access to Zello, the company has nimbly developed patches and work-arounds to maintain service to the some 600,000 Venezuelans who have downloaded the app since the protests began.

Zello is a shining example of how we can use our technological advantage to support those fighting for economic and political freedom across the globe, recalling our proud tradition of Radio Free Europe during the Cold War. Can my colleagues imagine apps such as Zello spreading to millions of Cubans, to millions of Iranians, to millions of Chinese, providing them the tools to directly speak out for freedom? We have other ways of supporting those advocating for a more free and prosperous Venezuela, such as supporting the sort of liberal economic reforms Mr. Lopez has proposed.

Given the remarkable natural resources Venezuela has enjoyed, it is ridiculous--it is tragic--that the economy has been so mismanaged that citizens face a chronic shortage of basic necessities. But this situation is not inevitable, and the United States is uniquely poised to help. For the United States, Canada, and now Mexico, democratic, market-oriented energy production has been the foundation of what we are beginning to call the American energy renaissance--and there is no reason that Venezuela could not reap these benefits if they reverse the socialist policies that have destroyed their economy.

In this event the United States could help Venezuela reach its full energy potential by offering a bilateral investment treaty that would cover the energy sector. Such an arrangement would protect American companies eager to invest in Venezuela and, at the same time, modernize facilities and increase production of crude--which, I might add, can be refined at the CITGO facilities in Corpus Christi, TX--resulting in gasoline and other refined petroleum products that can be sold on the open market for the benefit of the Venezuelan people, not given to Cuba to prop up the Castros. Which is the better deal for the Venezuelan people: having them receive the benefits of the bounty God has given that country in the open market, receive freedom, receive material blessings, or have instead their oil given to Castro to fuel the repressive policies that are inflicting misery on so many millions?

This is a dangerous and unsettling moment for Venezuela, but it is also a moment of great opportunity. Almost exactly 1 year ago, the Obama administration had a chance to push strongly for reform in Venezuela, when Chavez was on his deathbed. Instead, the Obama administration opted not to rock the boat, in the hopes that Chavez's hand-picked successor would prove more susceptible to diplomatic outreach, that he might not follow Chavez. These hopes are apparently evergreen, as just yesterday a State Department spokeswoman announced that they were open to closer engagement with the Maduro regime, saying: ``We have indicated, and have indicated for months, our openness to develop a more constructive relationship with Venezuela . . . .''

Negotiating with tyrants and bullies doesn't work. The notion that our State Department could at this moment extend yet another olive branch to Caracas is exactly backward. This is the moment to point out that Maduro's abuse of his fellow citizens is intolerable to the United States; that if he wants better relations with us, he should start by listening to the demands of his own people. He should immediately and unconditionally release Leopoldo Lopez, who is being held as a hostage at the mercy of an authoritarian state. He should lift the cloud of censorship that he is using to isolate Venezuelans from each other and from the rest of the world, and the United States should do all it can to help the people of Venezuela as they choose a different path--a path of freedom and prosperity that will return this one-time enemy to their traditional role of our partner and friend. That is where the Venezuelan people want to be, and it is only their brutal leadership that is preventing it.

This is a time for American leadership to speak in defense of freedom. This is a time for the President of the United States to unequivocally stand against oppression, against totalitarianism, and for the desire of the Venezuelan people to be free and prosperous. That would benefit them, it

would benefit us, and it would benefit the world.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Hampshire for her stirring remarks on the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and urge that we pay heed to the words she said. It is striking--the Senator from New Hampshire has said more about that terrorist attack than our Commander in Chief has ever said.

We are at a time where Tolkien's classic ``The Hobbit'' is one of the best-selling, most popular movies in the country. ``The Hobbit'' is a fantasy story. In Washington, we were visited with fantasy last week in the President's State of the Union Address. I would like to talk about the contrast, concerning foreign policy, between the fantasy presented to the American people and the cold, hard realities of the dangerous world in which we live--which is only getting more and more dangerous.

In his State of the Union Address last week, President Obama gave some revealing clues as to how he believed the United States should interact with the rest of the world.

On the whole, his remarks encourage Americans not to worry too much about international challenges. He suggested the situations in Syria and Iran are being definitely managed by American diplomats; that Al Qaeda is now a regional nuisance that can be outsourced to surrogates; that our relationship with Israel is defined by the

Palestinian peace process, which will also be resolved in short order through American diplomacy; and that our interest in Ukraine is to express support for the abstract principle that all people should peacefully participate in their own governance. In this rosy scenario, difficult challenges such as the deadly terrorist attacks on Benghazi on September 11, 2012, or the long and painful ordeal of Pastor Saeed Abedini in an Iranian prison simply do not exist.

I wish we all lived in the utopian world President Obama painted last week. But in just a week, numerous news reports have come out to suggest that picture belongs far more in the world of fantasy than reality. In the interests of being honest with the American people-- which I wish our Commander in Chief had done--I would like to contrast reality with what we were told last week.

On Syria, in the State of the Union Address, the President claimed:

American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why

serious chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will

continue to work with the international community to usher in

the future the Syrian people deserve--a future free of

dictatorship, terror, and fear.

That is truly a rosy scenario. Yet, what is the reality? On Sunday, just 4 days after the President delivered the State of the Union Address, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly told a congressional delegation that the administration's Syria policy is on the brink of collapse. Syria's chemical weapons are purportedly being destroyed through the intervention of Vladimir Putin in what was a major diplomatic victory for the Russian strongman. But we have learned in recent days that this process has not proceeded as promised. The Syrians have ignored their deadlines and only 4 percent of the stockpiles have been eliminated, undoubtedly because Assad knows there is no compelling reason for him to comply. As for what the Syrian people deserve, after 3 years of rudderless U.S. policy, over 130,000 are dead, millions are refugees displaced across the region, and the oldest Christian communities on the planet are threatened with extinction. Assad is entrenched and Al Qaeda is in control of the opposition. Sadly, as a result of the President's mismanagement, today we have no good options in Syria. Yet not a word of that made it into his State of the Union Address.

On Iran, the President claimed:

It is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has

halted the progress of Iran's nuclear program . . .

The reality is quite different. No enriched uranium has been destroyed--not a pound--and no centrifuges have been dismantled. The Iranians quickly refuted the President's claim in the State of the Union, announcing, quite publicly, that they have not halted their progress in the slightest. America's closest ally in the region, the nation of Israel, has called this a ``very, very bad deal.'' Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu has referred to it as a ``historic mistake.'' Yet the President proceeds on and the Senate refuses even to allow a vote on reimposing sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. There has been no renunciation of Iran's State sponsorship of terrorism that killed Americans in Lebanon and in Saudi Arabia and in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The mullahs have gone on a hanging spree, executing some 40 people in the first two weeks of January alone. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are flowing into the country, both through relaxed sanctions and Iran's reemergence as a legitimate business partner because of this administration's misguided deal. Indeed, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani might almost be forgiven for publicly gloating that ``the Geneva deal means the surrender of the big powers in front of the great nation of Iran.'' I wish he was not speaking the truth. That reality did not emerge on the House floor last week.

On the House floor, the President claimed:

If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with

the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America

can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

The reality is the claim that we are negotiating with Iran from a position of strength and confidence is a blinkered view of reality because it isn't even clear our President is negotiating towards actual victory. Capitulation is not victory. President Obama announced in the State of the Union that in order to keep negotiations going, he would veto any additional sanctions Congress might pass to pressure Iran to actually stop pursuing nuclear weapons--a position that is supported not only by his current administration, but expressly by his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has good reason to announce publicly he has no ``fear'' of Congress. When Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, he did it from a clear, strategic perspective of ``we win, they lose,'' standing for U.S. national interests. He was facing an existential threat that he defined as ``the Evil Empire.'' There was no danger or misunderstanding of what the goal was or who was going to be doing the surrendering. As a result of his leadership, the Cold War was won without firing a shot. Today, on Iran, we are tragically repeating the mistakes of the past--in particular, the mistakes of the Clinton administration--in relaxing sanctions on North Korea for the same empty promises that they would cease developing nuclear weapons only to have North Korea use the billions of dollars we sent to them--or allowed to go to them--to develop nuclear weapons. The difference is the North Korean leader is motivated by staying in power, which means some form of rational deterrence is hopefully possible. In Iran, the supreme leader has made clear his desire to destroy the nation of Israel and as a result of the billions of dollars going to Iran right now, the risk is unacceptably high that we discover the same thing that happened in North Korea happened in Iran, except that we discover it because Iran, in pursuit of Jihad, detonates a nuclear device over Tel Aviv or New York or Los Angeles. Not a word of that was acknowledged in the President's speech.

On Al Qaeda, President Obama claimed:

While we have put Al Qaeda's core leadership on a path to

defeat, the threat has evolved, as Al Qaeda affiliates and

other extremists take root in different parts of the world--

in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Mali, and we have to keep

working with partners to disrupt and disable those networks.

The reality is that whatever path Al Qaeda is on, it does not currently appear to be towards defeat. The recent assertion by a State Department spokeswoman that Ayman al-Zawahiri is the only core Al Qaeda member left and that thus the threat has been decimated by the President is demonstrably false. For starters, Zawahiri is no mere abstract threat. He explicitly called for attacks on the United States on September 10, 2012, the day before the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, including the first U.S. ambassador killed on duty since 1979. Zawahiri is actively involved in directing Al Qaeda groups that are active in Syria. But core or not core--whatever that means--the reality is that Al Qaeda has been at war with the United States for more than two decades and the attacks of September 11, 2001, are only the most spectacular of a series of attacks and attempted attacks launched at us. Trying to parse this threat to make it seem less deadly, to make it seem like less of a threat to Americans, will not make it so. We need to confront what attacked us in 2001. We cannot defeat radical Islamic terrorism when the President seems unwilling to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorism.'' Indeed, the recent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence documented that what attacked us in Libya in 2012 is the very same thing that attacked us on September 11, 2001. We should not aim simply to disrupt or to disable Al Qaeda terrorists. We should aim to defeat them.

On Israel, in the State of the Union, the President had one mention of Israel in that speech. He said:

American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians

as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the

conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state

for Palestinians, and a lasting peace and security for the

State of Israel--a Jewish State that knows America will

always be at their side.

The reality is sadly much different. Over the weekend, we saw a diplomatic spat play out in the press over allegations that Secretary of State Kerry is actively working behind the scenes to

encourage European countries to threaten Israel with boycotts if the Israelis don't agree to whatever framework Mr. Kerry will propose in two weeks. Rather than threats from the U.S. Secretary of State, and rather than tweets from National Security Advisor Susan Rice criticizing Israel, instead, the United States should stand unequivocally with our friend and ally, the nation of Israel. We should reaffirm Israel's unique status as a strong, democratic ally in the Middle East, a uniquely Jewish State, and that the United States appreciates the excruciatingly difficult security situation in which Israel finds itself with the threat of a nuclear Iran, and that the United States will vigorously defend Israel from attacks, from international institutions, from legal onslaughts, and from attempts to undermine Israel's economy through punitive boycotts, and that the United States is unshakably committed to preserving Israel's security, regardless of the status of the peace process.

I commend to my colleagues the recent remarks Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave in Israel. Those are the remarks of an ally standing strong with Israel and appreciating the incredible value that Israel provides to our national security and to peace in the world. I wish our President could speak with a fraction of the clarity and solidarity with Israel that the Canadian Prime Minister recently provided.

On Ukraine, the President claimed:

In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have

a right to express themselves freely and peacefully and to

have a say in their country's future.

The reality is the day after the State of the Union, Ukraine's former President said that the country teeters on the brink of civil war. Protesters have been brutally tortured and murdered. Indeed, one opposition leader described how he was recently crucified. The Ukrainian people's constitutional rights have been trampled. This former Soviet republic has been wrenched away from a proposed trade agreement with the EU and a path towards membership in NATO and instead thrust back into Russia's sphere of influence by a corrupt and autocratic leader, depriving the United States of an important economic and security partner.

We need to tell this story. We need to look for concrete actions we can take right now to demonstrate real support for the opposition, to demonstrate real support that Ukraine is welcomed by the West, and that we will not accede to Putin's efforts to reassemble the old Soviet Union and place Ukraine under its domination.

We can start by immediately offering a free-trade agreement to Ukraine and partnerships to help them build natural gas infrastructure so they need not remain dependent upon Russia, which uses natural gas to blackmail them, and we could immediately release exports of liquid natural gas from the United States in conjunction with helping with that infrastructure.

Surely, the people gathering in the frozen snow of Maidan Square, crying out for the freedom of the West, deserve more from the leader of the free world than mere blandishments about abstract universal rights.

If you are standing in the frozen streets of Kiev, being beaten, bleeding--naked, as one opposition leader was--and yet standing proud for freedom, empty generalities from the President do you very little good.

On Benghazi, the President claimed nothing. We all remember last fall, during the debates in the Presidential election--just over 1 year ago--when the President emphatically stated no one cared more about the terrorist attack that happened in Benghazi than he did. Yet in the year and a half that has followed, the word ``Benghazi'' seems never to leave his lips. The reality is we have four Americans murdered in a preventable attack, and that is what the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan manner; that this was preventable by Al Qaeda terrorists, and more than 16 months later, no one in Washington or Libya has been held accountable.

Congress and the American people, and particularly the families of the fallen, deserve the answers that only a joint select committee of Congress could get. Yet, sadly, the majority leader and Democrats in this Chamber are blocking a joint select committee. ``What difference does it make,'' former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked. It makes all the difference in the world to ascertain the truth.

I will note, even though he said not a word about Benghazi in the State of the Union, he was forced to say something this week when he was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Before the Super Bowl, when Bill O'Reilly asked him about Benghazi, what is striking--and I would urge everyone to go and watch and listen to what the President said--Bill O'Reilly asked him: Did Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tell him that night that the attacks were the works of terrorists? Mr. O'Reilly asked that question, and yet the President, over and over and over, refused to answer a simple yes or no, did Leon Panetta tell him it was the act of terrorists. He did not want to answer that question, and indeed he did not.

For those of us who have spent some of our career in a court of law, the technical term for his answer was ``nonresponsive,'' and were a judge there, he would have directed the President to answer the question that was put to him; nor did the President say one word about why the talking points were scrubbed to eradicate any mention of terrorism and the Al Qaeda affiliates involved.

We need accountability. We need accountability for those four brave Americans who lost their lives to terrorism and need to know why no one has been held accountable in the State Department, nor have any of the terrorists who committed that attack been brought to justice.

On Saeed Abedini, the American pastor brutally imprisoned in Iran, President Obama in the State of the Union Address said nothing. The reality is an American citizen has been wrongly imprisoned in Iran for more than 1 year simply for professing his Christian faith. All of us are blessed to live in a land where the Constitution guarantees us religious liberty. Yet a Christian pastor, going to Iran, professing his faith, was thrown in a pit of a jail.

There is no more compelling evidence that the Supreme Leader in Tehran represents the very same repressive Islamist regime today that he has for so many years and that his goal is not peaceful rapprochement with the West but the preservation of his own power.

The President of the United States should be standing and demanding Pastor Saeed Abedini's release, not making his captors into diplomatic partners. Indeed, it is notable, in the midst of our negotiations in Geneva, the nation of Iran transferred Pastor Saeed Abedini from one horrible prison to an even worse prison, where they keep their death row, where they send people to die, and he did so on the anniversary of Iran's taking Americans hostage--what is referred to in Iran as ``Death to America Day.'' That was not accidental. That was meant to thumb their nose at our Nation, and the President--instead of standing for an American wrongfully imprisoned for preaching his Christian faith--the President instead chose, in the State of the Union Address, to say not a word.

The President concluded his speech on foreign policy by saying:

Finally let's remember that our leadership is defined not

just by our defense against threats, but by the enormous

opportunities to do good and promote understanding around the

globe--to forge great cooperation, to expand new markets, to

free people from fear and want. And no one is better

positioned to take advantage of those opportunities than

America.

The reality is, if this past week has proven anything, that American leadership is not defined by global opportunities to do good and promote understanding. American leadership is defined by defending and promoting the values that have made our Nation great.

We do not do this by ignoring unpleasant realities, refusing to acknowledge the terrorist attack in Benghazi, sending administration officials out to claim it is not a terrorist attack but the result of an Internet video or refusing to stand for an American wrongfully imprisoned in Iran for preaching his Christian faith, and we do not do this by refusing to admit failure but by standing and facing our challenges, accepting responsibility for our actions, and speaking out with a clarion voice for the freedoms we enjoy--freedoms that should be the aspiration of every man and woman on the planet.

Leading from behind does not work. As a result of this administration's misguided foreign policy, the world has become a much more dangerous place

in the last 5 years. U.S. national security interests have been endangered dramatically. We see nations such as Russia increasing their sphere of influence, while the threats to the security of men and women throughout America grow and multiply.

Standing strongly with like-minded allies and encouraging others to seek freedom is not disinterested do-gooding; it is vital work that will promote the security and prosperity of the United States of America, something I believe is ultimately in the interest of all mankind.

I wish, when the President of the United States stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to address the Nation and to address the world, that when he spoke of foreign policy he had not embraced a foreign policy fantasy that disregards the cold, hard reality of the dangerous world we live in and the consequences of receding U.S. leadership.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I rise to speak of pragmatism and irresponsibility.

Four years ago, when this body was debating the law known as ObamaCare, reasonable minds perhaps could have differed as to whether that law might work. The essence of pragmatism is looking to the facts as they are today and responding.

Today reasonable minds can no longer differ in terms of whether ObamaCare is working.

Today it is abundantly clear that millions of Americans are being harmed right now by this failed law.

Today it is the essence of pragmatism to acknowledge the facts of the future of ObamaCare and for Congress to step up and act to stop the harm that has been caused by this body.

Irresponsibility, on the other hand, is seeing undeniable harm, undeniable facts, and saying, nonetheless, we will do nothing.

What are the facts from the American people?

The facts that we now know today are that already at least 4.7 million Americans have received cancellation notices, have had their health care plans cancelled because of ObamaCare.

This was, of course, after President Obama repeatedly looked in the TV cameras, spoke to the American people, and made the promise: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period.

We now know that promise was false, and for over 4.7 million people painfully false in their lives.

Pragmatism is responding to the facts and doing something about it. Unfortunately, what have the Senate majority leader and the Senate Democrats done to protect Americans from ObamaCare? Nothing.

These facts are known and Senate Democrats have done nothing. At least 4.7 million Americans lost their health insurance because of this body. The omnibus bill that this body is galloping to approve does nothing for the 4.7 million Americans who have had their health insurance canceled.

It is not only health insurance plans. What else are the facts that we know now?

As Time magazine observed: ``Keeping your doctor under ObamaCare is no easy feat.''

President Obama looked at the American people and said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.

We now know that promise too was deliberately, repeatedly, false. Millions of Americans are facing the very real prospect of losing their doctor.

A good friend of mine, a cancer survivor, is facing the very real prospect--because Texas Oncology has suggested it does not intend to participate--of losing his cancer doctor, not being able to go to the doctors who saved his life. This is the father of two young children facing the terrifying reality of losing his doctor because of the conduct of the Congress.

In response to millions of Americans losing their doctors, what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done? Nothing. The essence of irresponsibility is seeing a harm, seeing the facts, and refusing to act.

What else do we know? We know ObamaCare is killing jobs all across the country. Indeed, ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this Nation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said:

Of small businesses that will be impacted by the employer

mandate, one-half of small businesses say they will either

cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time

employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. 24

percent say they will reduce hiring to under 50 employees.

The President has recently been talking about income inequality. This exacerbates income inequality. It is why the rich have gotten richer under President Obama. But the people who are struggling--young people, Hispanics, single moms, people like my dad, who 56 years ago washed dishes for 50 cents an hour as a teenage immigrant--those are the people getting their hours reduced because of ObamaCare; those are the people getting laid off because of ObamaCare.

Income inequality is increasing. What have the Senate majority leader or Senate Democrats done to protect Americans from ObamaCare? The answer is simple: Nothing. In response to the millions of Americans being forced into part-time work, losing their jobs, nothing from Senate Democrats.

What else do we know? The New York Times front-page headline explained ``New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class.''

I recognize that not everyone is inclined to listen to a Republican from Texas. So let me instead quote that famed rightwing rag, The New York Times, discussing ObamaCare.

Ginger Chapman and her husband, Doug, are sitting on the

health care cliff. The cheapest insurance plan they can find

through the new federal marketplace in New Hampshire will

cost their family of four about $1,000 a month, 12 percent of

their annual income . . .

Mr. Chapman is a retired fireman who works on a friend's farm and he and his wife have two sons. Mrs. Chapman had this to say about the cost of that insurance:

That's an insane amount of money. How are you supposed to

pay that?

In response to the middle class, frustrated at getting hit with skyrocketing premiums, what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done? The answer is the same: Nothing.

But going beyond that, it is not just the middle class that is getting hurt. If we were to look at one demographic group that is getting hammered the worst by ObamaCare, it is young people. ObamaCare is a law designed to be a massive wealth transfer from young people to older wealthier Americans.

Forty percent of young Americans today believe ObamaCare will bring worse care, 51 percent believe it will bring higher costs, and 57 percent of young people disapprove of ObamaCare. And what is the source of this information? Another famed rightwing institution--Harvard, a Harvard Institute of Politics poll.

Young people in particular are getting hammered by ObamaCare, and what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to listen to the young people who are losing their jobs, who are forced into part-time work, who are facing skyrocketing premiums? The answer is simple: Nothing.

Looking beyond that, Forbes reported that ObamaCare is to increase individual market premiums by an average of 41 percent--41 percent. That is real money from hard-working people who are being hurt because of the failures of this body. And what have Senate Democrats done in response? Nothing.

Looking beyond that, in my home State of Texas, the average premium increase for Texans will be 26 percent in the individual market. But let's take a 27-year-old Texas man. The average premium increase will be 70 percent; for a 27-year-old Texas woman, 22 percent. These are young people who are struggling, who are starting to build a family, and their premiums are going up because of ObamaCare. What have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to listen to young people who are being hurt? The answer is simple: Nothing.

Let's look beyond that, though. Let's look beyond Texas and let's talk about State by State some of the very real harm. Let's take a State picked at random--the State of Nevada. If we look at the State of Nevada, 24,600 policies have been canceled in Nevada; in the individual market, a 179-percent premium increase.

One might hope that these 24,600 people who had their health insurance canceled would have Senators representing them. One might hope these people paying 179-percent premium increases would have Senators representing them standing up and saying: Let's act right now. But what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to respond to the people of Nevada? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Let's look at some other States. The State of California. In California, that bright blue State on our west coast, 1.1 million policies have been canceled; a 27-percent increase on average premiums. What have Senate Democrats done to respond to Californians suffering because of ObamaCare? The answer is simple: Nothing.

Let's take another State: Arkansas. Arkansas people are hurting because of ObamaCare. The State is not tracking cancellations, but in the individual market in Arkansas a 138-percent increase in premiums.

For the millionaires, many of whom populate this Chamber, 138 percent may not be that much. But if you are struggling in Arkansas, you need help. You need relief. And what have Senate Democrats done for the people hurting in Arkansas because of ObamaCare? The answer is nothing.

Let's look at another State: Louisiana, 92,790 policies canceled because of ObamaCare; a 53-percent increase in average premiums because of ObamaCare in the individual market.

I will note, one Senator from Louisiana has fought hard for those 92,790 people in Louisiana who have had their health insurance canceled, and another Senator in this Chamber has fought hard to ensure the response is not to relieve them from ObamaCare. What have Senate Democrats done in response to the people in Louisiana who are hurting? The answer is simple and it is tragic: Nothing.

Let us look at another State: New Mexico, 26,000 policies canceled; 142-percent increase in the individual market. What have Senate Democrats done to listen to the citizens of New Mexico being hurt because of ObamaCare? The answer is nothing.

Let's take one more State: The State of North Carolina, 183,800 policies canceled.

I want my colleagues to think of the single mom raising three kids who receives a notification in the mail that her policy has been canceled not because of anything she has done but because of Congress's law that is not working.

A 136-percent increase. I want my colleagues to think of the immigrant struggling hard--like my dad was when he was washing dishes-- who discovers his premium has gone up 136 percent. What have Senate Democrats done to respond to the people of North Carolina who are being hurt because of ObamaCare? The answer, tragically, is nothing.

Four years ago, reasonable minds might have differed, but today these are the facts. And the facts are Senate Democrats are not listening to the American people. They are not responding to the harm they have caused. I am going to suggest that is the essence of irresponsibility.

I have filed two amendments. One amendment to the omnibus bill would simply provide that ObamaCare would be defunded so long as it is the case that ObamaCare is causing Americans to lose the health insurance policies they wish to keep, increasing their premiums, and preventing them from seeing the doctors they want to see.

All of those, by the way, were promises President Obama and Senate Democrats made to the American people that ObamaCare wouldn't do, and it is exactly what they are doing.

This amendment, if Senate Democrats disagree that they have done nothing, presents the opportunity for them to do something. Right now they can step in and say: It is the essence of pragmatism to recognize this isn't working, people are hurting, so let's start over.

So, accordingly, I am going to ask the first of two unanimous consent requests:

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2685, to prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act so long as the Act is harming the healthcare of Americans, be called up and agreed to.

Madam President, I want to turn to a second amendment I have introduced. This second amendment provides real relief to the millions of Americans who are being hurt because of ObamaCare, but it also corrects something this body did just recently that was wrong. Recently, this body acted to decrease the pensions of millions of veterans--millions of men and women who have served our Nation, who have fought for our Nation, and who have bled for our Nation. This body decreased their pensions irresponsibly. So this second amendment I would introduce defunds ObamaCare because millions of Americans are hurting, and it uses the savings from defunding ObamaCare to restore the pensions to the hard-working men and women of the military, which never should have been taken away in the first place.

This is an opportunity for all 100 Senators to demonstrate we stand together with the working men and women in the military and with all Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to achieve a better life.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2686, to prohibit funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and to fulfill our Nation's promise to our military retirees, be called up and agreed to.

Madam President, last year Members of this body could say they didn't know. They didn't know people's plans would be canceled. They didn't know premiums would skyrocket. They didn't know people would be shut off from seeing their doctors. Now they know. Now they know. And the response of the majority leader and Senate Democrats, tragically, is to do nothing.

This body faces a choice--a choice between pragmatism and irresponsibility. Once this body makes this choice, ultimately, in November, the American people will have a choice as well. At the end of the day, every elected official should not ignore the facts but should listen to the American people. We need to make DC listen.

The majority leader and Senate Democrats right now are not listening to the American people. Instead, they have chosen a course of conduct of doing nothing, that is not responsible, and I hope that, in time, they reconsider.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I strongly oppose efforts to close down debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

It is a shame that despite being on this bill for four days, we have only had two rollcall votes for amendments. Over 400 amendments have been filed and we only found time to vote twice.

This is unacceptable. While I voted against this legislation in committee because it clearly and significantly ignored the budget caps put in place by sequestration, there are significant provisions worthy of support.

The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner with leadership from the junior Senator from New York to consider an amendment to reform and modernize our military justice system. This amendment was carefully crafted in anticipation that it would receive a roll call vote on the Senate floor and I proudly cosponsored and supported this amendment.

The junior Senator from Indiana had an amendment to help military reservists and the National Guard be recognized for their service and qualify for veterans' preference in hiring for federal jobs. His amendment deserves consideration and a vote.

Democrats and Republicans in the Armed Services Committee adopted several of my amendments to this bill to protect the religious liberty of our troops serving here in the United States and overseas. The Armed Services Committee also accepted my proposals to prohibit a base realignment and closure commission until after the Department of Defense conducts an exhaustive review of our overseas bases, and to study how the entire United States should be protected against threats from a missile launch.

Also, I am seeking an up-or-down vote or an acceptance of an amendment I filed to authorize up to a $10 million reward for any information regarding the terrorist attacks against Americans in Benghazi, Libya. I have been very flexible in accepting edits and changes from the majority in order to speed this process along.

The same goes for my amendment to protect the Mount Soledad veterans' memorial in California. In fact, the senior Senator from California filed the exact same legislation. So this is not a political or partisan amendment but yet it is still being denied consideration.

For these reasons and for the obstruction by the Senate majority leader who accuses the minority of being obstructionist, I oppose ending debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gillibrand amendment. I am proud to support Senator Gillibrand's concerted effort to deal with the problem of sexual assault in our military.

I want to begin by commending her persistent leadership in forging a bipartisan coalition to tackle this serious problem. I supported the Gillibrand amendment in committee, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment here on the floor of the Senate. I rise today to share my reasons for supporting it and to encourage my colleagues to continue to come together in support of this amendment.

Everyone in this body wants to support the men and women of our military. In the course of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on sexual assault, we heard testimony after testimony after testimony about the persistent problem of sexual assault in the military. I found myself persuaded by the arguments that Senator Gillibrand raised in defense of her amendments.

Indeed, when I said at the hearing that I had been persuaded by the arguments, I have to tell you, afterwards a reporter from a newspaper came up to me astonished, and asked, in wonderment: Were you really persuaded by arguments at a hearing? I thought everyone came in with their views already set in stone, and nothing that was said here made a difference.

I chuckled and said: Well, the arguments Senator Gillibrand put forth

Mr. President, millions across this country are losing their health care, are losing their doctors because of ObamaCare. In Texas this past week the Austin American-Statesman reported that Austin's largest provider of cancer treatment won't participate in the health insurance plans offered through the marketplace set up by the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, they went on: ``ObamaCare looked like the sunshine on the horizon. And now it's a tornado,'' said one Austinite who has breast cancer and is being treated at Texas Oncology.

In its upcoming issue, Texas Medicine, a publication from the Texas Medical Association, references a survey by the Medical Group Management Association that says uncertainty has 40 percent of physician practices across the country pondering their participation in marketplace-based insurance plans.

But by reducing their risk, Texas Oncology is passing the burden on to some already stressed families, said Seth Winick, whose wife is being treated by Texas Oncology for breast cancer. Winick also said: ``It's an unwelcome burden and could seriously affect thousands of families who deal with cancer in our communities.''

If Winick's family is forced to pay out-of-network rates to treat his wife, the family will have to make some tough decisions. He says: ``We will make the financial sacrifice necessary to purchase the best care we can afford and we hope that it is enough.''

But Mr. Winick had nothing positive to say about the people and the care provided at Texas Oncology. He also said:

Expanding health insurance coverage to people who don't

have it is a noble goal, but the impact that has on those of

us who do have it remains to be seen. Folks in the individual

market don't really know what is in store.

President Obama promised the American people: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. We now know that promise wasn't true. ObamaCare isn't working and it is time to start over.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Judge Paul Brown, and to urge the Senate to adopt a bill I am introducing, along with the Senior Senator from Texas. This bill will rename the Federal courthouse in Sherman, TX, as the Paul Brown United States Courthouse.

Judge Brown was a Federal judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He joined the court in 1985, after being nominated by President Reagan. He served on that court admirably until his death on November 26, 2012.

Judge Paul Brown was born on October 4, 1926. He was the youngest of 6 children. He was raised on a farm near Pottsboro, TX. He graduated from Denison High School in 1943.

He left home to attend the University of Texas at Austin. But with World War II escalating, he left UT to enlist in the Navy at the age of 17. He returned to UT, where he got his law degree in 1950. He is said to have loved UT so much that a fellow judge once recalled that although Judge Brown never wore a burnt orange tie on the bench, you could see him ``glow orange'' by simply mentioning UT.

Just after Judge Brown got his law degree, the Korean War began. And he served our country admirably once again in the Navy from 1950 to 1951. In 1951, he returned to Sherman, TX, and began private practice. In 1953, he was appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas. President Eisenhower named him U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas in 1959.

After meeting and marrying Francis Morehead in Texarkana, Judge Brown then moved back to Sherman and reentered private practice in 1961. After almost a quarter century of practicing law in Sherman, Senator Phil Gramm recommended Judge Brown to President Reagan for a new vacancy in the Eastern District of Texas.

Judge Brown was confirmed for this vacancy in 1985. He served with distinction for the next 27 years. Judge Brown took senior status in 2001. At Judge Brown's retirement celebration, Chief Judge Heartfield called Judge Brown ``a textbook member'' of ``the Greatest Generation.''

His legacy lives on today, as the Judge Paul Brown Endowed Scholarship was established at the University of Texas School of Law in 2005. He was honored as a Distinguished Alumnus of Denison High School in 2006.

Judge Brown will be missed by his family, his community, and his nation. He, and his family, deserve this great honor, as the people of Sherman, TX, will forever remember the great jurist, Judge Paul Brown.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Judge Paul Brown, and to urge the Senate to adopt a bill I am introducing, along with the Senior Senator from Texas. This bill will rename the Federal courthouse in Sherman, TX, as the Paul Brown United States Courthouse.

Judge Brown was a Federal judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He joined the court in 1985, after being nominated by President Reagan. He served on that court admirably until his death on November 26, 2012.

Judge Paul Brown was born on October 4, 1926. He was the youngest of 6 children. He was raised on a farm near Pottsboro, TX. He graduated from Denison High School in 1943.

He left home to attend the University of Texas at Austin. But with World War II escalating, he left UT to enlist in the Navy at the age of 17. He returned to UT, where he got his law degree in 1950. He is said to have loved UT so much that a fellow judge once recalled that although Judge Brown never wore a burnt orange tie on the bench, you could see him ``glow orange'' by simply mentioning UT.

Just after Judge Brown got his law degree, the Korean War began. And he served our country admirably once again in the Navy from 1950 to 1951. In 1951, he returned to Sherman, TX, and began private practice. In 1953, he was appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas. President Eisenhower named him U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas in 1959.

After meeting and marrying Francis Morehead in Texarkana, Judge Brown then moved back to Sherman and reentered private practice in 1961. After almost a quarter century of practicing law in Sherman, Senator Phil Gramm recommended Judge Brown to President Reagan for a new vacancy in the Eastern District of Texas.

Judge Brown was confirmed for this vacancy in 1985. He served with distinction for the next 27 years. Judge Brown took senior status in 2001. At Judge Brown's retirement celebration, Chief Judge Heartfield called Judge Brown ``a textbook member'' of ``the Greatest Generation.''

His legacy lives on today, as the Judge Paul Brown Endowed Scholarship was established at the University of Texas School of Law in 2005. He was honored as a Distinguished Alumnus of Denison High School in 2006.

Judge Brown will be missed by his family, his community, and his nation. He, and his family, deserve this great honor, as the people of Sherman, TX, will forever remember the great jurist, Judge Paul Brown.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the deal that the Senate is getting ready to vote on. This is a terrible deal. This deal embodies everything about the Washington establishment that frustrates the American people. This deal kicks the can down the

road. It allows yet more debt, more deficits, more spending, and it does absolutely nothing to provide relief for the millions of Americans who are hurting because of ObamaCare.

To all the young people who are coming out of school right now and can't find a job because of ObamaCare, this deal does nothing for them. To all of the single moms who are struggling and being forced into part-time work, trying to feed their kids on 29 hours a week because of ObamaCare, this deal does nothing for them. To all of the hard-working families who are getting massive premium increases from their health insurance companies right now and trying to figure out how they are going to make ends meet with health insurance costs going up 200 to 300 percent because of ObamaCare, this deal does nothing for them. To all of the seniors and all the people with disabilities who are getting notifications in the mail right now telling them they are losing their health insurance because of ObamaCare, this deal does nothing for them.

This fight was always about the American people who are hurting because of ObamaCare, and unfortunately today the Senate is saying: You don't have a voice in Washington.

This is a terrible deal. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

None of us should be surprised that when the Senate votes, this deal is going to pass, and it is going to pass by a big margin. None of us should be surprised, but the outcome could have been different.

I ask the Presiding Officer to imagine a different world. We saw in the last 2 months millions of Americans rise up, sign a national petition, light up the phones to the Capitol, and speak up against the enormous harms ObamaCare is visiting upon them. We saw the House of Representatives stand with courage and listen to the American people.

I ask the Presiding Officer to imagine a world in which Senate Republicans united to support House Republicans. Imagine that one piece being different from what we saw. Imagine, after the House Republicans stood together with the American people, if all 46 Senate Republicans had stood together and said: We are united against the train wreck that is ObamaCare. We are united with the American people that if President Obama is going to give an exemption for big business and for Members of Congress, the American people deserve that very same exemption.

I want you to imagine if Senate Republicans stood together and simply supported House Republicans and the American people. I want the Presiding Officer to imagine what would have happened if all 46 Senate Republicans had united and gone together and said: The House of Representatives has passed a bill funding the VA. We should fund the

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his impassioned remarks today, and all of us weep for those service men and women who have lost their lives in defense of this great Nation.

I would note this Senate can right now, today, move to correct the problem the majority leader described. The House of Representatives has passed eight separate bills funding vital priorities of the government. All eight of those bills now sit on the majority leader's desk. This Senate has not voted on those bills. To date, the majority leader has not allowed the Senate to have even one vote on the bills that would fund vital government functions. One of those bills is a bill that funds the VA--funds the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It seems to me we are going to have political differences, and those political differences are not going away anytime soon, but we ought to be able to say, regardless of what happens in the battle over the shutdown, that our veterans should be beyond politics. We should have bipartisan agreement on standing for our veterans.

Right now veterans disability payments are not funded. The House has passed legislation to fund that. That was bipartisan legislation, with a number of Democrats in the House, and yet the majority leader has not allowed the Senate to vote on it. The only thing in the way of funding the VA today is the Senate voting to do so--is the objection the majority leader has raised to funding the VA.

Let me note that the bill the House passed funding the VA is a clean CR on the VA. It doesn't mention ObamaCare. It doesn't say a word about ObamaCare. It simply says our veterans should be beyond partisan politics, regardless of the shutdown.

Let me also note this body has already engaged in bipartisan cooperation. Earlier in the course of this debate, the House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the men and women of the military--to pay their paychecks. For weeks there had been politicians suggesting if there were a government shutdown the men and women of the military would not be paid. The House passed a bill, a clean CR, that said we will fund the men and women in the military. I commend my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I commend the majority leader, because the 54 Democrats in this body made the right decision to act in a bipartisan way and cooperate with the Republicans in this body and with the House of Representatives, and in 24 hours the bill funding the men and women of our military became law, went to the President and was signed into law. That is the way we are supposed to operate.

So I would ask: If we could work together in a bipartisan manner to say we are not going to hold the men and women of the military hostage, why can't we work together in a bipartisan manner to say we are not going to hold our veterans hostage; that regardless of what happens in the shutdown, let's fund the VA now?

Likewise, the House of Representatives has passed a bill funding our parks and national memorials. We have seen day after day our World War II veterans coming to the World War II Memorial and facing barricades the administration has put up. The administration has expended money to keep them out. The House has passed a bill to fund our parks and our memorials. Let me suggest if the Senate would only vote, we could open every park and memorial in the country.

The House has passed a bill to fund FEMA. If the Senate would only vote, FEMA could be funded.

The House has passed a bill to fund the National Institutes of Health so we can provide vital cancer research. The majority leader spoke quite passionately just moments ago about the need to fund the National Institutes of Health. I agree with the majority leader, and I would ask the majority leader to withdraw the objection he has raised to funding the NIH.

Let me note, some have disparaged the House's approach as a piecemeal approach. Yet that is the traditional means of appropriating and legislating that for centuries this body has done. The VA is usually funded--just the VA--not connected to anything else. Why would the Senate want to hold veterans hostage because of disagreements over ObamaCare? I don't think we should. I think we should fund the VA right now.

Why would the Senate want to hold our parks and memorials hostage?

Why would the Senate want to hold the National Institutes of Health hostage?

Why would the Senate want to hold Federal workers hostage?

On Saturday, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to provide back pay for Federal workers who had been furloughed. Every House Democrat who voted voted in favor of that. Yet the majority leader has not allowed this body to vote. I am going to say right now I agree with those House Democrats, and I urge that Senate Democrats stand with House Democrats who voted unanimously in favor of back pay for Federal workers.

We can work together with bipartisan compromise, but we can only do so if both sides come to the table. Right now the House of Representatives is working constructively to fund vital priorities and, unfortunately, President Obama, the majority leader, and Senate Democrats are refusing to negotiate, refusing to compromise. That is not a reasonable approach. It is not a path that will lead to resolving this.

I hope we come together, resolve this, fund our vital priorities and, at the same time, respond to the millions of people who are hurting because of ObamaCare--who are losing their jobs, who are pushed into part-time work, who are facing skyrocketing insurance premiums and who are losing their health insurance.

We need to answer the call of our constituents. We need to answer the call of Teamsters president James Hoffa who put in writing that ObamaCare right now is destroying the health care of millions of working men and women. ``Destroying'' is the word Mr. Hoffa used. I think the Senate should respond to the concern Mr. Hoffa raised, and we should stand with millions of working men and women and we should protect their health care so the hundreds of millions of Americans who have health care right now don't lose it.

People all across this country are getting letters in the mail telling them they are losing their health care because of ObamaCare. We need to listen to them. So let's fund our government, let's fund our vital priorities, and let's listen to the American people and stop the No. 1 job killer in this country that is ObamaCare.

I urge this body to work together in a bipartisan manner to listen to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to again thank the majority leader for bringing the attention of this body to the tragedy of those servicemen who lost their lives and the fact that, unfortunately, their families had been notified improperly, I believe, that they will not be paid the tax-free death gratuity they are entitled to under law. This is wrong. Every Member of this body agrees this is wrong. Every Republican agrees this is wrong, and I am confident every Democrat agrees it is wrong as well.

Indeed, the way this announcement that was made was highly troubling.

The Department of Defense notified our military families via Twitter that those servicemembers who die in battle will not be paid their tax- free death gratuities due to the partial Federal Government shutdown.

I think this is yet another pattern that we have seen distressingly from the Obama administration of politicizing this shutdown and playing partisan games to maximize the pain that is inflicted on Americans. It is part and parcel of the pattern we have seen, barricading the World War II memorial, barricading the parking lot at Mount Vernon, George Washington's home, even though Mount Vernon is privately operated, barricading the roads leaving Mount Rushmore, even though they are State roads and not Federal roads.

The actions by the Department of Defense are also contrary to the statute that this body just passed. The military death gratuity is by statute a pay and personnel benefit. Accordingly, it is clearly funded by Public Law 113-39, the Pay Our Military Act that was passed in a bipartisan manner this week. We already acted to prevent this and, unfortunately, the Defense Department is declining to follow that law that we passed.

The legislation this body already passed would immediately act to take the families of those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines whose lives are tragically taken--to take them off the table and say: Regardless of what happens in a government shutdown, we are going to stand by the men and women fighting for America.

Indeed, the House of Representatives has introduced a bipartisan bill to immediately fund death gratuity payments. When that bill is passed, the Senate should pass that bill immediately. Indeed, the Pentagon should abandon this policy to begin with and simply follow the law that was already passed. But if they do not, I call upon all 100 Senators to come together, to listen to the majority leader, who spoke powerfully about the need to stand by our service men and women whose lives are tragically taken. When the House passes that bill, which I am confident it will do so with considerable speed, I would call upon every Senator to listen to the majority leader's call and to stand with our service men and women.

But there is something else we can do right here today to demonstrate that this body does not have to be locked in partisan gridlock, to demonstrate that bipartisan cooperation is possible, and to demonstrate that our veterans are truly not the subject of partisan dispute but are separate and deserve to be treated fairly, deserve to have the commitments, the promises we made to our veterans honored; that is, this body can stop blocking the legislation that the House of Representatives has already passed--bipartisan legislation to fund the VA, to fund disability payments--so we do not hold them hostage to what is happening in Washington.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 72, making continuing appropriations for veterans benefits for fiscal year 2014; that the measure be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader and I be able to engage in a colloquy so that we may perhaps be able to, as the majority leader said, surprise the world by finding some avenues of bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. President, was there----

Mr. President, just a clarification: Was there objection to the request that we be able to engage in a colloquy? I was not clear as to what the majority leader was objecting to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will note with regret that the majority leader objected to engaging in a discussion, to engaging in negotiations here on the Senate floor. I think that is unfortunate.

So I will promulgate the questions I would have asked him directly, and he may choose whether he may wish to answer.

The majority leader read from comments that Senator Murphy made on the Senate floor, suggesting that the House bill funding the VA was not broad enough. I would note, in my office we have drafted legislation that would fund the VA in its entirety. And if his objection is that it is not broad enough, I will readily offer that I would happily work with the majority leader to fund every bit of the VA as it is right now today, and we could introduce that bill. Indeed, I would be happy to have it labeled the Reid-Cruz bill and to give lead authorship to the majority leader.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

I thank my friend from Illinois for that question. Indeed, I enthusiastically support the proposal that the House unanimously passed to give backpay to Federal workers. Indeed, I would ask a question of the assistant majority leader: whether the Senate will even vote on that proposal because there are eight bills funding the Federal Government that are sitting on the majority leader's desk. We have not been allowed to vote on any of them.

Mr. President, I would note the fact that there are some issues on which we have partisan disagreements does not mean there are not other issues on which we can come together.

I am happy to yield to my friend for a question.

I thank my friend for that question. As I said, I would readily support legislation fully funding the VA, because the VA is a vital government system. It is a promise we have made. It is unrelated to ObamaCare. My principal complaint this past week has been that the Democratic majority in this body is holding programs unrelated to ObamaCare hostage in order to force ObamaCare on everyone. We agreed for active-duty military.

I thank my friend from Michigan for that question. Yet again, the answer is yes. I believe we should fully fund the VA. The two questions I would promulgate----

Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

I would note the majority leader seems not to want to engage in debate. So I object. I hope the majority leader will start negotiating.