[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6700-6709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF NANCY L. MORITZ TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                             TENTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Nancy L. Moritz, of 
Kansas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit.

[[Page 6701]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 1:45 p.m. be 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Highway Trust Fund

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Highway Trust Fund is a vital 
resource for States to tackle much-needed transportation projects. But 
right now that trust fund is running on fumes. States from Vermont to 
California and many in between are rethinking their plans for 
construction because of funding uncertainty in the Highway Trust Fund. 
One example is New Mexico. Their State officials are starting to ramp 
up construction plans for Interstate 25 in Albuquerque. That project 
has been a high priority for city officials for a number of years. Once 
it is completed, it is going to reduce traffic and improve safety. That 
is vital for that area. But right now State officials in New Mexico 
have said they are concerned about Federal funding for that project and 
it now might be in jeopardy.
  That is not an isolated case. The trust fund supports transportation 
projects across our entire country. It eases congestion for our 
commuters and for businesses that need to move their goods efficiently 
and quickly. It funds safety initiatives and construction that improves 
our roads and bridges. It sparks job creation for American workers.
  But the Department of Transportation now says that trust fund will 
not be able to keep up with its payments to States as soon as this 
summer. This crisis is right around the corner. Many States are now 
planning for worst-case scenarios. In fact, the State of Missouri has 
stopped planning for new projects. In Colorado, a State official has 
said: Without these funds, major projects probably will not be 
completed or ever get underway.
  Arkansas has begun planning several projects to replace old bridges 
and widen highways and repair roads, but now, their transportation 
officials have put 10 projects on hold because of this looming crisis.
  Construction is at its height during our summer months. So if the 
Highway Trust Fund hits a crisis in the next few months, we could 
potentially see a construction shutdown, meaning workers are going to 
be left without paychecks.
  That could add up to 10,000 jobs in Florida, according to the 
President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association. Across 
the country, failing to shore up our Highway Trust Fund could cost more 
than 180,000 jobs in fiscal year 2015. That is according to an analysis 
from the Center for American Progress.
  In Kentucky, Governor Steve Beshear summed it up by telling 
reporters: ``We can't afford for the Highway Trust Fund to go 
insolvent.'' States and workers are counting on us to solve this. I am 
hopeful that we can replenish the Highway Trust Fund in a bipartisan 
way. In fact, House Republican Dave Camp, who chairs the Ways and Means 
Committee, has proposed using corporate revenue to replenish the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  President Obama's Grow America Act also calls for corporate revenue 
to address this crisis and make important investments in our 
infrastructure. That approach makes a lot of sense. Closing wasteful 
loopholes so we can create jobs here at home would be good for our 
workers, good for our economy, and it would make our broken tax system 
fairer in the process. I am here today to say I am hoping that 
Republicans will come to the table willing to close just a few 
corporate loopholes so we can avoid an unnecessary crisis in our 
Highway Trust Fund, so that we can give our States more certainty to 
plan and we can help spark job growth in the summer.
  But if Republicans are not willing to work with us, they are going to 
have to explain why egregious corporate tax loopholes are more 
important than workers in our construction industry and more important 
than drivers and businesses that rely every day on safe roads and 
bridges.
  I am here to say and to warn that construction projects are at risk 
across our country. Another example happens to be in New Hampshire, 
where construction crews have been working on a major project to widen 
Interstate 93. That project was designed to ease congestion and improve 
safety. Last month the State transportation commissioner said the 
project could be stalled and thrown off schedule if Congress does not 
resolve the Highway Trust Fund crisis. He said, ``Any hiccup in federal 
funding could have a negative impact on the ending.''
  For many States this looming crisis is already a reality. We have to 
act now. So let's show our States that together we will continue to 
invest in projects that help drivers and help businesses move their 
goods, and let's show the American people that Congress can work 
together to ensure vital transportation construction projects will move 
forward this summer. Let's shore up that Highway Trust Fund and avoid 
this unnecessary and totally preventable crisis.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Campaign Finance

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
the corrupting power of money in our national politics and the tragic 
impact of a whole series of decisions by the
Supreme Court that has steadily strengthened that power.
  Over the last 40 years a bipartisan coalition in this body and 
bipartisan coalitions in Congress have come together behind commonsense 
measures that actually succeeded in limiting the power of money in 
politics. Most recently, back in 2002, a bipartisan coalition in this 
Chamber led by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, Republican and 
Democrat, took a few steps to effectively limit the use of so-called 
``soft money'' and to ban special interests from pouring money into 
national elections in the month or two before Election Day.
  As actual elected representatives, their perspective as Members of 
Congress who enacted that legislation was informed by their real 
experience as public officials who have run and won elections and who 
have written, fought for, and passed actual legislation.
  Since Members of this Chamber, Members of this Congress, have seen 
and experienced the corrosive effect of money every day, Congress, in 
my view, should be given great deference when it has been able to 
transcend partisan division and put in place commonsense protections.
  Yet over the past few years a bare majority on the current Supreme 
Court has, in decision after decision, dismantled many of those 
critical protections and shows no signs of stopping.
  In doing so, this Court's decisions display a significant and 
stunning naivete about how our political system actually works and how 
it is continuing to change and as a result have brought us closer to a 
world where, as a recent New Republic piece argues, ``millionaires and 
billionaires speak loudly and the rest of us do the listening.''
  Most recently, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a 
limit that has stood since 1971, when Congress passed the Federal 
Elections Campaign Act, on total campaign donations anyone may make in 
the same election cycle.
  Before this recent Supreme Court ruling, individuals couldn't give 
more than $117,000 between candidates and party committees. After the 
ruling, that limitation has been swept away, and there is nothing to 
stop a wealthy donor, an ultrawealthy donor, from contributing to every 
Federal race each election cycle.
  Some here have cheered the decision as upholding the First Amendment 
and free speech, but in my view, when you are able to spread around 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to dozens and dozens of 
candidates in a

[[Page 6702]]

coordinated way, you are not speaking, you are coming dangerously close 
to buying.
  For ultradonors, the reality is not just about making their voices 
heard. Under existing Supreme Court precedent under these recent 
decisions, there is no limit on anybody's ability to spend whatever 
amounts he or she wishes to conduct actual speech, to buy newspaper 
ads, buy television spots, or even to make a politically motivated 
movie.
  The reality is it is about trying to control more and more of the 
legislative agenda of this Congress and more and more of the direction 
of our government.
  In McCutcheon, this recently decided case, the Supreme Court hasn't 
just enabled speech, it has made it dramatically easier for the 
wealthiest and the special interests they represent to hedge their bets 
by diversifying their political portfolio. It has more in common, 
sadly, with Wall Street investment strategies than with the free speech 
rights envisioned by our Founders at the Constitutional Convention.
  Frankly, I think the Founders would not recognize our political 
system today and the increasingly harsh influence of big-money donors 
in our overall national political scene.
  Together with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court of 5 
years ago, we see the truly dangerous implications of the decisions 
rendered. One of the boldest decisions I have ever seen--Citizens 
United, with another 5-4 decision--killed off nearly half of that 
bipartisan compromise bill of 2002 of McCain-Feingold by allowing 
corporations and other special interests to anonymously fund campaign 
ads in the months before an election.
  In doing so, as Justice Stevens wrote in a dissent, the Supreme Court 
``relied largely on individual dissenting opinions. . . . blaz[ing] 
through our precedents [and] overruling or disavowing a body of case 
law.''
  Justice Stevens noted that to do so the Court decided a question the 
parties did not present directly to it, saying:

       Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited 
     nature of the case brought before us, so they changed the 
     case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.

  I understand this is a dissent, but a dissent that I think should 
draw our attention to the direction these two vital, difficult Court 
decisions are taking this Nation.
  Soon after the Supreme Court extended these rules to State campaign 
finance laws as well. In combination these two decisions, McCutcheon 
and Citizens United, have brushed aside important bipartisan 
legislation that was designed to prevent corruption of the political 
branches and to provide Americans some level of confidence that their 
voices, not just those of the ultrawealthy and powerful, mattered to 
their elected representatives. We have all seen the impact of this 
decision, of Citizens United in particular, as commercials by groups 
nobody has ever heard of, funded by donors who can remain in the dark, 
have flooded the airwaves of our election years ever since.
  Earlier I mentioned that these two decisions show a stunning naivete 
about how politics in our modern world really works. Let me be clear I 
don't say this because the Supreme Court overturned a law that Congress 
passed. It is the Court's job to be a check on Congress to defend our 
fundamental freedoms in the face of congressional overreach or 
improvident action. But in the McCutcheon decision, the Court 
overturned a core holding of its own previous decision in Buckley v. 
Valeo, the case it purports to apply. As Justice Breyer wrote in 
dissent in McCutcheon, the Court's holding:

     understates the importance of protecting the political 
     integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a 
     loophole that . . . taken together with Citizens United . . . 
     eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a 
     remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of 
     democratic legitimacy that those very laws were intended to 
     resolve.

  For instance, in the Court's decisions, it consistently refers to 
traditional political corruption as quid pro quo corruption, corruption 
of the sort where a specific contribution is made for a specific vote 
or action in arguing that campaign donations and political spending or 
speech have shown no signs of leading to corruption. The majority 
argues that campaign giving and the ``general gratitude'' that a 
candidate or elected official may feel is not the same thing as quid 
pro quo corruption in the sense of directly buying votes or action in 
the Congress.
  But as Justice Breyer notes in his opinion in McCutcheon in the 
dissent, the majority's:

     narrow view of corruption . . . excludes efforts to obtain 
     ``influence over access to elected officials or political 
     parties.''

  Every single Member of this body and every Member of the House of 
Representatives knows that to be true and knows this influence to be 
pernicious. Let me give an example. As many of my colleagues would 
attest, hanging over everything we do is the shadow of anonymous big-
money ads getting dropped into the airwaves out of nowhere in the last 
weeks before an election, and it influences, in pervasive and 
corruptive ways, decisions made in this body week in and week out.
  Of course, tough opposition ads are nothing new. Robust debates in 
campaign season go back to the very first campaigns of this Republic. 
As politicians, we all welcome the opportunity to those who engage to 
disagree with them. That is an important and healthy part of our 
democracy, and every citizen should have the right to voice their 
opposition to me or to any Member.
  But what is a huge problem is the fact that nobody knows who is 
behind these ads, making it easier for any wealthy individual or 
corporation to pour an unlimited amount of money into a race behind 
completely false attacks. Because the donor is often in the dark, there 
is no way for the public to know who the claims are coming from or 
whether they are credible.
  That is why in this Chamber folks in my caucus, Democrats, have 
repeatedly argued for our taking up and passing the DISCLOSE Act, which 
would require third-party ads to say who funded them so that citizens 
can reach their own conclusions.
  This is an increasingly difficult problem for our country. In the 
2010 election cycle, super PACs spent more than $62 million nationally. 
Through the 2012 cycle, outside groups spent an incredible $457 million 
on House and Senate races. So far in this cycle they have already 
raised and spent more than $200 million.
  The result is that every campaign has to do more and more fundraising 
so they have the resources to rebut the claims made in these negative 
ads with concealed donors. That means more time on the phone or at 
fundraisers, traveling around the country, organizing and carrying out 
fundraising activities rather than engaging with our constituents and 
diving into details of policy. It is even worse in the House where the 
daily demands in their 2-year cycle are even more difficult.
  Let me offer one brief statistic. In the average winning Senate race 
in 2012, it cost $10 million, which means the winning Senator had to 
raise $4,600 every single day over a 6-year term.
  That is time not spent on solving the real issues facing our country. 
That is an unbelievable amount of time dedicated to fundraising, and it 
just doesn't end, whether the term is 2 or 6 years.
  I know I have it relatively easy, little to complain about. Compared 
to my colleagues I come from a small State. The very modest amount we 
have to raise in a competitive race in Delaware pales in comparison to 
much larger States with much more expensive media markets, but it is a 
problem for this entire body and this entire country.
  Let me offer one last example of concretely why this matters. As we 
debate in the Senate, the other party complains about the absence of 
opportunities to offer amendments and the lack of a robust and open 
amendment process. One of the reasons we often do not take to the floor 
and vote on competitive, compelling amendments is the concern that they 
will then become the subject of last-minute, aggressive, targeted 
campaign ads funded by undisclosed donors. Rather than being a

[[Page 6703]]

Chamber of honest, open, and free debate, the shadow of secret money 
turns policymaking into a beacon of risk aversion. Policymaking gets 
paralyzed and this serves no one.
  Although it is not an example of corruption in the quid pro quo sense 
that the Supreme Court so narrowly focuses on, money does corrode the 
public trust and steadily corrupts this system in a thousand different 
ways. The irony of this all is that we badly need an honest discussion 
about the impact of big spending and fundraising on our political 
system. At this point I believe we badly need fundamental changes to 
redirect the decisions and the attention of the Supreme Court.
  Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision by the Court that equated 
political contributions and money with speech, in my view needs to be 
revisited. Senator Udall of New Mexico has introduced a constitutional 
amendment that, in my view, restores the balance of that original law 
and decision, and it is one that I strongly support. By bending 
backward to declare anything that corporations or the ultrawealthy wish 
to do with their money the equivalent of speech, today's Court, in my 
view, rather than strengthening speech, has weakened it for the 
millions of Americans who cannot afford to play in this new system.
  At a time of growing economic inequality, that concerns me more and 
more because this new political inequality threatens the very 
foundations of our democracy.
  Noting the presence of two other colleagues, I would ask if I might 
have the forbearance of two brief speeches recognizing Delawareans.
  I appreciate the forbearance of my colleagues and would like to take 
a few minutes to recognize two great Delawareans.


                        Tribute to Harry Gravell

  I wish to recognize Harry Gravell.
  Right now in Wilmington, DE, friends will be coming to celebrate 
Harry, who is retiring from his long leadership role of the Delaware 
Building Trades Council after a lifetime dedicated to workers and our 
Nation.
  I first got to know him in my service on the county council in New 
Castle County, where he gave me very helpful, very insightful advice, 
and was a constant source of encouragement and support.
  Don't get me wrong. He didn't always agree with me. He didn't always 
support me. With Harry you got a straight shot. You got exactly what he 
thought and nothing less. You always knew where he stood even if he 
disagreed with you. He is transparent, he is honest, and you know why 
he believes what he believes.
  He is not only a great friend but a great father. We were both 
honored in 2012 by the Delaware chapter of the American Diabetes 
Association as fathers of the year. Harry is the proud father of two: 
Jayme and Dee, and grandfather of three: Makayla, Avery, and Lily.
  Harry's life story is one of determination and service. He never 
gives up, especially when he puts his mind to something. From an early 
age he knew the value of hard work. For high school he went to the 
Salesianum School, a great school in our community, and worked his way 
through school to make sure he could afford a great education.
  A Vietnam veteran, he served our country in wartime. Since he came 
home, he has never stopped fighting for working families and veterans, 
and I was particularly proud to work with him in his role in the 
Sprinkler Fitters Union, then on the Building Trades Council on Helmets 
to Hardhats, on offering training and real job opportunities to 
returning veterans.
  If you know Harry, you have seen his drive up close. You have seen 
him fight through thick and thin for his workers, his family, and our 
community.
  But perhaps the greatest example of his sheer will was his most 
recent fight. He suffered a stroke a few months ago. Doctors read him a 
long list of things he was never going to do. Harry scoffed. Digging 
in, as he has his entire life, he finished his physical and occupation 
therapy faster than doctors thought he could. He has just finished 
building a house in Lewes. Everyone who knows him I believe will agree 
with me that he deserves the years he will now get to spend on the 
beautiful beaches of Delaware.


                     Remembering James Wilcox Brown

  Let me last briefly offer a tribute to a lifelong friend and mentor, 
James Wilcox Brown of Newark, DE. He set sail on April 24 at the age of 
65. The gentle determination and unconditional kindness with which he 
lived his life inspired all around him, including his family, his 
friends, and this junior Senator from Delaware.
  Jim graduated from Salesianum School, the University of Delaware, and 
the Washington and Lee University School of Law. He worked as legal 
counsel for W.L. Gore & Associates for 36 years. He served as a member 
of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps for 26 years, retiring as 
colonel.
  His tireless community service was broad and deeply felt. I was proud 
to be able to appoint him to the Delaware Service Academy Selection 
Board.
  He is survived by his wife Peggy and their four wonderful children: 
Genevieve, Hilary, William, Mary Ellen, and six grandchildren. I simply 
wanted to add my voice to so many who will deeply miss this patriot, 
this great lawyer, this centered, thoughtful, kind man, and this 
personal friend who helped teach me the importance of humility and of a 
commitment to excellence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                             Arkansas Storm

  Mr. PRYOR. I come to the floor with a psalm and a story. The psalm I 
want to read is one of the most famous passages in all of Scripture. In 
times such as this that Arkansas has been through, a lot of people go 
to Ecclesiastes or one of the gospels, but I want to read Psalms 23--
and I will tell you why in a moment.

       The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
       He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me 
     beside the still waters.
       He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of 
     righteousness for his name's sake.
       Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of 
     death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and 
     thy staff they comfort me.
       Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine 
     enemies; thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth 
     over.
       Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of 
     my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

  Madam President, on Sunday, April 27, 2014, at about 7:06 p.m., a 
tornado touched down right on the Saline and Pulaski County lines, just 
west of Little Rock. It stayed on the ground for about an hour, crossed 
the Arkansas River, crossed right near a little town called Mayflower. 
The weather service now tells us it was an EF-4. That means it had a 
wind speed of up to 190 miles per hour--190 miles per hour. We lost 15 
Arkansans, and we will never forget them. We love them and their 
families, and we will miss them. It is a great loss to each and every 
Arkansan and really each and every American: Paula Blakemore of El 
Paso; Mark Bradley of Mayflower; Jamye Collins of Vilonia; Helen Greer 
of Mayflower;
Jeffrey Hunter of Vilonia; Dennis Lavergne of Vilonia; Glenna Lavergne 
of Vilonia; David Mallory of Vilonia; Robert Oliver of Mayflower; 
Cameron Smith of Vilonia; Tyler Smith of Vilonia; Rob Tittle of Paron; 
Rebekah Tittle of Paron; Tori Tittle of Paron; and Daniel Wassom of 
Vilonia. As you can see and hear from those names, a lot of these were 
family members and obviously members of a few communities in my State.
  I wish to thank my colleagues first because many called and reached 
out in various ways. Some covered meetings for me. In fact, Senator 
Jack Reed of Rhode Island actually covered a military promotion 
ceremony, which was really special for me--and for him to do--and 
special for everyone involved. So I thank him for that. Many of my 
colleagues have offered to help.
  We also had people from outside Arkansas who reached out. I know our 
Governor fielded calls from a number of other Governors from around the 
country. Our emergency management people have been contacted by other 
emergency management folks.
  Another phenomenon that has happened in our State--we neighbor 
several States that have gone through this

[[Page 6704]]

before. One of those is Missouri, and I see my colleague from Missouri 
here in the Chamber today. People from Missouri came down to help. 
People from Oklahoma came down and helped. Of course, we helped those 
States in their time of need, so it was reassuring and so appreciated 
that those folks, those previous storm victims came to Arkansas and 
helped us. We really do mean that, and we appreciate it very much.
  Federal officials reached out. I was in the car with our Governor 
Mike Beebe when President Obama called him. That meant a lot. They were 
able to work through some of those Federal-State issues immediately, 
right there on the phone. That was great. Of course, Secretary Jay 
Johnson called the Governor, and I talked to him actually that same 
day. He is trying to come to Arkansas in the next few days, and I hope 
he will be able to make it. Craig Fugate, Director of FEMA, came in the 
very next day, and we appreciate Director Fugate and the resources FEMA 
brings and the attention to our State.
  One of the things we recognize is that the work is just beginning. I 
see my colleague from Louisiana, and I don't know of anyone in this 
Chamber who better understands about recovering from a widespread 
disaster.
  I thank and acknowledge the thousands of Arkansans who made a 
difference.
  One of the underappreciated groups I want to mention--they probably 
don't get enough notoriety, even though this may sound kind of silly--
is the TV weather people. As soon as the storms were in the area, they 
broke from their normal broadcasting and they went with wall-to-wall 
coverage. I talked to so many folks in Mayflower, Vilonia, and other 
areas who said: Hey, we watched on TV, and we could see exactly where 
that storm was, and that is what saved us because we knew it was 
coming.
  The sirens were going. I was at a dinner with some friends of mine in 
Little Rock, and we heard the sirens, we heard the weather radio go 
off, and sure enough we turned on the television and we watched it too, 
just like everyone else.
  The Department of Emergency Management has been off-the-charts good. 
There is a man there named David Maxwell who unfortunately has a lot of 
experience with this, but ADEM has been phenomenal. We have a system in 
Arkansas called Code Red, and that got activated and worked very well. 
The various elected officials--the county judges, et cetera--all came 
together.
  We also, obviously, had first responders who rolled in immediately, 
and that was great. General Wofford of the Arkansas National Guard 
activated 54 guardsmen. They showed up and did their duty. And it is so 
reassuring to the communities when they see those men and women in 
uniform. First, they know they have a lot of training and a lot of 
experience, and it stabilizes things.
  The other thing I noticed when I pulled up was that there were police 
cars and firetrucks and everything from what seemed like every 
jurisdiction in Arkansas. So it was really great to see that.
  Some of the unsung heroes in this are just everyday, ordinary 
Arkansans, just everyday citizens. They came and brought their 
chainsaws. They checked their kids out of school to go help, and they 
rolled out and really streamed in to help.
  There are really too many other folks to mention from some of the 
State agencies that are really underappreciated--the Arkansas Game and 
Fish Commission; the Forestry Commission, which had people there 
clearing the way and knocking down things; the highway department; the 
utilities. As always, the utilities sprung into action. Even though 
power was down for a pretty good while--I think we had about 35,000 
customers or so without power for a little while, but the utilities 
people got that taken care of. They got their folks from other States 
to come in, as we do. Entergy is our largest single electric utility in 
the State, and they brought people in from other States and got their 
contractors going.
  I noticed also the churches. The churches really are prepared for 
this. It is part of their mission. I did notice the State Baptist 
Convention has what they call a mobile mass feeding unit. In the first 
3 days they fed 4,300 hot meals in Vilonia alone. I don't know what 
else they were doing in other places, but it was great for the 
volunteers who were helping and also the families there to be able to 
go and get a hot meal. Of course, the Salvation Army and Red Cross--all 
of them really rolled out and helped.
  Again, these two Senators who are here in the Chamber with me today 
have been through these tragedies before. They know the insurance 
industry rolls out and sets up temporary units. I saw lots of insurance 
folks with clipboards and cameras and all the things they needed.
  The wireless companies came and put up temporary towers because a lot 
of those were knocked down. There were charging stations for folks.
  Walmart is the largest company based in Arkansas, and they came with 
truckloads of water, diapers, snacks, various kinds of donations, baby 
wipes, batteries, and flashlights. Whatever people needed, it seemed as 
though Walmart was there with a truck to offload and really help people 
do what they needed to do.
  Tyson Foods is another of our great Arkansas companies. They have a 
program they call Meals that Matter, and they do three meals a day. I 
saw their trucks at the Mayflower school where they were set up. I saw 
this big Tyson truck just sitting there, and I knew everybody was 
scurrying around doing other things at other trucks, and I asked: What 
is that one for? And I heard that one was just full of ice. They have 
learned through these tragedies and other places they go that ice is in 
very short supply, and they know that keeping things cold and giving 
people something cool to drink is very important.
  I could talk about this for a long time, seeing those people and 
seeing what they have gone through. I was there the next morning with 
the Governor and the attorney general and a number of others, and it 
was very emotional. You talk to some folks, and they are grieving for 
the loss of their loved one or their next-door neighbor in one case. I 
talked to a man who had lost his mother. At the same time, others are 
rejoicing to be safe and to have their lives and the lives of their 
children.
  One man I talked to--I never even got his name, but I think he was 
stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base--said he looked out his front 
door and saw the storm bearing down on the house and there wasn't any 
way to avoid it. He grabbed his kids, threw them in the bathtub, got 
some blankets, covered them all up--including himself--in the bathtub. 
He said that for about 45 seconds it sounded as if they had an F-16 in 
their house. When it finally stopped, he took the blankets off, and at 
that point they weren't in the bathroom anymore, they were in the 
garage. The roof had collapsed and they couldn't get out. Before long, 
they heard some neighbors calling for them, and they were able to dig a 
tunnel and get those three girls out and then he got out. They came out 
of it with just scratches, but it is an amazing story of perseverance.
  There is a little hardware store in Mayflower called H&B True Value 
Hardware, and that building was really shaken to its foundation. It is 
a total wreck, but the merchandise was good. This man's entire career, 
his entire working life is right there in that building, that local 
hardware store he is going to turn over to his daughter one day. His 
daughter was there with her children, and they were getting their 
merchandise out and trying to get it into some sort of storage so it 
could be safe while they rebuild. That is a real-life matter for them, 
so we tried to help there.
  I remember standing out by the curb in front of what used to be a 
home. It was just a pile of rubble. At first, when you look at that, 
all you see is debris. Your eyes can't even focus on it. You don't even 
know what you are looking at. But when you sit and take a moment and 
look--I looked down and saw a ceiling fan motor. The blades were all

[[Page 6705]]

gone, but there was a ceiling fan motor. And, gosh, right there I saw 
Legos mixed in the yard. There was an upside-down sink right there on 
the pavement. There was a family portrait--whether it was from this 
family, that family, or a family from a mile away, who knows, but 
nonetheless a family portrait, just a color photo lying there in the 
middle of the street.
  Another of the things I saw as I stood there looking at what used to 
be a house--there was the front door, the doorframe, the brick, and 
sort of a stoop with the steps going up to the house, but there was no 
house there. All that was left was that doorframe. You think about 
that. Think about those people, and their house is completely gone. 
They have to rebuild.
  I did hear a story--I didn't talk to the people, but a story was 
going around among some of the volunteers who were working about a 
family who survived and their dog survived. The way the dog survived is 
that as the tornado was hitting their home, they actually grabbed the 
dog by the collar. He was about to fly out the window or what was left 
of the house, and not only were they holding on for dear life, but they 
held on to the dog, and they all made it.
  A lot of times you would go up to where a house was and it would be 
just a concrete slab. That is all there was. You just look at that and 
think, how did anybody survive that? But they did, in most cases.
  I went to the farm of a friend of mine, a guy named Preston 
Scroggins, whom I have known a long time. He is a pillar-of-the-
community kind of person there in Vilonia. I went to his home and saw 
that he had lost everything. He lost his home, lost all of his 
vehicles. He had a big farm shop--what we call a shop--which is a metal 
building with steel girders in it. And I have never seen this before 
with a tornado. When they built that metal building, of course they 
build these girders to hold it up, and then there is the siding type of 
stuff on the sides, the roofing, which is all metal. Of course the 
steel was twisted, and that is pretty bad, and it takes a lot of force 
to twist steel like that. But what I had never seen before is that the 
footings of the building, which were these huge concrete balls--they 
dug a hole, filled it with concrete, and stuck the steel girders in 
them to create the footings--these balls of concrete were actually 
picked up out of the Earth by that tornado. They were actually picked 
up and set down a few feet away from the big hole in the ground. That 
is an amazing amount of force, and that is what an EF-4 does. This 
tornado didn't just knock down buildings; it obliterated them.
  The beautiful thing about our people is that it did not obliterate 
their dreams. We talked to one woman who said: This was my dream house. 
But the amazing thing was--and a new phrase has been created out of 
this--we heard people saying over and over that they were Ark strong 
because people in our State are resilient. They are strong people. They 
are scrappers. And part of being strong is to pull yourself up by your 
bootstraps and dust yourself off and go out and do more that day to 
improve what you have and work for your family.
  But another element of being strong is neighbor helping neighbor, and 
we saw that in abundance in Arkansas. To sit there in your front yard 
with no worldly possessions left--your truck looks as though it has 
been beaten by 20 men coming at it with hammers and beating on it, your 
house is in ruins and there is nothing left--and then to look at me and 
say, ``Well, it is just stuff,'' it takes a strong person to do that. 
That is someone who has the right perspective.
  I saw the bravery, the selflessness, and the generosity, and now you 
know why I am so very proud to be the Senator for these amazing people.
  I am also proud of the Senate because it wasn't too long ago we voted 
for disaster relief in this body. We now have money sufficient to cover 
this and other disasters. I wish I could say this is going to be the 
last one for the year, but everyone knows it will not be.
  I will close with a psalm.

       The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
       He makes me to lie down in green pastures.

  There are green pastures as part of this, and our people have found 
those and will continue to be finding those as we go through this.

       He leads me beside the still waters.

  It is a very comforting thing, and they need to be comforted right 
now.

       He restores my soul.

  One thing I looked up is the definition of ``soul.'' According to 
Webster's, it is a nonphysical aspect of a person. It is a person's 
emotional and moral nature, where the most private thoughts and 
feelings are hidden, the complex of human attributes that manifest as 
consciousness, thought, feeling, and will.

       He restores my soul; he leads me in the paths of 
     righteousness for his name's sake.
       Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of 
     death--

  I can guarantee those people in Arkansas know they have walked 
through the valley of the shadow of death--

       I will fear no evil; for you are with me. Your rod and your 
     staff, they comfort me.
       You prepare a table before me in the presence of my 
     enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

  The attitude of the people in my State is, even though it has been a 
difficult week, their cup is overflowing and those blessings continue 
to come.

       Surely, your goodness and mercy will follow me all the days 
     of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord 
     forever.

  Having that eternal perspective is going to get people through.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleagues for all the best 
wishes and the willingness to help and offers of assistance and all 
that makes up the Senate family.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                             Current Events

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to respond to my good friend from 
Arkansas. Where he lives and where I live we know way more about 
tornadoes than we would like to know. Our friend from Louisiana knows 
about tornadoes and hurricanes both.
  We had a massive tornado in Joplin, MO, not too far away from these 
tornadoes in the last week, in fact, in Baxter Springs and Quapaw, 
along with tornados in Arkansas and Mississippi, but that tornado was 3 
years ago, I believe next week, and there was massive destruction. But 
the first responders were your neighbors. Before anybody else can get 
there, your neighbors are there, thinking of getting that man out of 
the garage with his three little girls and your neighbors beginning to 
help you collect those few things that are left--that may just be 
stuff, but it is your stuff. It is pictures and things that can't be 
replaced, but what can't be replaced are the lives which are saved, and 
what can't be replaced are the lives which are lost--and people will 
live with that strategy. No matter how resilient, that is a tragedy 
that lasts forever. For all those families affected this week, the ones 
Mr. Pryor has talked to and others have talked to--in the hometown of 
two of our colleagues from Mississippi, Tupelo hit by a tornado--these 
are tragic moments when communities and families and neighbors come 
together. That and faith, as Senator Pryor said, are what help people 
get through this.


                    Caring for America's Heroes Act

  Madam President, this is National Mental Health Awareness Month. It 
just started today.
  Senator Stabenow and I have introduced some legislation this week, 
Caring for America's Heroes Act, that would look at what we are doing 
in the military. We are looking carefully at the military as it relates 
to what we are doing to help our veterans and to help those who serve.
  I was at Fort Leonard Wood, in Waynesville, MO, just a few days ago, 
talking to the hospital personnel there about mental health issues as 
they relate to the many new inductees who come there and as to the 
full-time force and the retirees who come there.
  The act Senator Stabenow and I are introducing this week would treat 
mental health conditions like other health conditions for spouses, 
dependents, and for retirees who now have a limit on what can be done 
and how

[[Page 6706]]

many hospital days they can stay for mental health that is not the same 
limit for anything else. There is no justifiable reason for it not to 
be the same limit. I think we are going to have good support from the 
Defense Department as we work to try to get this done, to just simply 
ensure that military dependents and retirees who were covered under 
TRICARE, for instance, are treated in the same manner for inpatient 
mental health services as they would be for any other injury or any 
other kind of health issue. Bringing those to par with others is 
important.
  The National Institutes of Health estimates that one out of four 
adults in American has a behavioral health problem and if diagnosed can 
almost always be treated. I asked the Surgeon General of the Army at a 
hearing just a few days ago if that one out of four would relate to the 
military as well. Her view was as follows: Yes, we recruit from the 
general population. We don't have any reason to believe those numbers 
aren't reflected in our population as well.
  So as we move forward, we need to be sure, in Mental Health Awareness 
Month--and in a month where, as in every month, we should be always 
mindful of our veterans and retirees--that we are pursuing those 
solutions for them as we are for the country generally. Hopefully, we 
will be able to work with the Defense Department and get this one gap 
closed in the very near future.


                              Health Care

  I wish to speak about where we are on health care. I know there was 
an attempt in recent days to take a victory lap, and maybe again today, 
over the number of people to sign up.
  I will say one more time, I don't think that is the way you can 
measure this. I said when the Web site wouldn't work, we can't measure 
this by whether the Web site works because surely the Web site will 
eventually work. Frankly, we shouldn't measure this by how many people 
sign up because the people who sign up don't have any other option. 
Their option is to not sign up at all or to sign up. That is not much 
of a choice for most people. I am going to talk in a minute about a 
couple people who decided they don't have a reasonable choice, so they 
are not signing up for anything.
  We need to be sure this government does what is necessary to create 
access to what has been the best health care system in the world. We 
all want people to have access to that system. The question truly is, 
Are we doing that the right way?
  Polling clearly shows that people don't think we are doing that the 
right way. The President's numbers reflect that. The Kaiser Family 
Foundation poll shows that just 38 percent of people think the law is 
working as intended; 57 percent say it is not working the way the White 
House had hoped.
  I would think 100 percent would think it is not working the way the 
White House had hoped. Surely, the rollout, the signup--we can talk all 
we want about how many people sign up. There is a debate going on right 
now over in the House of Representatives this week about they signed 
up, but did they pay.
  According to the House Commerce Committee, insurers tell them that 
only two-thirds of the people who have signed up have paid. If they 
don't pay, they are not signed up and they don't have coverage. I don't 
think any insurance works that way.
  That same committee's report said only 25 percent of paid enrollees 
are within the crucial age range, which is 18 to 34.
  For this to work, we have to have people who are young and healthy 
sign up as well. Why isn't that happening? The original estimate was we 
need 40 percent. We appear to have 25 percent. What do we need to do?
  Why is it the fact that insurance costs more relative to everybody 
else insured for young people than it ever has before by the law? That 
would maybe explain why young people aren't signing up. Prior to 
January 1 of this year, if someone were young and healthy, they might 
pay 20 percent of what the person at the other end of the spectrum was 
paying. Now they have to pay at least 33 percent. Maybe that is why 
those people aren't signing up.
  Of course, the workforce impact of people who have part-time jobs 
because full-time jobs are covered, jobs of more than 30 hours--the 
House recently passed the Save America Workers Act to help increase 
these wages by saying: No, it is not a 30-hour standard. It should be a 
40-hour standard. I am a cosponsor of the Senate bill that would do 
that same thing Senator Collins has been advocating for months now.
  The unintended consequences in the workplace are not fair to American 
families. They are not fair to American workers. We could do something 
about one of those unintended consequences by just saying: Wait a 
minute. The 40-hour workweek that we have always said was full-time 
work should still be the 40-hour workweek, not the new 30-hour 
workweek.
  The emergency contractor hired to repair the Web site said it is 
going to cost $121 million to repair the Web site, which is a whole lot 
more than the $94 million already spent to create the Web site. I 
wonder what would have happened if we had taken that many millions of 
dollars and bought insurance for the people we were trying to move from 
uninsured to insured.
  I will give about three more examples. My time is limited on the 
floor today, and I have this down to a handful of examples of people we 
have heard from in the last few days about families who are 
dramatically impacted. Surely, there is a good story out there to tell, 
but there are lots of stories, and no matter what anybody says, these 
stories over and over turn out to be tragedies for families.
  Randy and his wife from Mexico, MO, had a plan they liked, but they 
received a cancellation notice in October of last year. He went on to 
the exchange but found on the exchange he would have to pay over $600 a 
month more in premiums and face deductibles that were $3,500 higher 
than they had been in the past--so a $600 increase in premiums and 
$3,500 higher deductibles.
  The cheapest plan available to Randy and his wife would have them 
paying $14,000 in premiums a year and they would have an $11,000 
deductible before the insurance would pay anything--$25,000.
  Randy and his wife decided: That is not insurance at all, so we are 
not going to have insurance. They found the best thing he could find, 
found what was available, and decided it clearly wouldn't work. And 
that wouldn't work for any us either. If it was going to cost $25,000 
annually before a single thing was covered, we wouldn't think that was 
insurance, and that was the best thing Randy from Mexico, MO, could 
find.
  Neal lost his job 2 years ago and decided to go back--Neal is from 
Raymore, MO. He decided to go back to school full time. He has nerve 
damage in his back and takes several medications. His doctor prescribed 
120 pills a month, but his insurance plan will only pay for 100 pills a 
month.
  Neal said not only does he have pain he didn't have before, but he 
says: There is nothing I can do about it. He says: Nobody wants to 
help. The doctor says I need 120 pills a month. The insurance says they 
are not going to let me have more than 100. I think he wishes this was 
between him and his doctor instead of between him and his insurance 
company.
  Myron from Hannibal, MO, and his family have annual premiums that 
went from $2,200 to $6,500--a $4,300 increase. He found his doctor is 
no longer in the network. He doesn't want to have a new doctor. He 
liked his old insurance, but it was canceled, and he can't get to the 
doctors he used to use with his new insurance.
  Campus problems: A young healthy son on campus. His insurance was 
$550 a semester last semester. This year it is $770 a semester so he 
can have the same insurance that in all likelihood he will not use 
because he is, after all, young and healthy, but the 40-percent 
increase is an increase the law almost requires. The law went from five 
different categories of people to be insured to three, and the top one 
can't pay more than three times what the bottom pays.
  One final story. Dennis is from Dexter, MO, near Missouri's bootheel. 
He is

[[Page 6707]]

an insurance broker. He says he has lots of stories he could tell, but 
the one that came to mind that he told us about this week was people 
who had a nationwide network of doctors in a plan he used to sell now 
are transitioned to a network that is much smaller and it only works in 
the State you reside in.
  Missouri has many States that touch it. As many as eight States touch 
our State, so almost everybody in our State lives on or near a border. 
If you live on or near the border in the exchange, you cannot go to the 
doctor or hospital, in all likelihood, that may be 10 miles from where 
you are because it is not in your State. When I was first told that, I 
simply didn't believe it, and the more we checked into it the more we 
found out that is what people were finding over and over. The policies 
they could get did not allow them to go a reasonable distance if they 
had to cross a border.
  So we have work to do. I hope we can do it. I think there are ways we 
can work together, but the real thing we have to solve is better health 
care for families and affordable health care and health insurance for 
families. It is not happening right now. I hope we move to a better 
place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Louisiana.


                              Health Care

  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I come to the floor again to urge consideration and a vote, and a 
positive vote, on my no-Washington exemption from ObamaCare proposal.
  I think the first rule of American democracy should be that whatever 
Congress chooses to impose on America it lives by itself; whatever laws 
Washington passes, it lives by itself. That should be the rule across 
the board, and that should certainly include health care and ObamaCare. 
But that is not the case.
  That is not the case at all, because there is a Washington exemption 
from ObamaCare. There are special-interest Washington subsidies under 
ObamaCare that the average American doesn't get in any way, shape, or 
form. As it relates to health care and ObamaCare, I think the rule 
should be simple: The baseline plan, the fallback position for all 
Americans is what we live by. Under ObamaCare that was first during the 
debate called the public option, but then it came to be known as the 
exchanges. That should be the plan we all live by and our staff live by 
and the White House and top members of the administration live by--no 
special exemption, no special deal, no special subsidy, no special 
treatment.
  That was the intent of an amendment, and that is actually the clear 
language of an amendment that actually passed this body and passed the 
process and became part of ObamaCare, thanks to the leadership of 
Senator Chuck Grassley and others, and I certainly strongly supported 
the amendment. There was a clear amendment added to ObamaCare in the 
Senate that said every Member of Congress, all of our staff, have to go 
to the so-called exchanges for our health care. The problem is on the 
way to implementing that, after passage of the bill, folks around here 
understood what that meant and so they watered down and amended that 
language through the back door by administrative fiat in an illegal 
way.
  They got the President and his administration to issue a special rule 
that took all of the sting out of that amendment. That rule did two 
things: First of all, it came up with a mechanism whereby a lot of 
congressional staff don't even have to go to the exchanges at all; and 
secondly, this illegal rule gave Members of Congress a special subsidy 
to go to the exchanges that no other American gets at comparable income 
levels, no one else gets, completely unique.
  In addition, the administration, top members of the administration, 
such as Cabinet officials and top White House aides, have never been 
subjected to anything like the same rule.
  Again, I think we should come back to what almost all Americans feel 
should be the first rule of American democracy: What is good for 
America has to be good for Washington. What is imposed on America needs 
to be imposed first and foremost on Washington, with no special 
exemptions, no special subsidies, no special carve-outs, no special 
deals, and that is what my no-Washington exemption from ObamaCare 
proposal is about. Every Member of Congress, our staff, and the White 
House and top administration officials should go to the exchanges for 
our health care, with no special deal, no special exemption, no special 
subsidies.
  I have been fighting for simply a full debate and vote on this for 6 
months now, and unfortunately have been completely shut out of any 
vote. This started as soon as the administration announced its special 
illegal rule to get around this provision of ObamaCare late last year, 
and as soon as that was announced, I said: This is wrong. We need to 
address this. We need to stop this. I proposed my clarifying language, 
and I brought up that language as an amendment on the floor as soon as 
I could. It was in September of last year on the Portman-Shaheen bill 
which is back on the floor now, and after a lot of back and forth, the 
majority leader finally agreed: Fine, we will have a vote on the Vitter 
amendment on this subject. In fact, Senator Reid was quoted in The Hill 
on September 17 of last year: ``What I said I will do is we'll vote on 
Vitter,'' meaning my no-Washington-exemption language, `` . . . as 
senseless as that is.''
  I appreciate that endorsement of the proposal.
  ``I mean, we'll go ahead and do that.''
  So he agreed to that vote on Portman-Shaheen. That was reported the 
same day by Bloomberg on September 17:

       Reid said on the Senate floor that a vote would be allowed 
     on the Vitter proposal as long as Republicans agreed to 
     consider a yet-to-be unveiled Democratic counterproposal that 
     would be offered as a side-by-side or second-degree 
     amendment.

  And also that same day in CQ:

       Reid said Tuesday he was willing to give Senator David 
     Vitter, R-LA, a vote on his proposal to force more government 
     workers onto health care exchanges and to pay the premiums 
     themselves . . .

  In addition, at the same time the next day, September 18, and the day 
following, September 19, Senators Shaheen and Portman said the same 
thing. Senator Shaheen was on the Senate floor September 18 saying: 
Great, we will give Senator Vitter his vote. I have no problem with 
that. Senator Portman, September 19, the same thing.

       My understanding is that there has been a general agreement 
     to have a vote on the Vitter amendment. That is something I 
     have heard on the floor from leadership.

  Well, as we all know, that agreement never materialized, was never 
honored. I have never gotten that vote. It is now 6 months later, and I 
am simply asking for a full debate and a fair up-or-down vote on this 
important issue.
  Look, it is a free country. People don't have to agree with me, but 
let's have a vote. We voted yesterday on something that we have voted 
and revoted multiple times at the majority leader's insistence.
  I am asking for one vote on this important issue that the American 
people care about. We voted and revoted on things multiple times. I am 
asking for one clear vote on this issue. After the majority leader 
agreed to a vote on this amendment that I never got in September, a 
couple months later when I was revisiting the issue, he said: Okay. 
Well, you can have a vote, but it has to be the only vote in this 
Congress.
  Well, I resisted that at the time, but I will take that one vote. Can 
we have one vote on this important issue this Congress? Can we have a 
modicum of free expression and open debate and an open amendment 
process on the Senate floor? Can we have one vote on this issue that 
the American people certainly care about? That is what I am asking. I 
am asking for the majority leader to honor his commitment. That is what 
I am pushing for. That is what I will continue to push for, which is 
why I am filing the amendment to the Portman-Shaheen bill. And again, I 
am filing it to this bill for one clear reason: That is the context in 
our previous

[[Page 6708]]

consideration of Portman-Shaheen where I was told we agreed to having a 
vote on this issue. We will have the vote. I am simply asking for that 
commitment to be honored.
  I also care deeply about other important issues, including energy 
issues, moving forward with a very important jobs project for America, 
the Keystone XL Pipeline; and because of that, when I saw the majority 
leader's recent proposal that we move ahead on Portman-Shaheen with 
five energy-related votes, one of which would clearly be the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, I certainly took that very seriously. That is also an 
important issue and it deserves a vote. It has had votes in the past, 
but that needs to be addressed. So as soon as I saw that--and again, 
this is an offer by the majority leader--a hotline request that we now 
consider the Portman-Shaheen bill and limit considerations to five 
energy-related amendments, that would be chosen by the Republican 
leaders--as soon as I saw that hotline and that offer, I called the 
Republican leader to make sure of two points--two points that I care 
about quite a bit--No. 1, that one of those amendments would be a very 
substantive amendment on the Keystone Pipeline, not general, vague, 
sense-of-the-Senate language, but binding language that would approve, 
without the President's involvement, this very important jobs project; 
and No. 2, that at least one of the other amendments was an important 
matter within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee on which I serve as 
ranking member.
  The Republican leader absolutely agreed that was the case. Yes, 
absolutely, once we lock in this unanimous consent request by Leader 
Reid, one of those votes would absolutely be a binding proposal about 
the Keystone Pipeline. Another would clearly be an important matter 
from the jurisdiction of the committee on which I serve as ranking 
member on EPW. So those are important matters and those are significant 
votes.
  So I will set aside temporarily my pursuit of this no-Washington-
exemption vote. I promise I will be back to it. I promise I will use 
every reasonable opportunity to get that vote which was promised to me 
last September, 6 months ago and counting; but I believe we should move 
forward with Majority Leader Reid's proposal that he made as a hotline 
request this morning.
  I offer that as a unanimous consent agreement, so we can lock it down 
and move forward, and move forward with this Keystone vote, move 
forward with these other energy votes, and then move forward beyond 
that, hopefully to a vote on the no-Washington-exemption language very 
soon. So I make as a unanimous consent request Majority Leader Reid's 
own proposal, that there be a unanimous consent agreement on S. 2262, 
the energy efficiency bill; that we move to its immediate 
consideration; that the only amendments in order be five amendments to 
be offered by the Republican leader or his designee related to energy 
policy, with a 60-vote threshold on adoption of each amendment; and 
that following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate will 
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes in response to the Senator from Louisiana after I have 
responded to his unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
only ask for the opportunity to respond to the response to the 
unanimous consent request before the assistant majority leader 
proceeds, but I have no objection otherwise to his speaking after that 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first, reserving the right to object, 
what the Senator from Louisiana has characterized as the majority 
leader's position on the pending legislation, S. 2262, has not been 
stated by the majority leader, and I suggest that the Senator from 
Louisiana speak to his leadership and work with the majority leader to 
resolve differences on amendments. I object.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, let me read the exact text of the 
hotline. A hotline is a message that goes out to all Senators.

       The Majority Leader in consultation with the Republican 
     Leader would like to enter into a unanimous consent agreement 
     on S. 2262, the Energy Efficiency bill. The only amendments 
     in order would be 5 amendments to be offered by the 
     Republican Leader or his designee, related to energy policy, 
     with a 60 vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. 
     Following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate 
     will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if 
     amended.

  That is clearly an expression of the majority leader's proposal in 
consultation with the Republican leader. That is what was sent to all 
Members of the Senate--at least on our side--after a personal 
discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader.
  Just to be crystal clear, my unanimous consent right now is that 
hotline request that has been clearly characterized as the request of 
the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from Arizona is 
waiting to take the floor. I have waited for the Senator from Louisiana 
to finish his lengthy statement about several issues.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for only 5 minutes--and maybe less--
and then I will leave and turn the floor over to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like 2 minutes to respond. I don't mean to delay the Senator from 
Arizona, but I would like 2 minutes to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from 
Louisiana's request?
  Mr. VITTER. There is an objection, and I propose an alternative 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois speak for up to 5 
minutes followed by me for up to 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I 
will not object--but I ask unanimous consent that following the 
completion of what was just discussed that the Senator from South 
Carolina and I be allowed 20 minutes for time to speak.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I think there is a vote 
scheduled at 1:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is correct; there is 
a vote scheduled at 1:45 p.m.
  Is there objection to the request from the Senator from Louisiana?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, because my friend from Arizona has 
waited patiently, I will turn the 5 minutes into 3 minutes.
  The question is health insurance for Members of the Senate and their 
staff. The Senator from Louisiana said that we should not be treated 
any differently than anyone else, and he is right. It turns out that 
Members of the Senate and their staff go to get their health insurance 
through the insurance exchanges, just like 8 million other Americans, 
and we buy our health insurance not from a special little company but 
from the same list--in my case--of 100 different policies available to 
anyone working in the District of Columbia.
  My wife and I chose Blue Cross Blue Shield; that was our choice. We 
are

[[Page 6709]]

paying a monthly premium. Our employer, the Federal Government, is 
contributing toward that premium like every other family in America 
where the employer makes a contribution, in this case the Federal 
Government, and the employee makes a contribution, in this case the 
Senator and his wife. We are being treated like everyone else.
  Now he wants to take away the employer contribution not just for the 
Members of the Senate but also for our staffers. All these poor hard-
working people want is health insurance like every other family. The 
Senator from Louisiana is going to make a statement of principle here: 
They shouldn't get employer contribution for their health insurance. 
What a noble and courageous position.
  The question is whether he is going to turn back any Federal subsidy 
for his health insurance. I don't know if he does or not. It would be a 
show of good faith if he did.
  I will stand here and fight for the right of Members of Congress to 
be treated like everybody else--buying health insurance on the 
exchanges from private insurance companies from policies that are 
available to everyone else with an employer contribution. I will fight 
for staffers--Democrats and Republicans--to have that same right.
  The Senator from Louisiana has held up a bill on the floor of the 
Senate all week because he wants to call that amendment. Isn't it about 
time we get to the business of the Senate and do something? We will 
leave today and come back next week. I hope he will have some second 
thoughts about holding up the Senate for another week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I had the feeling I would need to 
respond to whatever was said, and I was certainly right.
  I have a couple of points to make in order to set the facts right. 
First of all, my proposal does mean Washington is treated like all 
other Americans with regard to ObamaCare. That is not going on now. 
Many members of our staff don't have to go to the exchange. All others 
and Members of Congress get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no 
other American at the same income level gets--no other American. And 
the Obama administration--White House officials--doesn't fall under 
that requirement at all to go to the exchange. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, I don't take that subsidy. The assistant majority leader is a 
little late to the game. I made that decision months ago and announced 
it, so I do not take a subsidy.
  No. 3, the assistant majority leader has just rejected a proposal of 
the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader. I don't 
know why they can't take yes for an answer. They are complaining about 
my holding up a bill that is not on the floor yet, and I am asking for 
unanimous consent, which they initiated, with regard to energy 
amendments.
  I will read the exact text of the hotline again.

       The Majority Leader in consultation with the Republican 
     Leader would like to enter into a unanimous consent agreement 
     on S. 2262, the Energy Efficiency bill. The only amendments 
     in order would be 5 amendments to be offered by the 
     Republican Leader or his designee, related to energy policy, 
     with a 60 vote threshold on adoption of each amendment. 
     Following the disposition of these amendments, the Senate 
     will proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if 
     amended.

  I don't know why we can't take yes for an answer here. I'm holding up 
the bill? The bill is not on the Senate floor yet. I am asking for a 
unanimous consent that was a discussion and an idea of the majority 
leader in consultation with the Republican leader and now that is being 
objected to by the same sources who proposed it. This is silly.
  Let's get on with the important votes. Let's get on with this 
important Keystone vote--a binding Keystone vote--and then in the 
future let's get on with important ObamaCare votes, which certainly 
includes my no-Washington-exemption proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining before the 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the votes Senator Graham and I be allowed 20 minutes to speak 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________