their doctor. and then finally, the deceit that is assumed but not spoken is that your doctor is going to get to make decisions with you, for you about your health care, because when the independent payment advisory board gets going, it's not just about medicare. it's about everybody. and if a group of unelected bureaucrats think i shouldn't run a nonstress test on a pregnant woman that i'm watching closely and they say you can't do that, i won't be able to do that. so we're going to have a group of people practicing medicine in this country that don't know the patient, don't know the situation, don't have their hands on the patient, haven't ever touched the patient, making decisions about what kind of care that patient will get.

and when we try to unwind the unaffordable care act, we have a routine course of noes. so the consequence is who is going to be held accountable for this? the total disruption of the indemnification market in this country is now occurring, in terms of health care insurance. when the insurance companies look at what their ratios are in terms of young to old, in terms of higher risk patients that cost more versus younger patients that cost less, they will make a calculation this

spring about what their fees will be for next year. and the obama administration did something else deceitful. intentionally deceitful. before the election next fall, they don't want you to know how much the health care costs are going to rise, and so they change the day in which you will make a selection for next year and in which those prices will come through until after the november elections next year, because they know if you know the significant increasing costs that are going to come next year, not just this year but next year based on the adverse selection in the mix of all the insurance companies in this country, they know that the rise in your health insurance cost is going to be significant. so what did they do? they passed a little rule that changed the date, to make the knowledge of that information available to you, the purchaser,

come after the election, so you won't be a fully informed voter knowing that your insurance costs are going to rise 20% or 25% again next year under the unaffordable care act. the unaffordable care act. we're in a mess, in a lot of ways. and we're going to continue to see significant disruptions in the health care in this country. we're going to see continuous decline in the quality of health care in this country. just the opposite of what they promised. because we're disrupting the

doctor-patient relationship. and i know this having practiced for 25 years. i know what it takes to really care for someone. i know what it means to be in a room and spend the time that it takes to listen, to find out what's really going on, to find out why the patient's really there. and we're going to drive all that down. and we have this payment system on medicare which pays on the basis of procedure, which is a dumb system instead of paying on the basis of time that's spent with the patient. and what most people don't recognize is all reimbursements in this country for physicians, unless you're at a concierge

medicine, which is the other thing i'll talk about in a minute, is it forces doctors to spend less time with their patients, because as we crank down reimbursements, either through medicaid or through the insurance or through medicare, and a doctor has a fixed overhead which has been markedly expanded under mandates associated with the affordable care act, time means less quality care. less time means less quality care. you know, there was an interesting study done recently about how long after your doctor comes into the room and asks why are you here today, how long before you're interrupted because the doctor's in a hurry to get to the next patient.

and it's six and a half seconds. so our reimbursement mechanism mandated by the federal government, another positive aspect of us meddling in markets, is decreasing the time, the quality and the quantity of health care that patients rightly deserve when they're sitting in your office. and what's -- what's the market doing about this? there is this growing expanse of what's called concierge doctors. for a certain fee, that doctor's yours, no matter how many times you want to go to him or them per year, no matter what your needs are. they're available to you 24 hours a day, seven days a week,

365 days a year. and how's it work? well, most people can't afford concierge medicine. it's about $1,000 a year that you just pay. your insurance doesn't burrs you -- reimburse you for it. you pay a thousand bucks and you're available. you get a comprehensive, thorough health care screening exam once a year, all your tests are included in that as far as blood tests and laboratory tests at a physician's office. and if you have a need any time during the year, you have access to that physician. what do we find? the first studies that have come out on that where we take the time pressure off of doctors and let them actually practice medicine the way they were trained is that they order 40% fewer tests. isn't that interesting? the axiom in med sin that every doctor is trained with is if you

will listen to your patient, they will tell you what is wrong with them. whether that's cancer or diabetes or heart disease or anxiety or depression or hypertension. but it takes time. it takes an interaction, and it takes a great differential diagnosis. the unaffordable care act is destroying that. that's why you are seeing this little blush out into the market where you see concierge medicine, because now the reason they're ordering fewer tests is they spend about five times as long with the patient, because they're not in a hurry to get to the next patient, because they're not making their money by filling out a code and filing it with an insurance company. there's a complete relationship between the physician and their

patient. i just want to go pack over this gentleman named brian who is from oklahoma. he and his family have two children under 5 years of age. they believe what the president said when he told them he could keep their health insurance plan and their doctors if you liked it. brian recently called my office and said that isn't true. that was a lie to me. it was deceitful, it was untrue. brian works in tulsa. and the company he worked for, he felt the insurance cost was too much. so he didn't take insurance as an employer, and he went on the

private market and bought through community care in tulsa a plan that he and his wife could afford. his wife decided to quit working, stay home and raise their two kids, and so he was paying $330 premium, but it didn't cover ma maternity -- maternity care, and they didn't want any more children, so he underwent a vasectomy. a procedure to make sure he wouldn't have more children. on november 1, brian received a letter in the mail stating as of november 1 of this next year, he would be terminated from his current plan. and he would have to find a plan that satisfied the new mandates that the wisdom of washington said had to be in there. maternity care.

he spent hours on the a.c.a. web site, and what he found was plans that range in cost from $800 to 1,100 a -- to $1,100 a month, four times what he was paying. he can't afford that. he didn't qualify for a subsidy, but he can't afford that. so now what's he do? he had a plan for $300 a month, $330 a month that met his needs, covered what he and his wife thought he needed to cover. he's a young man.

yeah, what's going to happen to brian? brian's going to get taxed, not because he doesn't want to buy health care. not because he can't afford the $330 or even $400 or $500 a month, but because he can't afford $800 or $1,100 a month. so now brian's going to be without health care, without health care -- i will say it again -- without health care, and then we're going to fine him. we're going to tax him because we have designed a system that took him out of the market. didn't put him in the market. took him out of the market. what have we done? and we had an opportunity to fix that. with the enzi amendment. to grandfather all these plans in. and all my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle said no. said no. so here's brian with a wife at home and two small children under 5. he is stuck in no man's land. do you think he thinks president obama is truthful? no. does he think those that touted the affordable care act are truthful? no. he's lost confidence in his government. and that's really where we are in our country today. we're in a crisis of confidence. with washington. it was never meant to be. if you read the enumerated powers. as a matter of fact, we have the enumerated powers act.

it has 36 cosponsors. which says simply that if you play a bill to the floor, you have to state what section of the constitution gives you the authority to legislate in that area, based on what the article 1, section 8 of the constitution has to say. disappointingly, there's not one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that's cosponsored that bill. it doesn't stop you from offering the bill. it just says please reference where in the constitution you have the authority to legislate in this way. we have none of our colleagues that believe the constitution has any bearing on what we do by the fact that they won't even cosponsor that bill. the very thing our founders said was our authority to make or change law.

fundamental structure to this country. and as we have ignored, as does the affordable, unaffordable care act, the enumerated powers, the consequences to our country are monstrous. this book contains through the middle of november all the e-mails my office has gotten on the affordable care act from a state of just four million people. we're just four million people. there's not much positive in here. as a matter of fact, there's not one positive story in here. they are all stories similar to brian and tina, identical. had care, don't have care now. had an affordable plan, don't

have an affordable plan now. had a doctor, don't have that doctor now. as a matter of fact, one of the stories in here is something that's had a doctor for 35 years and can't have that doctor anymore not because the doctor doesn't want the patient, not because the patient doesn't want the doctor, but because the unaffordable care act has decided that won't work in our system anymore. you know, we've heard through the press that we didn't have any ideas on health care. my colleagues know that isn't true. senator baucus stood right over there december 8 when we tried to bring up the patients choice act.

did everything in terms of the goals that the affordable care act did without raising taxes, without disrupting the indemnification market in this country, creating a true safety net for those that could not afford health care, created auto enrollment for the irresponsible. we were never allowed a vote on that. very similar to what we're seeing now in the defense authorization bill. got a pass one but you can't have it. my four million people don't count when it comes to the defense authorization bill. because they don't like the amendments i might offer. under the constitution, it is illegal for the pentagon not to give a report of how it spent its money. it's a violation of the

constitution. we have an audit the pentagon act. it has real teeth in it. there's somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion worth of waste each year in the pentagon. you'll never manage the pentagon if you can't measure what you're doing. we don't get an opportunity to offer that. it's smart, good-government amendment. not in there. not ever going to get offered. why? because the majority leader in this body has decided he'll decide what amendments are offered and what won't. this is no longer the greatest deliberative body. this is a mimic of the house of representatives, the exact opposite of what our founders intended the senate to be. you see, their genius was is

they created a house of representatives to be responsive to the populist demand of our country. that's why elections were every two years for the house of representatives. and when the senate was first formed, it was an appointed body by the state legislatures. it is for six-years term. and jefferson wrote the rules, are the first rules under which the senate would operate. and the senate was designed to make sure there could never be a tyranny of the majority like we see today. that the minority rights of those in opposition would never be limited. for the first 130 years it took absolute unanimous consent to do anything in this body.

the rules were always changed when the rules changes were made with a two-thirds vote of those duly sworn and present. until november of this year. are things wrong in the senate right now? you bet. and they're going to stay that way, because the very genius behind our founders was to force consensus and compromise in the senate., something that the majority leader doesn't believe in. you saw the raw brute political power with the unaffordable care act. not a single republican voted for that bill. it was forced through here with

a 60-vote margin on december 9, christmas eve morning. and now we see more raw brute political force not because it had to be that way, because leadership is lacking. an understanding of the traditions and history of the senate. carl levin explained why he didn't agree with that. didn't listen to one of the senior members who had been here a long time, who understood the history of the senate and so consequently, we find ourselves in a situation where consensus is not derived, the mechanism to

force consensus has been diminished. long-term thought goes out the window and bipartisanship will as well. i want to spend another minute or two talking about the defense authorization act and the waste in the pentagon. a little over a year ago i put out a report on the pentagon. in the pentagon's budget is $67 billion a year that the pentagon spends that has nothing to do with defending this country. i put that report out in the hopes that the defense committee, senate armed services committee, would look at that report and say, we ought to take all of this out of the defense

department. do you realize that the defense department has 112 science, technology, engineering and math programs run by the defense department. 110 separate ones. it doesn't have anything to do with defending the country. they have 138 green energy programs, spending billions of dollars every year on it. that should be at the department of energy, not in the pentagon. it costs $50,000 a year to educate a child on a military base in this country., four anda half times what it cost to educate anybody anywhere else in this country. that doesn't have anything to do with defending the country either. why? so you got $67 billion.

not one aspect of that was acted on in the defense authorization act. not that was taken out and let's have the military defend this country, not do all these other things that don't have anything to do with defending the country. and, oh by the way, as we move that $67 billion out, it's estimated we can save about $15 billion by overhead absorption by moving medical research to the n.i.h. where it belongs instead of the billions of dollars we spend at the pentagon on medical research that doesn't have anything to do with extraneous decisions that our combat forces might encounter in odd places around the world. so $67 billion, could have saved $15 billion. $15 billion is three quarters of what the new, quote, agreement between the house and senate on the budget for the next two years is. we could have saved that.

that's $15 billion that could have paid for training. $15 billion that would have bought more ships. $15 billion that would have worked on missile defense now that we're going to need it since saner going to be eventually -- since iran is going to be eventually armed with a missile-based nuclear weapon. didn't do it. we got the government accountability office in the last three years has identified duplication throughout the federal government coming close to the tune of $250 billion. one committee in the house has actually acted on their report. if in fact of that $250 billion, $50 billion, $40 billion could be saved by eliminating

duplication, not one committee in the senate acted on that, on the recommendations of the government ability office to eliminate duplication. not one. not one bill that came to the floor. we've tried to insert a lot of it, but we can't offer amendments anymore. we don't have the opportunity for the four million people of oklahoma to have a say on what happens. they see what's not happening and they wonder why we don't fix these things. let me create a scenario for a minute. what do you think would happen in the country if we actually did the things that the government accountability office recommends we do? what do you think -- what do you

think the people would think if we really eliminated the duplication, if we really eliminated the fraud, if we really eliminated the waste? the american people's confidence in congress would rise. we're actually addressing the problems. we're actually addressing the key components that make us in deficit every year. now it's true, my colleagues all tell me the biggest problem is our entitlements. that's true. but it doesn't mean you don't worry about the smaller problems. as a matter of fact, i'm reminded, as i see the president in the chair, that i owe him some information on some programs that i forgot to give him that he asked me for in november. but if in fact we did all those

things, if our committees were charged through the leadership of this body, go eliminate the duplication, consolidate the programs, save the money because we need the money right now, we need to not be charging it to our children, what do you think would happen to confidence in this country? it would rise. we'd actually be doing what the people expect us to do. nobody in the real world gets to do what we do, ignore the real problems, don't act on the real problems and say well, it's too hard, it's too difficult. i yearn for bipartisanship, for consensus. i yearn for a system that forces us into consensus. not all my way, not all somebody else's way, but somewhere in the middle. that requires using the rules of

the senate and the long-term vision of what our country needs to be going and applying, not caring about what a political career looks like but caring about what our country looks like. we've lost focus on what's really important. it's not my career. it's not the distinguished senator from iowa's career. it's what happens to our country. we got our eye on the wrong ball. i do too, i admit. we degenerate to the easiest thing to be critical about. i'm human, i admit to that as well. it doesn't have to be that way. so i see that the majority leader and several others are on the floor. i will yield the floor and in anticipation of our voting.

the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the feldblum nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 54. the nays 41. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to close the debate on the nomination of elizabeth a. wolford of new york to be united states district judge for the western district of new york signed by 19 senators.

the presiding officer: pursuant to rule 22 the chair now directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum. quorum call:

the presiding officer: a quorum is present. the question is is it the sense

of the senate that the nomination of elizabeth a. wolford to be united states district judge for the western district of new york shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 55, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. pursuant to the -- pursuant to the provisions of s. res. 15 of the 113th congress, there will now be up to two hours of postcloture consideration of the nomination equally divided in the usual form. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: on behalf of the majority, i yield back 57 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i appreciate three minutes to be here on the floor today in support of landy mccafferty's nomination to the district in new hampshire. if confirmed, landy will be the first women to serve on the federal bench in new hampshire. but it's really not landy's gender that matters. it's her professional experience and personal qualities that make her stand out. she has widespread bipartisan support throughout the new hampshire legal community, and she will make an excellent addition to the federal district court in new hampshire. landy mccafferty is currently the u.s. magistrate judge for the district of new hampshire. her federal court experience includes clerking for two district court judges and at the first circuit court of appeals. landy has also prosecuted professional misconduct cases for the new hampshire supreme court attorney discipline office, served as an appellate and trial attorney in the highly

regarded new hampshire public defender program, and worked in private practice as a civil litigator. and landy is an innovator. as a magistrate judge, she has become a nationally recognized expert and teacher on how to use technology to achieve a more efficient and paperless work flow in the federal court system. she was unanimously rated well qualified by the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary, their highest rating. landy is also active in the legal community outside of the courtroom. for the past decade, she has lectured at continuing legal education seminars on various topics, primarily on legal ethics, and has also presented guest lectures on legal ethics and civil procedure at the university of new hampshire school of law. mr. baucus: madam president, mr. president, will the senator yield temporarily? mrs. shaheen: i will yield. i am almost finished, but i am

happy to yield. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i very much thank the senator from new hampshire. i thought i had voted in the last vote. apparently it was not registered. had it been registered, i would have voted aye. i thank the senator. mrs. shaheen: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i'm pleased that this morning, after several months, we are finally going to get a chance to vote on landy mccafferty, who is a well-qualified, noncontroversial district court nominee. she has the support of senator ayotte, who also represents new hampshire. i have no doubt that landy mccafferty will be an outstanding federal district court judge, and i urge my colleagues to support her nomination when the vote comes up this morning. thank you very much. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. i rise today to discuss the nomination of elizabeth wolford, a nominee to be a judge in the u.s. district court in new york. i'm new here, madam president. i'm just completing my first year here in the united states senate. but i believe this nomination gives us all an opportunity to discuss how government is or is not working here in washington, d.c. i know when i travel the state of nebraska, which i am back in the state most weekends and put on hundreds of miles, we're a big state, but as i travel the state of nebraska, people always ask me how are things going in washington, deb, how are you doing in washington? and i can't help but compare what we do in nebraska to what we are doing now in washington, d.c. because, you see, madam president, in nebraska, we

have a pretty unique system. we are unicameral. we have one house. we are nonpartisan. and we get things done. we have an agenda set up every day in the nebraska legislature, and we follow that agenda. we have bills listed. we go through those bills. and most importantly, madam president, we take votes. and as a state senator in the state of nebraska, i have an opportunity to rise and debate with my colleagues on the issues before us. i have the opportunity to sit at my desk in the chamber in the nebraska capitol and be able to write out an amendment, take it up to the desk and have it discussed. and then, madam president, to

have it voted upon. i believe the nebraska way is a good example for what we could do here in washington, because we have so many, so many important issues before us that are not being debated. i am speaking basically to an empty chamber right now. we aren't debating the big issues before this country. we are not acting upon the big issues that are before this country. and, madam president, we certainly are not voting on those issues. we have a system here in the united states senate where amendments are not accepted. that -- that whole concept is very foreign to me. because as i said, in nebraska, we are able to file amendments,

we are able to have those amendments voted upon, and we also respect the rights of the minority. for although we may be officially nonpartisan, we do belong to political parties. we have a right to express our views on an issue, to represent our constituents, and to express their concerns. and those rights are respected, they are valued and they are upheld. i can tell you i had bills that were filibustered in the state, and those filibusters would last in one case 16 hours. but in the end after those views of the minority were expressed,

we took a vote on it. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the matter leader. mr. reid: would my friend yield for a unanimous consent request? mrs. fischer: of course. mr. reid: i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have my approval and that of the republican leader. i ask consent that the requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. and i appreciate very much the gentlelady yielding. i ask the record appear as if not interrupted. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. as i was saying, in nebraska, we -- we take up those issues. we defend the rights of our constituents to be heard, because that's what this body should do as well. we should have the rights of all of our constituents be heard and

their views be heard. being from nebraska, we -- we don't have as many people as some of the other states, but within this body, every senator is equal, every citizen has equal representation. that is a principle, that is a value that must be respected. and i'm sorry to say i believe we are at a point where that principle, that value is no longer respected within the united states senate. i see my colleague from nebraska is in the chamber, madam president. i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from nebraska and i would be able to enter into a colloquy here on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska.

mr. johanns: i appreciate the opportunity to enter into this colloquy with my colleague from nebraska. we have a rather unique experience. for six years i was the governor of nebraska. when senator fischer was elected to the unicameral i was actually coming to washington to be secretary of agriculture, so we did work together, but we both worked in the same system. i would like to get a legislative perspective about how the nebraska aoupb -- unicamera works. i saw it from the governors office but i wasn't on the floor every day. that is not typically what a governor would do is go to the floor every day. nebraska is a pretty republican state. i think we all recognize that. we know that. it is a nonpartisan unicameral,

so not only is it a one-house system, but the senators don't run as republicans or democrats. they run on a nonpartisan ticket. now i would also say that our voter registration in nebraska is public record. so, of course, the media, when we would run for office would always look at where we were registered, or they would ask us. and i don't remember a time, maybe there was a time but i don't remember a time where democrats had a majority in the unicameral by their voter registration. i would like the senator from nebraska to explain how the majority party republicans worked with the minority party in terms of committee assignments, how they would work with the minority party in terms of chairs, where -- would a

member of the minority ever get a chance to be a chair. and i would like you to talk a little bit about how this system works on a day-to-day basis in terms of the relationship between the majority and the minority. maybe it will be instructive today. mrs. fischer: madam president, i am so very fortunate to have senator johanns as the senior senator from nebraska. he has a wealth of experience as a former governor, as the secretary of agriculture and as a united states senator. so he has definitely been a mentor to me. and i believe perhaps nebraska can mentor the united states senate through the trying times that we're facing right now. as senator johanns said, we are nonpartisan. we do not caucus. we do not have majority or

minority leaders because we are nonpartisan. so we don't have that leadership structure in our state that we have here in the united states senate. in the state of nebraska, if you want to be part of leadership, you stand up on the first day of the legislative session. you have to nominate yourself and run for that position. so you would nominate yourself for speaker, and then we do a secret ballot. it is 25 votes. and you would be speaker because there's only 49 of us. and then we go through the committees, and we have 14 standing committees. so as chair of the transportation and khre communications committee -- and telecommunications committee i had to stand up on the floor of the legislature and nominate myself which is, that's hard to do. that's hard to do. but you nominate yourself and then your colleagues, your peers

decide who the chairman will be. we had republicans and democrats who were committee chairs. and in fact this past year in the legislature, even though officially there is a majority of republicans, many of our chairmen, in fact, i think it was the majority, were democrats. because you're rewarded for the hard work you do, for your integrity, for your honesty, for being willing to listen to all sides and work with everyone to reach consensus. so it is a unique system. it works for our state. and it's that ability to work with each other, to try and build those coalitions so you can get your 25 votes on an issue, on a bill that you have. that i think that makes us so very special with regard to

other states and also with regards to the united states senate because we do work together. and the coalitions change. the coalitions change depending on the issue. you can find allies all across the spectrum. from more liberal members to more conservative members. if you have a good idea that's going to benefit the people of the state, your peers are willing to come forward and work with you on that, i know senator johanns, as governor, he had to draw up budgets and send those budgets then to the legislature and have our appropriations committee go through that process dealing with his agency heads and then the appropriations committee would

bring that package to the floor. and here again, we would debate it. i don't know if the legislature always agreed with senator johanns during his time as governor, but perhaps he can give us some insight into how we came together on budgets and were able to work through that as well, madam president. mr. johanns: madam president, i would love to be able to stand here today and say to my colleague from nebraska that every time i submitted something to the legislature they loved it, blessed it and passed it. but that did not happen. there was a give-and-take process that would occur. budget is actually a perfect example. like this system, the governor of nebraska gets the first shot. the governor soon after the legislature goes into session in january of each year, the

governor would submit a budget. we have a long session, that's a 90-day session one year and then the next year it's followed by a 60-day session. in the 90-day session we would do the full budget exercise. typically in the 60 day session we would do the fine-tuning. it was a biennial budget that would be passed. i quickly learned that if i was going to have any success, whether it was budget or any other initiative, that i had to reach out on an individual basis and convince each senator of the merits of my idea in what i was proposing. this was not a situation where i had the ability to go to the majority leader and say get your people on line, crush the minority and pass my budget.

that would never happen in nebraska. it wouldn't happen with the majority. typically that would be republican in tphefpblt and it wouldn't happen -- republican in nebraska. and it wouldn't happen with the minority which would be typically democrat in nebraska. i always said as governor that most days the one thing the unicameral could almost unanimously agree upon is they were mad about something when it came to the governor. the reality is we worked through these things. there was give-and-take. there were things that i wanted that i did not get. there were things that i did want that they would have to give in and compromise on. it never failed we would pass a budget by the end of the legislative session. i said many times, looking back on my time as governor, that at the start of the legislative

session, the 90-day session, there was one thing i could guarantee to nebraskans. and that was by the end of the session a budget would be passed. the second thing i could guarantee is without gimmicks, that budget would balance. we had a simple philosophy. we wouldn't spend money that we did not have. and, number three, i could promise nebraskans that we would not borrow money to make that budget balance, because you see, in nebraska, we are limited by our constitution. we're only allowed to borrow $100,000, which i'm sure when the constitution was written many, many decades ago, that was a very handsome sum of money. today it doesn't get you very far. so at the end of the day we had to balance the budget.

now, some of my greatest allies as governor were democrats. some people that fought me the hardest on certain things were republicans. but we had to work through that. i would ask my colleague from nebraska, do you ever remember a time in the eight years that you were a nebraska senator where you were in a meeting where your republican colleagues said to you let's figure out a way to silence the minority and get our way on every vote because we've got the majority. we could win every vote if we do that. let's figure out a way to break the rules so we can change the rules so this minority means nothing anymore in this legislative body when it comes to these issues.

i ask my colleague from nebraska, did that ever happen? mrs. fischer: you know, madam president, the people of nebraska would never stand for that to happen in our state. as i said, we're very, very proud of our unicameral system and how we are able to work together. of course we know who is a republican and who's a democrat in the nebraska legislature. but as i said, we're able to cross that aisle which doesn't exist in nebraska, by the way. we do not sit separate from each other. but we're able to reach out and work together. we have this system that is so open and so transparent. we work with the governor, or perhaps in senator johanns' case, not work with the governor on the issues. but we're able to have that dialogue with our chief

executive. we are able to have that dialogue with each other. we have a committee process where every bill that's introduced has a public hearing. any person can walk in to the hearing room and come forward and testify before a legislative committee in the state of nebraska. and senators then have the opportunity to ask questions, to be able to gain more information not just from people who are invited to come and sit on a panel before a legislative hearing, but from citizens who step forward and are willing to take that time away from their jobs, their families. some may have to travel a great distance since we are a very big

state in order to get to the capitol, to be at a hearing and express their views. and i believe in most cases, at least in my experience, every individual that would come before a legislative hearing in the state of nebraska was treated with respect. whether they agreed with the majority of the members on the committee or they had a disagreement. it's a respect for those views that are different from your own that i believe is so very, very valuable as a legislator to be able to hear, to be able to question. and that's why it truly saddens me that we are seeing a rule change here in the united states senate where i believe the views

of the minority will no longer be considered. it's been my experience here so far, madam president, that i've been able to have meetings with nominees, nominees who are coming before the committees that i sit on to be confirmed. they come to my office. i'm able to ask them questions. i'm able to express to them the concerns that i have heard from the people in my state and hopefully get answers back from them. but it does give us an opportunity to establish a relationship where we're going to be able to work together in the future. but more importantly, it gives me the opportunity as a united states senator from nebraska, who happens to be in the minority, to have that chance to

question the nominee for commerce secretary. with a rule change now that just requires 51 votes, even as a committee member, those nominees don't even have to come and introduce themselves to me. that is not fair. it's not fair to the people of my state, because every state, every state's citizens need to be represented here in the united states senate. that's what's so very or what used to be so very special about this body. you know, you look through history, senator johanns, and i know you're a great student of history, you look through history and you -- you read about the -- the debates that

happened on the senate floor. you know, i remember earlier this year when we were all in the old senate chamber and we -- we got to experience that feeling of -- of being open and honest with your colleagues without the cameras going and truly to be able to air some grievances. i thought that was helpful. it was a very moving experience for me as a new senator to be there. but i think, perhaps you agree with me, that we have lost that spirit of the old senate chamber and of the senate chamber that we're standing in. mr. johanns: madam president, i remember that night well. it occurred just some months a ago. the nuclear option was being threatened. many had worked very, very hard

to avoid that. keep in mind, the nuclear option wasn't just discovered this year or last year. senators have known of the nuclear option for a long, long time. we've been down this road before when republicans were in the majority and fortunately and wisely so, they backed off. and a group of i think 14 united states senators got together and said, you know, we've got to figure out a way to deal with this and they did. and, you know, they got a lot of criticism. i remember that. i remember that the criticism was that they caved in, they gave in, they compromised and they shouldn't have compromised and all of the things what you hear, but at the end of the day, leadership backed off of doing exactly what happened here right before thanksgiving.

well, that night we went into the old senate chamber and anybody who has ever visited that room, you walk in and you feel the history of that place immediately. some of the great senators in our nation's history have spent time in that room arguing for the great causes of the day. it's a remarkable place. the doors were closed, there was no staff in the room, there was no media in the room, there was no cameras on recording everything that we were saying. this was a meeting of the united states senators who were there to try to figure out if there was a way forward. i won't talk about the specifics of who said what and who said what to who and this, that and the next thing, but i will tell

but the atmosphere. i found the atmosphere to be extremely tense and uncomfortable, especially at the start of the meeting. we were really hopelessly divided on the issues that we were facing. but the conversation began and people started making points on all sides of these issues, and, you know, in the context of that meeting and some things that had happened previously, a picture started to come together. the picture was that we had agreed as senators, most of us -- not all of us; some had disagreement with what we were doing -- that there were certain executive branch appointees that if there was no objection from any senator, they could move forward through the process really unimpeded.

now, if a single senator had an objection and said, "wait a second, i've had a dealing with this person or whatever that's very problematic," well, then they've got to go through the whole process. but we set aside hundreds of executive branch appointees and we said, look, there's just no good reason to force them through this process when there's no objection. democrats, republicans, independents shook hands on that and that became the way we operate today. another piece of the context was that there was discussion about some things that we could do with the rules. at this very, very lengthy night meeting, like gentlemen and gentlewomen, we shook hands and

we had a way forward. took awhile to develop it, took awhile after the meeting to flush it out. there was give-and-take and some were concerned that it didn't embody what we had agreed upon. i personally thought we probably gave too much on our side. but at the end of the day, i thought it made sense as a way forward and to avoid the nuclear option. and we reached an agreement, like i said, we shook hands. and that put the issue to bed. as i would talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we would say to each other, you know, that was a good meeting. it's only happened twice since i've been here. once on the start treaty and once on this. and we congratulated each other for finding that way forward. but then we started to hear just

a couple of weeks ago that that agreement wasn't holding, not because either side had violated it but because all of a sudden the majority, led by senator reid, decided that they wanted to revisit this whole thing. i thought we had put the nuclear option in a lockbox, locked it up and thrown away the key. i thought we had come to agreement as a united states senate that the damage to our nation and its citizens in employing the nuclear option was too great a price to pay. that's what i came out of that meeting believing. that's what i continued to believe as i talked to my colleagues on the democrat side of the aisle.

so what happened? if the agreement wasn't violat violated, if people were living by the agreement and a whole host of nominees had gone through the process, some of which i didn't like a bit but they got the votes necessary, they were confirmed, they had gone through the process. so what was different about a couple of weeks ago versus when we walked out of that meeting that evening? well, i'd ask my colleagues' thought on that but i think i know what that was about. and i'm going to continue to talk about this in the days ahead as we talk about this nuclear option and what it's doing to our country. what happened is this. obamacare started to roll out.

now, i remember the day that obamacare was passed. as i said last night, i was sitting in a chair right in front of senator fischer. it was my first couple of years here in the united states sena senate. what happened before thanksgiving and the breaking the rules to change the rules reminded me exactly of what happened with obamacare. the democrats had the votes. it was a very unusual time in our nation's history. they had 60 senators and they had the majority in the house and they had the presidency. and, see, under the rules, they could stop debate and pass anything that they wanted to pass. and that christmas eve day, i

remember feeling like, as a member of the majority -- or minority that i was told to sit down and shut up because my viewpoint on obamacare meant nothing. what mattered that day was raw, sheer political power. they had the 60 votes. i sat there during the roll call vote. i heard every democrat vote for one of the worst pieces of policy ever passed by this body and i felt that day like i was told to sit down and shut up. and then a couple of weeks ago, when obamacare was literally melting down before our eyes, people were being thrown off

their insurance plan, they were beginning to realize what the cost of this was going to be. they were beginning to realize that the promise that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period, was a political gimmick -- it was a lie -- and that they were being thrown off their plans and that they couldn't even get on the web site, and all of a sudden our colleagues on the other side of the aisle begin to realize that their job was at stake. their numbers were crashing. and all of a sudden, after we shook hands like gentlemen and women after a very tense meeting and we implemented what people agreed would be implemented, we came back to revisit the nuclear

option. i want to offer one additional thought about what this means. the rules of the united states senate have been changed on occasion. it's not something you do very often around here. but on occasion, they've been changed. the rules contemplate a way to change the rules. two-thirds of the united states senatsenators have to agree to e rules change. so how did this come about? let me explain that. they asked -- the majority leader asked for a ruling of the chair. basically the ruling got to the question of how many votes does it take to confirm somebody. that ruling was appropriately decided and the majority leader

announced, "i want to appeal that ruling." and that ruling was, in fact, appealed. how do you successfully appeal a ruling of the chair with a majority vote? -- how do you successfully appeal a ruling of the chair? with a majority vote. and that's exactly what happened. the democrats fell in line, and i had the same feeling that day before thanksgiving that i had on that christmas eve day when obamacare was passed. the feeling i had as a member of the minority, the feeling i had was that every single member sitting in those chairs, the majority, the democrats were saying to me and to my colleagues, sit down and shut up. now, i said last night that i

have a tremendous amount of respect for a man who served here for many, many years with great distinction, admired by everybody. i got to know him a little bit. he had not passed when i came to the senate, a gentleman by the name of bob byrd. probably the finest historian of the united states senate, maybe ever. he would come to the floor and talk about the beautiful history of the senate and this institution and the sacred rights of every individual senator to come here to the floor and argue and make their point, offer an amendment. under our rules, the amendment doesn't even have to be germane. we get a vote on that. and, you know, this beautiful institution worked for over 200