anymore. they don't need me. they can just outlast me, just like they're doing right now. and they can bring this to a vote and on a straight party-line vote, they can appoint the entire judiciary of the united states in the district courts and in the circuit courts with absolutely no involvement whatsoever from the minority. none. that's what their rule change did. let me take that rule change and think out loud about where we put ourselves as a country. i wander who was the first united states senator in our history who came to the floor

and said my fellow senators, i have thought about this, i have contemplated it, maybe i have even prayed about it, and i believe the day has arrived to end slavery in the united states. and i will be attaching an amendment to every bill to end that horrific practice. i'll bet they were a very lonely united states senator at that point in our history. but i'm also guessing that that senator and tenacious other senators along the way exercised their rights as a minority and

as an individual united states senator to continue to force that issue. what a courageous, remarkable thing to do. so let's think about where we're headed here. we now have a precedent, and as bob byrd points out in his writings, precedents voted on by united states senators have significant binding effect in this body. it's not something you do one time, tear up and throw away. it's something that becomes a part of the heart and soul of this body. it is something that is a method

of operation, a rule, if you will, by which future decisions are made within the united states senate. and what's this precedent? this precedent is not the democrats or republicans have to cross the aisle and get 67 votes together to change the rules. this precedent now is that you can ask for a ruling of the chair, the chair can correctly deliver a ruling, you can get your team together, republican or democrat, and you can vitiate , overrule, annihilate the correct ruling of the chair

to get a different result. so for the first time in our history, we are now confirming judges in the circuit court, in the district court and executive appointments under a majority rule, for the first time in history. why? was it because 67 senators said look, let's do it this way? no. it's because the majority leader asked for a ruling from the chair, the chair gave a correct ruling, and then the majority leader stepped in and said i'll appeal that, kept his democrats together, successfully appealed it by keeping the democrats together, and all of a sudden we're off in a different direction. so let's think about this. let's say that you're a democrat

president, and the senate is democrat. maybe it's evenly divided, but you have the vice president in the chair who can break ties. and you're in the last 18 months of your time in office and you have already won a re-election, so you are term lited, 18 months, you move on down the road. let's say that you have got a supreme court of the united states that four of the members are conservative, four are what would be regarded as liberal, and you have got one member kind of right in the middle. and whenever there is a major argument before the supreme court of the united states, that one in the middle, everybody's trying to guess which way. going to side with the liberals on this one? what's he or she done in the past? or will that supreme court justice side with the

conservatives? what's he or she done in the past on these kinds of issues? can we kind of get a road map of what they might do on this major constitutional issue? and for whatever reason, that supreme court judge dies in office, becomes ill, can't perform the duties, decides to retire, decides look, i have been here a long time, it's just time for me to move on. maybe they even have an inkling that they want this president to appoint their replacement. my goodness. this is a pretty important issue. you've got that one vote who kind of moves back and forth. this is pretty darn critical for the next 50 years or 20 years or 10 years for the united states.

it could make all the difference in the world. well, let's say that the president of the united states takes a look at that and says 18 months, i'm not sure i can get this done. and calls up his friend, the majority leader, in the united states senate and says my friend, how do we move this supreme court nominee that i'm going to announce tomorrow before i leave the white house? we need to get this done. maybe it's not even 18 months. maybe it's 12 months or six months. but how do we get this done? well, the majority leader says, mr. president, you know, under the current rules, we did pass that rule in 2013 right before thanksgiving. we took the voice away from the

minority so on circuit court or district court, i could help you out, but we didn't apply that rule to the supreme court. or maybe it's even further down the road and parties have switched, and there is a republican in the white house. and the senate is republican. and the majority leader's republican. and the republican president calls and says how do i get this done? well, my friends, let me remind us again the precedent is set. and let me remind us again, as senator byrd points out in his very scholarly analysis of the senate, that a member voted change, appeal, ruling of the

chair is a very big deal. it's how we operate. and the majority leader says let me think about it. calls the president back and says, you know, here's how you get there. i will ask for a ruling of the chair at the appropriate time. i don't know exactly when that will be, but at the appropriate time, you have my commitment, mr. president. just like they did right before thanksgiving in 2013, i will ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair's going to rule against me. i want you to be aware of that, so if you're watching the proceedings, don't faint because this isn't over. i need to have you go to work like president obama did in 2013 and make sure that the members are in line and i will go to

work and i will turn my whip team loose and we will keep our team together. let's say that it's a republican situation and all of a sudden you have got the ruling and the majority leader says i want to appeal that, and the team stays together, and now, now we can change the complexion of the united states supreme court because the precedent is set. now, i had somebody from the democrat side yesterday say to me well, mike, i have never agreed to that. i thought about the comment made. in fact, i was trying to get to

sleep last night and i thought about the comment. it's so obvious to me. i wish i had said it to my friend and colleague. i wish i would have said you won't have a voice because you're in the minority. under the precedent set right before thanksgiving, your voice was silenced. you were told to sit down and shut up because of the passage of this rule. so huff and puff all you want, go to the floor, scream, cry, yell, threaten to do whatever you're going to do, but at the end of the day, you don't have a voice, because my team's together on this. and by a majority vote, we're going to overrule a correct ruling of the chair and we're going to pave the way for a new supreme court justice who will decide cases based upon our

philosophy. and you know what? we're going to go a step further. we think those four republicans, there are four democrats there. they haven't gone far enough. so we're going to get somebody that's really out there. and you know what? the precedent is set. you have got the pathway to get it done. now, is there anybody in this country who believes for a moment that that temptation won't be just too darned great? i mean, look at how many times did my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during the last debate on this a few years ago say never do this, it will destroy the senate. we aren't going to do this. they signed letters, and those same people voted yes to break

the rules, to change the rules. these same people came in here, and of course they had a reason. of course they came in and said said -- the republicans, i felt so bad about doing it. they are so darn bad, they are so evil and they are so obstructionist. when there is no evidence to support it. but the reality is it's not what's happening these days, it's not what is happening over the next year on circuit court appointments or district court appointments or who's going to be the under secretary of the deputy of something in the usda. it is what's going to happen next when that president has

that short a period of time to leave a lasting imprint on this great country, and they can't pass the opportunity. and so all of a sudden the precedent is set and you're off to the races. now, some may be saying, you know what, mike, if that ever happens, i'm going to call my united states senator who is in the minority, whether republican or democrat, and i am going to chew on them upside -- up one side and down the other side. i am going to point out to them that if they don't do something about this, that i'll run against them. or i'll find somebody to run against them because this can't happen to our country because supreme court appointments, you

can't get rid of them once they're there unless it's some kind of impeachment process. this is a lifetime appointment. once done, it is over. and you know what that minority member will say to all those calls and they will come in by the hundreds, the thousands, if not the tens of thousands? thank you for your call. but i have been silenced. i have no ability to stop that. i am in the minority. it won't be a situation where that senator will be able to say, you know, i'm just not persuasive enough. i don't think i can build the argument. it will be a situation where they say, well, i'm in the minority.

my voice has been silenced. and so you have a situation where the precedent is set and that member now has really no voice. let's think about this in the last minutes that i have because it doesn't end here. again, keep in mind, the precedent is set. let's say again that there's a very important piece of legislation. maybe it's the health care bill. maybe it's the climate change bill. maybe it's a bill to do whatever. i could think of a whole bunch of bills on either side that people would like to see get done.

and all of a sudden, the majority, working with their president in the white house, realizes really the only way it's going to get done -- because they can't get the 60 votes necessary -- is to try to change how things operate here. not to worry because the precedent's been set. ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair will correctly rule. keep your team together. overrule the chair. and by a majority vote, we now pass legislation by a majority. now many in the chamber who are majority or minority would say, mike, i don't like that. gosh, i'm not going to let that happen. well, i heard that before. because the same people that voted for this argued forcefully just a few years ago, we can't

ever let this happen. this would destroy the united states senate. this would destroy the purpose of the senate. but then they came in here and voted for it. of course it will happen. the precedent is set. and then you have a different country. let's think about that. i've traveled all over the world in my role as a governor and as the secretary of agriculture trying to sell our ag products. there were certain parts of the world where markets were open and the economy was working and people are employed and there were good markets for our products. there were other parts of the world where, my goodness, even today not much is going. people live in poverty, they live in crime, in filth, in disease. it's horrific. there's a lot of reasons for that. it's a complex thing.

but one of the constants in that was the political instability of the country. whoever won got the spoils. and so they'd throw out everything that the last group passed and they'd pass a whole bunch of new things because they had the majority. and then the voters would rebel and say, "oh, my goodness, did we make a mistake on this. let's get rid of these fools." and then a whole new group would come in on the other side and they'd throw out all the laws that the last group had passed and they'd pass their own laws. why? because they got the majority. and on and on it went. and businesses would look at that and say, well, how do we ever invest there? you're asking me to build a

$25 million warehouse to do my work when i don't know what the laws are going to be four years from now or two years from now? because the elections will determine that. you see, ladies and gentlemen, in the united states of america we have had this remarkable economy for over 200 years. it's had good times and bad. i'm not pol poly polyannish abo. but jobs have been created. small entrepreneurs -- and i could name them -- built businesses that grew into remarkable companies. i mean, it's just incredible. who are the next ones? what an amazing country we live in. now, again, i'll acknowledge, there's a lot of reasons for that. we're blessed with enormous resources, and i could go on and on. our education system. but one of the reasons why it

has worked here is we have tremendous governmental stability. whether we want to or not, every administration is kind of in a position where they build upon the shoulders of the last administration. now, what's the constant there? well, the white house can change every four years. it has to change every eight. the house of representatives can change every two years and it often does. sometimes it doesn't. and it's a majority-based body. so a new group comes in, they throw things out. a new group passes new things. it's just kind of always moving and shaking. that's what the house was intended to do. what's been the constant in all of this? the united states senate.

now, i know people get frustrated. they look over here and say, "geez, mike, i wish you could pass something. why can't you get more done?" "why is this pace so frustrating?" and i will tell you as a former chief executive, a mayor, a governor, a cabinet member, i sometimes come in here and go, my goodness, i'm going to be 80 before this law ever passes and i wouldn't even recognize it. it's the give-and-take of the united states senate. it is exactly what was contemplated. and you know what? no one was going to come in and throw this out in two years and put this in and then two years later throw this out. why? because the united states senate said, wait a second here. not only are we going to call this the great compromise but you're going to have to reach across the aisle to get things done. and you know what? sometimes in our history that

hasn't happened. at other times in our history, it has happened. but through pandemics, world wars, crises, attacks upon our nation, this body found a way to function and a way to stabilize the united states. so when a young entrepreneur went out there and said, if i build this software, according to the tax laws that we have n now, will those laws be there two years from now? yeah, we can say they will be. we don't change the tax code very often. i'm one of these people that argue we need reform in our tax code. but having said that, i know i'm going to have to get it done in a bipartisan way. but, ladies and gentlemen, the precedent is set. we know now that if the majority

leader asks for a ruling of the chair and madam president decides correctly under the rule of the senate, i in consultation with the parliamentarian, how that issue should be decided and decides it correctly under the rules, we know now what we feared over the last decades and that is that the majority leader can say to madam president, i want to appeal your ruling. i want to appeal your ruling. i want to get this supreme court justice on the supreme court and a lifetime appointment. i want to appeal your ruling because i'm sick and tired of

the other side not cooperating with me on what i want done, i've had enough of it; i'm going to get my way. my team is together. they're all going to vote just like me, and even though your ruling was correct under our rules, we're going to set that aside. we are going to vitiate it, and we're going to get our way because my team -- my team -- is in control. that's where we're at today. you see, these rules have been changed over time. they were changed in accordance with our rules. i see the leader is here. madam chairman, i will yield the floor.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of th. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the patterson nomination that at 5:00 p.m. on monday, december 16, all postcloture time be considered expired, the senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the patterson nomination. that upon disposition of the patterson nomination, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the johnson nonomination. if cloture is invoked on the johnson nomination, that all time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the johnson nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. reid: madam president, i -- mr. reid: madam president, we're going to have two votes at 12:00 noon today. after that, the next vote would be althougbe at 5:30 on monday. there will be a series of votes on monday. mr. reid: mr. president, as i indicated this morning, the republican leader and i have spent some time together and i think we've had a productive discussion on the schedule. the schedule's been extremely difficult for everyone. we worked out a schedule that

allows for the next set of votes which will occur at 12:00 noon today, will be the last votes of this week. we agreed that on monday evening, the senate will vote on the matters that we would have voted on the rest of today and this weekend. so on monday at 5:30 in the afternoon, the senate will vote on patterson, johnson and then one would be on -- the cloture on johnson and then it would be confirmation. they're -- we're doing our utmost to finish our business here a week from today so that we can go home for christmas. so we'll be in session sunday afternoon. there will be no votes on sunday. the next roll call, i repeat for the third time, will be 5:30 monday. on tuesday, we'll be begin consideration of the budget. on wednesday, the defense bill. and after that we'll address further nominations, of which the most important one is janet yellen to be on the federal

reserve. the others i will work with senator mcconnell, we'll file on a number of them, see how many we can get done. i personally thank the senators for the cooperation this week. and next week as we work through these important matters. and i know, madam president, that there is a lot of work we have to do to get back to regular order. we'll see what happens with the defense bill that we're going to vote on and the budget bill, but i'm satisfied that we've made progress. so i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1:00 p.m. on sunday, december 15. that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate convene for legislative business only. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. reid: just make sure everyone understands we're going to have votes at noon on today and then monday. mr. reid: madam president, the distinguished senator from

nebraska was speaking, and i interrupted him. if he has more to say, i will relinquish the floor if he has more to say. i have no right to suggest the absence of a quorum, so we'll wait and see what remaining time would be.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not currently in a quorum call. mr. cochran: madam president, since the senate has had an opportunity to be given an update on our status of negotiation on a farm bill, it's my pleasure to announce that since our first conference committee meeting in october, we have been working to reach an agreement on a new five-year farm bill, a bill that we can take to the house and senate and in collaboration and working through our differences make progress and establish a framework of government support and assistance for our

agriculture sector to continue to contribute in an important way in the economic life of our nation. i'm pleased to say that we are making progress, but there are still some decisions that lie ahead of us. i'm hopeful that on both sides of the aisle in both bodies, we can come together on a farm bill agreement that will reform and modernize programs, produce budget savings at the same time and provide certainty about the government's role to producers and consumers alike. i might also add that related to this is an interest that many homeowners have in flood control insurance protection, government assistance. there is a reform bill that i'm

pleased to have cosponsored that would delay premium rates temporarily until we can review and make sure that these changes are going to serve the interests of home ons and landowners in areas that are threatened by natural disasters. we don't want to draw a line on a map arbitrarily or turn that over to a federal government agency without fully considering all of the ramifications. we must put the flood insurance program on a path to fiscal solvency, and one way to do that is to ensure that it is a good deal in terms of investment and prospective return on investment for individuals as well as communities. on another subject, madam president, i recently had

an opportunity to review some correspondence and notes we made about calls we have received from constituents on the subject of the patient protection and affordability care act. this is a major piece of health care legislation, as everybody knows. it affects insurance companies, it affects individuals, it affects the entire country probably in a very, very important area of concern. in order to comply with the law's requirements, a family could see their monthly premiums increase from $700 to almost $1,400, which is an increase of more than 90%. to put that in perspective, it's

more than $16,000 per year that a family would have to spend on health insurance premiums alone. these figures are just not affordable for most americans, so there is sticker shock associated with our effort to help improve and expand our nation's health insurance programs, but i'm not sure that we are on the right track yet. these figures just signal to us how serious the implications are, and we must address this program and these proposals with very serious care and diligence. monthly premiums, for example, do not include co-payments or out-of-pocket expenses. it does include the cost of several health benefits deemed essential by the administration, regardless of the fact that many

people do not need or want to pay for these services. one constituent suggested an interesting question in a question to me: why can't we, the policy owners, decide what benefits and deductibles we want? well, i think they're right. they ought to have that right, and they ought to be given that choice. choice is what families should have when it comes to health insurance. unfortunately, the freedom to make a decision is based on what is in the best interest is no longer an option for millions of americans who have to search for new insurance coverage, pay for benefits they will not use and potentially even give up the doctors they know and they want to keep. despite assurances by the president that people who like

their health insurance will be able to keep it, we've learned that the administration has known for at least three years that millions of americans would lose the health insurance that they currently have and that they would like to keep as advertised. reports also keep that there are an estimated 15 million people facing a potential coverage gap because many currently have insurance from the individual market but have received cancellation notices because their policies don't meet the law's requirements. since the patient protection and affordable care act was enacted, incidentally without a single republican vote in 2010 -- the administration has struggled to meet its own deadlines for

implementation of the law. the ongoing problem with the law's enrollment web site conspicuously foreshadow the more significant failures that can be expected as this law is implemented. the most recent marketplace enrollment report which was released by the centers for medicare and medicaid states that less than 365,000 individuals have selected plans from the state and federal marketplaces since october 1. it's been estimated that more than 47 million nonelderly americans were uninsured in 2012. this means that less than 1% of the uninsured population in the u.s. has selected a health insurance plan by way of the patient protection and affordable care act.

we are told that it is likely that on january 1 of this next year, more americans will be uninsured than were uninsured at the time that the health care law was enacted. this law's primary intent was to expand coverage, to encourage insurance. but it seems to be failing on both counts. the implementation of the law's mandates reveals that the legislation will fail to reduce health care costs as well. in 2013 we are projected to spend $2.9 trillion on health care in the united states. this is approximately 18% of the entire u.s. economy.

national health care expenditures are expected to increase substantial in the years beyond that. health insurance is just one component of our nation's very complex health care system, and we could do better, should do better, and i think we can do better than this initial work product. we should get together, find common ground to improve the quality of health care in our country, to improve access and reduce overall health care costs. we owe that to our constituents, our national economic interests and to the future of quality health care in the united states. madam president, i invite other senators to come discuss this or

other issues that we've identified as important for our consideration. in the meantime i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: it's my understanding we may be in a quorum call. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: madam president, i thank you and thank the way you've dealt with all of us since you've been here. i rise today to talk about the discussions that have been taking place in vienna over the last four days relative to the

iran b5-plus-1 discussions. i know each of us in this body focus on different topics based on the committee assignments that we have. i did want to point out that reports have come out today and last night that the technical experts who have been meeting around the deal that has been announced still are having difficulties trying to understand how to implement this deal that was written down on four pages. i say this to just talk about the fact that there are many in this body on both sides of the aisle that would like to weigh in on this issue. and i realize that the administration has expressed concerns as to what type of weighing in they think might be

harmful to the discussions. i think there are many of us who understand and are trying to figure out a way to weigh in in an appropriate way. i think to bring people's memories back into focus, one of the concerns we've all had leading up until the announcement of this deal has been the amount of time, if you will, that remains before iran reaches a status of in essence being a nuclear-armed state. and so it was very important, i think, to all of us as we heard the announcement of this interim deal that we actually understand the time frames that were involved. and i know that many people were alarmed -- were alarmed by this interim agreement because in fact there was a tacit understanding that iran, which has been a rogue nation, no doubt is, if this agreement continues to go through, is going to be a state that will be allowed to enrich uranium, much in the face of the one, two,

three agreements that we negotiate around the world trying to establish a gold standard with countries to keep them from doing that, this agreement, let's face it, i think that wendy sherman yesterday in testimony to the banking committee, and i can assure you every single iranian official that's been involved in these negotiations, understand that what the united states of america, with other countries, has agreed to is to allow iran to be able to enrich uranium at some level when a final deal is actually done. i think one of the concerns that many of us have right now is that this interim deal either becomes the norm or, as the previous nuclear czar to the obama administration, gary seymore has said, that we really just begin a series of rolling agreements and we never get to the place of establishing an end

state. i hate to say this but yesterday wendy sherman -- i think that many of us have certainly conducted discussions with the white house and been in classified briefings, and one of the things that we've really wanted to put in place -- and i think carl levin in a meeting at the white house spoke most clearly to this -- and that is in order to alleviate that kind of thing occurring, we need to have a firm beginning date and a firm end date. and he said that end date should be six months, which is, by the way, what the agreed announcement said. i think what is dismaying to many people in this body is we're now finding out that not only is there not an end date but addendums that can be mutually agreed to -- in other words, there is no end date to this agreement. we're now finding out, based on testimony yesterday from wendy sherman, we don't even know when

the start date is, that officials cannot even agree as to when the beginning of this agreement is going to be and when the implementation begins. and it's pretty amazing to me that we could spend months negotiating over an issue that is so important to us and so important to the world and yet after it's concluded, we don't even really know when the agreement begins and we certainly, because of the text of the agreement, know that it does not have an end date. i've tried to listen to the concerns that the administration has. i think i've demonstrated since i've been here that i really want to seek understanding, number one, but also try to use that understanding to solve problems. so our office has worked hard to develop an amendment. it's an amendment that establishes a firm end date but

it also describes end state. that's what this amendment does. i think that people on both sides of the aisle -- i don't think it, i know it because of public expressions -- have been very concerned that this interim agreement already violates the u.n. security council resolutions that this administration agreed to back in 2010, as did the other members of the security council of the and many people are concerned that if we start with an agreement, that no doubt expressly violates the u.n. security council resolution and it doesn't have even a clear start date or end date, there's a lot of concerns, as you can imagine, that we'll never get to that place that countries have agreed to back in 2010 as it relates to where iran's end state should be. another concern that people have

is as we begin lifting these sanctions -- and let's face it, congress, the administration, the international community actually has done a very good job together trying to figure out a way of implementing appropriately sanctions that have put pressure on iran and have brought them to the place that they now are. but i think the concerns -- and i actually believe them to be -- as a matter of fact, senator reed, jack reed, yesterday expressed these concerns in a banking hearing. once you begin to basically say that iran is not a rogue nation, that they're being brought hopefully into the international community, once you begin lifting even a minor portion of those sanctions, countries and companies around the world are going to clamor to do business because they see that in the very near future, additional sanctions are going to be lifted. and just by virtue of that occurring, the sanctions begin

to dissipate at a rapid pace. this is something, again, that has been expressed in a bipartisan way. so i have an amendment. i'm the ranking member on foreign relations committee which means nothing other than i've spent a lot of time on these issues and working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find solutions. as a matter of fact, we haven't passed anything out of our committee yet that hasn't been bipartisan. and we have coming over, i understand, ndaa bill that has typically been the vehicle that we all express ourselves on these kinds of issues. and it's my understanding that the majority leader has decided himself, i will say, much to the consternation to my friends on

the other side of the aisle, but certainly to the consternation on my side of the aisle, that he's not going to allow any amendments, that he, himself, has decided what is best for this body. so after spending months and months and just coming from the region recently and working with the presiding officer and others on so many diplomatic and foreign policy issues together in a bipartisan way, i'm now serving in a body that has the vehicle that typically is used to express ourselves on foreign policy issues. i don't have the right to raise an amendment. the body, by the way, may decide they don't support it. that's what happens around here. you debate issues and you decide whether you want to support them. by the way, the amendment -- the amendment that i'm offering doesn't add sanctions. all it does is define when the end is going to be, which, by

the way, every world leader has stated is very, very important because of what is occurring on the ground in iran and it establishes a minimum end state, which is what the u.n. security council resolution already says. so i'm one senator, i realize, and there are 99 others and i'm sure that there are many people in this body that would like to express themselves on issues that are not deemed to be partisan or deemed to be political but just to express themselves on policy that they believe to be important to the country. but the majority leader on his own has decided that that is not going to be the cases. cases -- not going to be the case. yesterday i was riding the elevator with a senator that i was -- that i came in with. i came in with nine democrats and one republican. i was the only republican. excuse me, i didn't come in with any other republicans, i was it. and we've had a lot of fun.

and we get together once a year and talk about that and -- and, candidly, relations between us generally speaking have been very, very good for the seven years that i've been here. and this one senator that i've actually worked with more than others of the group so many issues said to me that what happened on the senate floor a few weeks ago, where the majority overruled their own parliamentarian -- their own parliamentarian -- overruled with a simple majority votes, which means there are no rules in the senate anymore -- this person said to me that, look, bob, it wasn't personal. well, what's amazing to me is that the way this senate is run is not personal to my friends on the other side of the aisle. the fact that like lemmings in

so many cases, they would just follow -- follow the majority leader and let him decide what this body is going to vote on and let him decide what policies this senate is going to put into place. i don't understand that. we've all worked hard to be here and we all work hard to represent our constituents, and i think we all work hard not to disrespect ourselves, disrespect the office we hold, disrespec disrespect -- i won't say we've all worked hard not to disrespect this institution because i believe what happened greatly disrespected this institution. and certainly hopefully we work hard not to disrespect the citizens that we serve with. but what i find myself in total dismay over is that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't deem it personal that on

the one vehicle that we typically express ourselves most on foreign policy issues and at a time when we have so many foreign policy issues that in a bipartisan way people have concerns about, that they would decide to just let the majority leader decide what we're going to vote on, when we're going to vote on it, and if it's even appropriate to have a vote at all. so, mr. president, here we are. we have witnessed the many, many problems that have dismayed both sides of the aisle relative to the roll-out of the health care bill. and i think that everybody in this body would recognize i haven't been down here taking cheap shots at that. look, i'm concerned about the citizens of our state and what

they're dealing with relative to this -- this policy and hearing the distressed calls of people who, you know, have had their insurance canceled and maybe have had a quadruple bypass and are concerned about getting on. and i know all of us are involved in trying to help those citizens that are in dismay and very concerned be successful and actually being able to get on the exchanges. but here right now, seriously, we're watching a major foreign policy issue be rolled out by this administration with many of the same problems. we don't have a start date. we don't have an end date. we haven't even broached the toughest issues with iran over what the end state is going to be. and i think that -- i think that is a tremendous disservice to our nation, it is a tremendous

disservice to the countries with which we worked with all around the world. it is a tremendous disservice for this body not to express its will. i know the chairman of the committee had acted as if he wanted to participate in somehow making sure congress was heard on this in a way that does not blow up the negotiations. i think everyone here wants to see a diplomatic solution. everyone here. i don't know of anybody in this body that doesn't want to see that happen. but i also know -- and i think the administration knows this as well -- the actions of this bo body, candidly, over the years is one of the main reasons that we are where we are. but again, i'll close -- i know i'm getting redundant, our majority leader in his wisdom -- and i know the majority leader decides who serves on committees

and he decides who the chairman is of those committees and i realize that with that -- with that, you have a great ability to keep people from expressing their will or rising up and really wanting to do something in a bipartisan. i'm coming to understand, he is specially in recent weeks, what bipartisan means -- especially in recent weeks, what bipartisan means to our majority leader is whatever he decides is bipartisanmenbipartisan. and even though a majority of the people in this body would really like to weigh in on this policy, to do so in an appropriate way so that we do not, in fact, do something tha that -- that does something to harm the negotiation but does something to strengthen our hand in these negotiations, that will not occur. to me, that is a disservice to this body, it is a disservice to this nation, it is a disservice

to every member, and no doubt when each of us do not have the opportunity to express ourselves through amendments, what that really means is the folks we represent back home have no right to have their concerns expressed or voted on. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without t objection, so ordered. pursuant to the order of february 29, 1960, the hour of 12:00 noon having arrived, the senate having been in continuous session since yesterday, the senate will now suspend for a prayer by the senate chaplain. 6 the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign god, ultimate judge of the leadership of this nation,

thank you for loving us and calling us to be your people. make us worthy of the honors you have bestowed upon us. today give i to our lawmakers yr grace and peace so that they may use their talents to empower people to live lives of purpose. lord, invade the thinking of our senators with insights and inspiration that they could not produce on their own. may your omnicient wisdom guide them as you strengthen them to do your will.

we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: all postcloture time has expired. the question's on the higginbottom 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 wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 74. the nays are 17. and 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 move to bring to debate the nomination of anne w. patterson, a career ambassador -- the presiding officer: the the clerk will continue to report. the clerk: to be assistant secretary of state signed by 18 senators. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask consent that

the mandatory quorum be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, under the previous order the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that -- the senate will come to order. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of anne w. patterson of virginia, a career member of the senior foreign service classic career ambassador to be assistant secretary of state near eastern affairs, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.