Quorum call quorum call a senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from indiana. Mr. Coats madam president , the presiding officer senator, the senate is in a quorum call. Mr. Coats i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Coats madam president , were now in about the third day, i think, of a somewhat tortured process that was the result of a power grab that has changed the tradition of the United States senate, a tradition which was held for about 225 years. Republicans are frustrateed with the attempts successful made by the Democrat Party under its leader to change the rules, break the rules to change the rules, and so we end up with no rule, no rule relative to protecting the rights of the minority. Now, i know its easy for those who have been elected in recent years that have never served in the minority because they simply dont have the experience of what its like to be subject to a leader and a party which basically says we dont care what you think, we dont care what you say, we dont care what you do, none of it will be allowed unless we give you consent to do it. And i know that a lot of my friends across the aisle have said well, its your party thats Holding Things up, and its the you are making the senate a dysfunctional institution. What they havent done is ask why are you doing this . First of all, i dont believe were the ones making it dysfunctional, but even if you think that, the question has not been asked why are you doing this. And were doing this because we have three years of pentup frustration or more under the leadership of our majority leader who has essentially turned this into the house of representatives. Some people say well, whats wrong with that, majority vote rules. Just about in Everything Else we do. Why shouldnt majority vote rule here . Well, the senate was not set up that way. Its famously known the senate is set up to be a place where tempers can be cooled, the passion can be cooled, something can be debated and worked on, and if major legislation is passed that affects significantly this country, that legislation is passed in the bipartisan fashion following significant debate, and we have always had a provision which basically says those in the minority will have their right to participate, have their right to offer amendments to participate in the debate. We have been shut down from offering amendments. There has been growing frustration on our side, basically saying this is not how the senate has worked traditionally. This is not how its worked historically. This is not how it has worked according to the Founding Fathers determination of protecting the senate, giving it extra long terms, giving members the opportunity to use the agreed upon rules to achieve the right of someone in the minority to speak up. Now, the democrats are going to rue the day when they made this move and jammed it down our throats and said if you dont like it, tough. Because at some point, the pendulum will swing, and i think maybe sooner than a lot of people think. 2014 looks like a turnaround year. And if it is, they are suddenly going to find themselves in the minority, and well see and they will learn what its like to be denied the opportunity to be elected to the United States senate and be a member of this august body, be one of 100 people that are chosen to represent their states and represent the United States of america and be shut down from having any opportunity whatsoever to have a voice in what goes forward here, to offer your thoughts, your amendment, to represent your state. But to be told by the majority leader ill decide whether or not you can have an amendment. And by the way, ill use procedures to make sure you cant have your amendment. Now, i have had the privilege of serving here on two different occasions. I came here in early 1989 and served ten years in the senate. I dont recognize the senate today. I came back in 201012 years later. I dont recognize this. This is not the senate that i joined in 1989. It was under democrat control. George mitchell was the majority leader. The democrats had the majority. They controlled it. I had served ten years in the house of representatives along with my colleague from kansas, senator roberts, who is im sure who is here listening to me speak, and i appreciate that, pat. We have gone through the same experience. But when i served before, under democrat leadership, i realized what the difference was between this Upper Chamber and the lower chamber. Under the genius of our Founding Fathers, the lower chamber, elected every two years to represent the the immediate concerns of the people of their state or their district, and the senate, given the opportunity to step back and take a broader look and work to fashion bipartisan support so that something major that impacted the American People, impacted our constituents was settled and debated and worked out and ground through the process and gave us an opportunity to say wait just a minute, do we want to rush to judgment here or do we want to just step back and look at the larger picture . And so as a minority member of the Republican Party, in 1989 and following, all the way up to 1995, i enjoyed and revered the opportunities that i had, and former members of the house would ask me, whats the difference between serving in the house and serving in the senate. I said in the house, your Majority Party rules, and youre lucky, youre lucky if you can get the rules committee over there to allow you to have an amendment on a particular bill. Every once in a while, it would happen, this was special. But in the United States senate, every minority member i said could offer any amendment to any bill at any time, and that is a great privilege that has been afforded to us, but a necessary privilege, because without it you get stuff rammed down your throat, it doesnt have bipartisan support, youre denied the opportunity to participate to amend, to adjust, to be a part of fashioning something that can be accepted by the American People with support from both sides. And so this boiling up frustration has been has been happening here increasingly under the leadership of this majority leader who simply says im going to turn this in to the house. Im going to change this institution from 225 years of what it once was to something entirely different, and forget you guys on the other side, you in the minority. You dont have the rights that you once used to have. I respected majority leader George Mitchell. Tough, ran this place like clock work. We were in late at nights a number of times, but every member of the minority had the opportunity and the right to offer an amendment, the right to participate, the right to be heard and the right to offer an amendment to a provision. George mitchell as leader recognized those rights, and he would say guys, ladies, you can offer any amendment you want. We will take it up, we will have a vote on it. You may win, you may lose, but you have that right. So the reason why were frustrated here and the reason why were using some procedures now which deny all of us a lot of sleep that we would like to have, and at Christmas Season, we would like to go out and shop for some gifts for our families. We would like to make some plans for the Christmas Season and were stuck here. The reason for this is it boiled over. The last insult was simply basically saying forget it, forget the rules that have forget the procedures and forget the courtesy, forget the privilege, forget the right that you have enjoyed for all these years in the senate, and were going to turn this into a different place, and you just take it or leave it. So were kind of left with very few resources, unable to express how we feel about this. I think there is a solution, an easy solution to our problem. That starts with, number one, an understanding of the frustration each side has, but it includes it has to include the understanding of why theyre frustrated. And its not just the democrats that are frustrated with the republicans trying to use techniques that will allow us at least to have a say in how things are working here, but also frustration among republicans in basically saying bill after bill, time after time, we have amendments that we would like to offer that represent the wishes of the people of our states that we represent, our constituents, and i am being denied that opportunity by the majority leader. Well, not everyone calls me distinguished, but im happy to yield to someone that does but also a good friend. A senator well, there is a good reason for that. Mr. Roberts we both came to the house at the same time. We were sorry to lose you to the senate, but i truly appreciate what you have said here. It reflects conversation that we both have had, to try to tell to try to educate, to try to suggest basically just to get to know each other a little better with our colleagues across the aisle as to why this is taking place. What our frustrations are. But you have summarized them very well. I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to take your suggestions and your plea really in behalf of us all to heart, would encourage everybody if they have nothing else to do around here, to read the congressional record and to read your remarks and to take them to heart. I remember so well when i came to the senate in 1996 and you were here. And i had an amendment that i wanted to offer. And being a member of the house for 16 years, what you had to do in the house was to check with the chairman and we served in the minority, and then the revolution came in 1994 and things changed. But then you had to go to the rules committee, which the senator has pointed out was a very unique experience. I remembered then what i had to do to get anything done in the house, and basically i had to find a democratic colleague, a friend serving in the majority, to cosponsor the bill that i had and put his name first and then go to the rules committee to make it an order so that my bill and his bill could work. My partner in this effort was congressman Charlie Stenholm. I had first been to the rules committee in the house. I had not been to the rules committee. I thought the debate would be about germaneness, was it timely, et cetera, et cetera. I found out it was just a debate all over again on the merits of the bill and on a partisan party line vote, they would deny any republican amendments. So, stenholm was a partner in the effort with the bill. I cant even remember which one it was at this particular time, but it was my first big attempt. And it was on the farm bill. And we had mutual concerns. We thought it was a good amendment. It was the robertsstenholm bill. It didnt me very long to figure out the robertsstenholm bill and charlie said it might be better if it was the stenholmroberts bill or just the stenholm bill. For awhile it was the stenholm bill and it was made in order. Then on the floor, Charlie Stenholm being the kind member he was, all of a sudden it became the robertsstenholm bill again and it passed, the law, my First Amendment on the floor of the house. That was my background. So i had an amendment, and i know the senator remembers well, because we were standing right about down here, and i was asking you, i checked with the Ranking Member and the chairman. At that time we were in control. And we had the majority. And i had a very simple amendment, and i wont go into it. But at least it was referenced to the health, education, labor and pensions committee. And i was checking around with the Ranking Member and whatever, and they looked a little surprised that i was even checking with them. And the chairman of the committee, our republican chairman, indicated, well, i would just as soon you wouldnt do that because we have a complete bill. Weve put it to the committee. I think your amendment has merit, but and i knew i had bipartisan support for it and i knew it was a very easy amendment that would pass. But he told me just wait. Well take that up sometime down the road. Well, down the road in the senate means way down the road. So i was sort of grumpy and you asked me what was wrong. I said the chairman doesnt like it. You said this is the senate. You can offer any amendment any time whether it is germane or not. This is the senate; you have rights. I knew that. I had gone to the robert c. Byrd lecture as a new member, and he lectured me on minority rights and how we should conduct ourselves. He was the institutional flame of the senate. And you urged me to offer the amendment. I should have done it, but i thought, all right, ill wait. I will defer to the chairmans advice. Ive often regretted that. And later im talking about two or three years later the same subject came up. I happened to be on the floor. Senator ted kennedy was in charge. They had taken back control. And he knew about the amendment, and he said would you like to get your amendment passed . He was standing on the floor. There was hardly anybody else here. And bingo, using the parliamentary procedure that you could do in the majority, my amendment was passed. It was not the kennedyroberts bill. It was the roberts bill authorized, didnt get too much money for it but it made the effort. Ive gone into a long personal history here just to demonstrate exactly how this works. Now we have a farm bill thats been hung up for over two years. We have a farm bill that the principals are meeting in secret. There are 37 of us that are also on the conference wondering where on earth is the farm bill. The house has just passed by unanimous consent an extension of the current farm bill like we did last year. Last year we passed a farm bill. Last year the majority leader in a discussion with me said if you can get it done in three days, ill let it happen. Note, ill let it happen. And chairperson stabenow certainly was working extremely hard on her side. I was working on my side. We were going to the Steering Committee and said i think we can get regular order. I think you can get your amendments up. Nobody believed me. We had 73 amendments. We did it in two and a half days. Once that tipping mark hits with people withdrawing amendments, you get your work done. But the majority had every opportunity to offer amendments. So a year ago, considering the farm bill, the First Amendment was by senator rand paul, considering the pakistani who helped us with regard to the Osama Bin Laden raid, and he was in prison. So senator paul that you had tha ut it would be senator paul thought it would be a good idea to hold the aid to pakistan until they released the prisoner. What did that have to do with the farm bill . Nothing. It was the First Amendment considered. It didnt pass, by the way. And many other amendments that came from folks who had never had an amendment brought up and discussed, those amendments were discussed in the farm bill. I would say probably of the 73 amendments that were considered, there were 300 offered. People would get up, they would have their say, they discussed the amendment, they knew probably it would not pass, and they would withdraw it. But they at least had an opportunity to present their opinion and represent their states and their constituents, and we had that opportunity. This years farm bill wasnt 73 amendments, voted about 10 times. Senator thune, a respected member of the Agriculture Committee, senator johanns, the former secretary of agriculture; senator grassley, and myself, we all had a total of about 12 amendments. We withdrew those from consideration from the Committee Markup and said well take them up on the floor, except the majority leader cut it off saying timeout, no more. None of us got those amendments. As a former chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the house and the Ranking Member last year, whats that all about . I mean, you have a farm bill. You have people on the ag committee. They have pertinent amendments with regard to the direction of the bill, and bingo, youre just cut short. That causes a lot of frustration to say the least. Now, ive i havent gotten into the weeds on this simply because of your friendship and advice which i treasure, but your willingness to speak from the heart to demonstrate to our friends on the other side of the aisle, think about about. Think about this. Think about why were doing this, because if you break the rules to change the rules what is happening is were packing the District Court here in washington which is the appeals court, probably more important than the Supreme Court on all the regulatory matters that come up, i. E. , the president s executive orders, the president s waivers, the president s interim final rules or any agencys interim tpaoupbl rules. We have government by regulation today. We do not have government by legislation today. We have government by regulation. And this court becomes the senate. And so it was evenly we had an even number of judges, and now were going to have three more. And so consequently the president who says i cant work with the republicans, because he wont work with republicans, is going to have his way. Its going to be jammed down our throat. And i know you when you go back to indiana and i when i go back to kansas, what we hear from any economic sector of our economy is what is going on with these regulations . Somebody holds up a piece of paper and says are you aware of this regulation . And i say no im not but ill check on it. What is our ability to deal with that . Almost nothing. So we have government by overregulation. That is what this is about, so that that agenda by the president for more regulation to get his agenda is going through the courts as opposed to the senate of the United States. And thats why we are faced here with this situation. That is why i was here from 8 00 to 9 00 talking about iran. Youre talking about the issue at hand, and i truly appreciate it. So i thank you for coming to the floor. I thank