{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where party = \"Republican\", state = \"TN\" and year = 2013 sorted by date descending", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140307001348/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=0e414404-d5e2-4216-bfdc-138a468e167b", "Alexander: Unhappy New Year for Tens of Thousands of Tennesseans Whose Health Insurance on the Job Will Change Because of Obamacare", "2013-12-31", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "December 31 2013  - \nSays enforcement of mandate requiring employers to provide insurance will lead to more canceled plans, higher costs\n***\n\u201cThe president\u2019s broken promise that \u2018If you like your health insurance, you can keep it\u2019 was an unwelcome Christmas present for 82,000 Tennesseans\u00a0buying insurance on their own. Now, since nearly 13 times as many Tennesseans receive health insurance on the job, Obamacare threatens to bring an Unhappy New Year for tens of thousands more Tennesseans.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\nMARYVILLE, Dec. 31 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today said that since nearly 13 times as many Tennesseans receive health insurance through their employers as purchase their own individual plans, new Obamacare mandates on businesses mean that now\u00a0Tennesseans receiving health insurance through employers will have to\u00a0worry\u00a0about\u00a0Obamacare cancellations bringing\u00a0an \u201cUnhappy New Year.\u201d \u00a0 \u00a0\n\u201cDuring 2014, many of the burdensome Obamacare mandates on businesses that the Obama administration delayed will be in full force,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cWe\u2019ve already seen how the president\u2019s broken promise that \u2018If you like your health insurance, you can keep it\u2019 was an unwelcome Christmas present for 82,000 Tennesseans buying insurance on their own. Now, since nearly 13 times as many Tennesseans receive\u00a0health insurance on the job, Obamacare threatens to bring an Unhappy New Year for tens of thousands more Tennesseans.\"\u00a0\nAccording to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are more than 246,000 Tennesseans on the individual insurance market, and Alexander said at least 82,000 Tennesseans are scheduled to begin losing their current insurance because their plans were \u201coutlawed\u201d under Obamacare. About 3,175,000 Tennesseans get their insurance through their employers, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, or nearly 13 times as many as in the individual insurance market. Alexander said the \u201cburdensome mandates on employers\u201d could mean \u201ctens of thousands more\u201d Tennesseans will lose their current plans or see their costs increase, just as in the individual health insurance market.\nIn 2014, employers will begin to make employee insurance and work-hour changes to prepare for the employer mandate to be enforced by the Obama administration, which requires employers with 50 employees or more to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. Alexander said the employer mandate will limit the options employers have to provide affordable insurance for all employees \u2013 leading to some existing plans no longer being legal, and insurance being more expensive, just as Americans saw in the individual health insurance market this year.\u00a0\nThe senator also noted that many employers are already starting to reduce employee work hours and limit new hires and reconsider business expansions in order to lessen their burdens under Obamacare. The Obama administration in July of 2013 delayed enforcement until Jan. 1, 2015, instead of Jan. 1, 2014. Alexander continued, \u201cEnforcement of burdensome mandates on businesses will mean fewer choices as health insurance plans offered by employers are outlawed under Obamacare, as well as higher costs for both Tennesseans and businesses that are trying to create jobs.\u201d\nThe Obama administration is expected to release rules related to the employer mandate soon.\u00a0The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will be releasing its final rule on the employer mandate, and the Internal Revenue Service will begin to reveal how much paperwork and personal information it will require businesses and employees to provide.\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221084855/http://black.house.gov/press-release/case-you-missed-it-hiding-hacking-healthcaregov", "In Case You Missed It: Hiding the Hacking at Healthcare.gov", "2013-12-23", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "In Case You Missed It: Hiding the Hacking at Healthcare.gov  \n\tby John Fund\nChristmas shoppers were stunned to learn last Thursday that computer hackers had made off with the names and other personal info of some 40 million Target customers. Some of the pilfered information is reportedly being sold on the black market, prompting JP Morgan Chase to limit purchases and cash withdrawals on debit cards owned by recent Target shoppers.\nBut at least Target informed its customers of the security breach, as it is required by federal law to do. HealthCare.gov faces no such requirement; it need never notify customers that their personal information has been hacked or possibly compromised. The Department of Health and Human Services was specifically asked to include a notification requirement in the rules it designed for the health-care exchanges, but HHS declined.\nThe Federal Register\u00a0tells the tale\u00a0about what happened on March 27, 2012, at a meeting on the issue.\nAt that meeting, two commenters asked HHS to ensure the exchanges would promptly notify affected enrollees in the event of a data breach or unauthorized access to the exchange\u2019s databases. One commenter suggested that a full investigation be launched each time such a breach occurred, with the goal of holding hackers legally and financially accountable for breaking into the website.\nAccording to a\u00a0report by the group Watchdog.org, HHS responded: \u201cWe do not plan to include the specific notification procedures in the final rule. Consistent with this approach, we do not include specific policies for investigation of data breaches in this final rule.\u201d In other words, the government doesn\u2019t have to tell you about a security breach unless it decides it wants to \u2014 despite the fact that private companies are required to publicly disclose any incidents. State laws also require many of the 14 state-run insurance exchanges to disclose such information, but no such law exists for the federally run exchange, which 36 states rely upon.\nThe Watchdog report notes that it\u2019s through state laws that we\u2019ve learned the most about security problems in the exchanges. In September, the Minneapolis\u00a0Star Tribune\u00a0reported that \u201can official at MNsure, the state\u2019s new online health insurance exchange, acknowledged it had mishandled private data.\u201d A Minnesota insurance broker received an e-mail containing a trove of confidential information on more than 2,400 people, including their Social Security numbers and business addresses. A staffer at MNsure had accidentally sent the e-mail to him. \u201cThe more I thought about it, the more troubled I was,\u201d Jim Koester, the recipient of the data, told the\u00a0Star Tribune. \u201cWhat if this had fallen into the wrong hands? It\u2019s scary.\u201d\nLast July, Dave Jones, California\u2019s insurance commissioner and a Democrat, expressed his concerns about inadequate security processes on his state\u2019s exchange, one of the better-run ones. If unscrupulous people get hold of Social Security numbers, health records, or other private information of consumers \u201cwe can have a real disaster on our hands,\u201d Jones told the AP. He has declined further comment since then.\nIn Florida, GOP governor Rick Scott is troubled that privacy guidelines will be ignored in the rush to try to enroll his state\u2019s 3.5 million uninsured residents. He wrote to Congress this fall expressing worry that the thousands of \u201cnavigators\u201d hired by private groups posed a possible security threat, given that they undergo no federal background checks: \u201cAs the push for \u2018navigators\u2019 to sign up Floridians on the federal health insurance exchange becomes more frenzied, the need to safeguard the personal information Floridians submit to the \u2018navigators,\u2019 and its use in a \u2018federal data hub,\u2019 is taking on paramount importance.\u201d The workers the federal government hired to conduct the 2010 census were fingerprinted and underwent background checks. Not so the Obamacare \u201cnavigators.\u201d\nIt\u2019s not as if the Obama administration wasn\u2019t notified of security concerns about its website. MITRE Corporation, an HHS contractor, alerted the agency that 19 unaddressed security vulnerabilities plagued the website before its launch on October 1. Last week, Teresa Fryer, the chief information-security officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), told the House Oversight Committee that she recommended that HealthCare.gov not launch on October 1 because of serious security concerns. \u201cMy evaluation of this was a high risk,\u201d she\u00a0told\u00a0the committee in a private interview. Tony Trenkle, the project manager for the website, declined along with Fryer to sign the Authority to Operate (ATO) license needed to launch the site, which is why it had to be signed by Marilyn\u00a0Tavenner, the political appointee in charge of CMS. Trenkle retired on November 13 and has declined to talk with reporters. But Fryer said her own concerns about security remain unaddressed because there have been \u201ctwo high findings of risk\u201d \u2014 the most serious warning level \u2014 in tests conducted in just the past few weeks. A CMS spokesman says both problems have been resolved.\nFew cyber-security experts I spoke with for this article have much confidence that the government will quickly or competently reveal any security breaches on HealthCare.gov. On October 30, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified under oath before Congress that \u201cno senior official reporting to me ever advised me that we should delay\u201d the launch of the website. But Fryer told the House committee that she had personally briefed Sebelius\u2019s top aides on her findings on September 20, ten days before the site launched. While it may be true that Fryer and Trinkle don\u2019t report directly to Sebelius, they both declined to sign off on the ATO needed to launch the site. At best, Sebelius has demonstrated a complete inability to follow or manage the security crisis, though it\u2019s her responsibility to do so.\nAccording to Bruce Webster, a consultant who has advised companies for 40 years on IT issues, the administration\u2019s policy appears to be \u201csecurity through obscurity,\u201d a largely discredited approach. He told me:\nThey do not want to talk about their security measures; they do not want to talk about their security breaches; they do not want to inform affected citizens of compromised personal information. Their attitude reminds me of Lily Tomlin\u2019s character Ernestine as an AT&T operator back when AT&T had a monopoly: \u201cWe don\u2019t care. We don\u2019t have to. We\u2019re the phone company.\u201d\nCongresswoman Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican, is fed up with the obfuscation and evasion surrounding HealthCare.gov. She has introduced the \u201cFederal Data Breach Notification Act,\u201d which would require that the Federal Trade Commission notify anyone whose personal information has been jeopardized. \u201cThe federal government imposes these same rules on the private sector, yet they have gone out of their way to avoid imposing this basic diligence on their own Obamacare exchange,\u201d she told me.\nIf the House and Senate have any basic concern for the privacy rights of Americans, they will catapult her bill onto President Obama\u2019s desk ASAP. It is horrible news that Target\u2019s security vulnerabilities allowed hackers to filch the names and personal information of customers. But it will be even worse if the federal government can continue to keep people in the dark about its own security breaches, leaving many Americans with big, fat targets on their backs for identity thieves.\n\u2014 John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for\u00a0National Review Online.\nBackground: \nRELEASE: Black Introduces the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140307024611/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=098b4bab-73df-4565-aed7-1897194cb8ee", "Alexander: Obamacare \u201cDelivering an Unwelcome Christmas Present to Tennesseans\u201d", "2013-12-23", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "December 23 2013  - \nSays 82,000 Tennesseans are on track to lose individual insurance because \u201cplans have been outlawed,\u201d many others to see increasing costs under Obamacare\n***\n\u201cBetween putting many health insurance plans on the naughty list, and increasing health insurance costs for many families, Obamacare\u2019s mandates are delivering an unwelcome Christmas present to Tennesseans.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\nMARYVILLE, Dec. 24 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, today said that at least 82,000 Tennesseans are on track to lose their individual health insurance Jan. 1, one of the many ways that the \u201chistoric mistake\u201d of Obamacare is reducing choices and driving up insurance costs over the holiday season.\n\u201cAt least 82,000 Tennesseans will begin to lose their individual health insurance policies starting Jan. 1 because their plans have been outlawed under Obamacare,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cBetween putting many health insurance plans on the naughty list, and increasing health insurance costs for many families, Obamacare\u2019s mandates are delivering an unwelcome Christmas present to Tennesseans.\u201d\nAlexander outlined several ways that Obamacare has led to fewer choices and higher costs for Tennesseans. The Obama administration recently acknowledged this by announcing that it would allow Americans unable to replace their canceled health care plans to instead purchase \u201ccatastrophic\u201d coverage.\u00a0\nAlexander said of that Dec. 19 announcement, \u201cRepublicans have suggested that to provide health coverage for more Americans, everyone should have the opportunity to buy affordable catastrophic insurance as part of a private-sector plan to create more competition, offer more choices, and lower costs. This is a completely different approach and would have been a better path than Obamacare. It was suggested by Republicans \u2013 and ridiculed by the president \u2013 at the 2010 White House health care summit.\u201d\nThe 82,000 Tennesseans who will begin to lose their individual health insurance plans starting Jan. 1 \u2013 despite the president\u2019s promise that \u201cIf you like your health insurance, you can keep it\u201d \u2013 include:\n \n\u2022 66,000 Tennesseans who will lose their BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee coverage because many plans do not meet Obamacare mandates.\n\u2022 16,000 Tennesseans who are losing their plans through CoverTN, a state-run health insurance program with plans that have been outlawed under Obamacare.\u00a0\n \nMany Tennesseans are also experiencing \u201crate shock,\u201d as their plans become more expensive or they are forced to find new individual health insurance policies in the private market or on Obamacare exchanges, Alexander said. For example:\n \n\u2022 In 2013 in Nashville, a 27-year old woman can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchanges will cost, even with the new tax subsidy.\n\u2022 Also in 2013 in Nashville, a 27-year-old woman can buy a plan for as low as $58 a month.\u00a0 On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month\u2014a 97 percent increase.\u00a0 Even with a tax subsidy if she made $25,000 a year, that plan would cost her $104 a month.\n\u2022 In 2013 in Memphis, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a private insurance plan for as low as $41 a month.\u00a0 On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month\u2014a 190 percent increase. Even with a tax subsidy if he made $25,000 a year, that plan would cost him $109 a month.\u00a0\n \n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20150110100102/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a555444c-c926-42a6-9f6b-e9116daa3b88", "Alexander Cosponsors Bill to Protect U.S. Interests, Keep Pressure on Iran Over Nuclear Weapons", "2013-12-22", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Says \u201cbest solution is a diplomatic solution,\u201d but U.S. should remain skeptical of \u201cuntrustworthy regime\u201d\n***\n\u201cThis legislation allows Congress to take an active role in making sure the Obama administration holds Iran accountable, and provides a safeguard if a final deal with the Iranians falls apart.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\nMARYVILLE, Dec. 22 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today announced that he would cosponsor legislation proposing sanctions that the United States would enact if the Iranian government violates the terms of its interim deal to slow its nuclear program, or does not complete a final agreement with the Obama administration.\n\u201cSanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place, and we should remain skeptical of this untrustworthy regime until we permanently halt its progress towards a nuclear weapon,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cThe best solution is a diplomatic solution, but we need to keep the pressure on Iran. This legislation allows Congress to take an active role in making sure the Obama administration holds Iran accountable, and provides a safeguard if a final deal with the Iranians falls apart.\u201d\nThe legislation was introduced by Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 27 senators, including Alexander and Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). The legislation lays out prospective sanctions to be enacted if the Iranian government violates the terms of its interim nuclear agreement with the Obama administration, or if a final agreement on Iran\u2019s nuclear program is not completed. The prospective sanctions include limitations on Iran\u2019s petroleum sector and new sanctions on its engineering, mining, and construction sectors.\nIn November, the Obama administration announced a six-month deal to relieve some sanctions in return for the Iranians slowing their nuclear program. Alexander said of the Obama administration\u2019s interim deal, \u201cI am skeptical of any agreement that does not require Iran to permanently halt progress towards a nuclear weapon. Sanctions should remain until a full inspection regime is in place and there is progress in terminating Iran\u2019s nuclear weapons program.\u201d\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221002724/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=db91654e-b2ad-40d2-9d43-67b4c155444a", "Corker: Advocating for U.S. Disability Rights Abroad Should Not Come at the Expense of the Constitution", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, today announced he cannot support Senate approval of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), citing concerns that U.S. ratification could undermine the constitutional balance between the state and federal governments and the legitimacy of our democratic processes.\u00a0 In doing so, Corker urged the U.S. to pursue different means of advocating for the rights of the disabled throughout the world.\u00a0 Corker also commended the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with him to address a range of legal concerns raised by the CRPD, but noted that he was unable to resolve his concerns through clarifying language \u2013 known as reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) \u2013 that would be adopted in a resolution of ratification.\n\u201cI\u2019m very proud the United States passed the ADA in 1990, and I\u2019m glad to have supported efforts to further strengthen it in 2008. \u00a0I\u2019ve been deeply inspired by the people I\u2019ve met who have helped lead these efforts.\u00a0 Going forward, I hope our country will look for every appropriate opportunity to be a leader in pushing for the rights of persons with disabilities internationally.\u00a0\n\u201cI also greatly appreciate the efforts of the administration and Senator Menendez in working with us for several weeks.\u00a0 However, through the process of attempting to resolve concerns about the treaty being used inappropriately to expand federal power beyond constitutional limits, I remain uncertain that even the strongest RUDs would stand the test of time, and I believe any uncertainty on this issue is not acceptable. Ultimately, I\u2019m unable to vote for a treaty that could undermine our Constitution and the legitimacy of our democratic process as the appropriate means for making decisions about the treatment of our citizens,\u201d said Corker.\u00a0\n\u201cI\u2019m disappointed I can\u2019t support the treaty, but I stand ready to look at other ways to enhance ongoing U.S. efforts to improve circumstances for the disabled both at home and around the world.\u201d\nSupreme Court precedent in Missouri v. Holland recognized NO limits on the federal government\u2019s power to implement treaties. \u00a0Therefore, through ratification of a treaty, the federal government\u2019s power can be expanded beyond the Constitution\u2019s normal limits.\u00a0 Because the CRPD deals so extensively with matters that the Constitution leaves to the states, ratifying this treaty would greatly expand federal authority into these areas, including family law.\u00a0 This problem was highlighted most recently in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Bond v. U.S., where the federal government prosecuted a Pennsylvania woman for violating a federal law implementing the chemical weapons treaty.\u00a0\nThe CRPD is a different type of treaty that, instead of dictating the relationship between countries, establishes international law as authority dictating how the U.S. government must treat its own people.\u00a0 The CRPD seeks to establish certain \u201crights\u201d for Americans, as well as what the U.S. government must do to assist persons with disabilities, reaching deep into many aspects of life including education, health care, and family law. \u00a0In the United States, the rights of Americans are governed by the Constitution, and decisions about how the government should assist those with disabilities to be full participants in our society are typically made through the democratic process. \u00a0\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004234/http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364950", "Blackburn Statement on the Latest Obamacare Delay", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Marsha Blackburn", "B001243", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) issued the following statement on the Obama Administration\u2019s latest decision to offer hardship exemptions to those individuals whose health care plans were cancelled due to the broken promises of Obamacare (PolitiFact 2013 Lie of the Year).\u201cWe\u00a0asked Secretary Sebelius point blank what would be the next holiday surprise, and she was silent. Yet, here we are with another major policy shift. The sad reality is that when the law takes effect come January 1, more Americans will be without coverage under Obamacare than one year ago. What's worse, the administration knew millions of plans would be cancelled, but the president kept repeating his solemn promises knowing they would not be kept. Less than two weeks from going live, the White House seems to be in full panic mode. No bandaid can heal the hemorrhaging this law has and will continue to cause. Rather than more White House delays, waivers, and exemptions, the administration should provide all Americans relief from its failed law.\u201d VIDEO: BLACKBURN GRILLS SEBELIUS ABOUT OBAMACARE DELAYS", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221084938/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-statement-new-healthcaregov-security-concerns", "Black Statement on New Healthcare.gov Security Concerns", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013\u00a0Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) issued the following statement following reports of high security risks found after the HealthCare.gov launch:\n\u201cIt is deeply concerning that, almost three months after healthcare.gov was launched, we are still learning of new and serious security risks with the Obamacare website,\u201d said Congressman Black. \u201cThe fact is, this program was never ready to be launched, and it is reprehensible that this Administration would proceed with implementation when the security of millions of Americans\u2019 personal information is at risk from cyber threats and identity theft. Obamacare should be stopped in its entirety, but in the meantime, the very least this Administration can do is properly notify someone if the personal information they have entered into the website is under threat \u2013 something that the federal government is currently under no obligation to do. This is why I have introduced the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013 -- legislation that would require the federal government to notify those whose personal information has been compromised on the federal Obamacare exchange. Until Obamacare can be fully repealed, we must do what we can to protect Americans from this disastrous and dangerous law.\u201d\nAdditional Resources: \n12/16/13: Black Introduces the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013\n\tWashington Free Beacon: Congresswoman: Require Feds to Disclose Security Breaches on Healthcare.gov\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140307001356/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=22029e4a-b585-4de4-8b1b-93c095bc73dd", "Alexander, Barrasso Comment on White House Announcement that Americans Unable to Replace Canceled Health Plans May Purchase Catastrophic Coverage", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "December 20 2013  - \nSenators point out that Obama rejected the Republican idea of catastrophic coverage at the 2010 White House health care summit\u00a0\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 20 \u2013 The senior Republican on the Senate health committee and the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee released the following statements in response to the Obama administration\u2019s announcement that it would allow Americans unable to replace their canceled health care plans to instead purchase \u201ccatastrophic\u201d coverage:\nU.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), said: \u201cRepublicans have suggested that to provide health coverage for more Americans, everyone should have the opportunity to buy affordable catastrophic insurance as part of a private-sector plan to create more competition, offer more choices, and lower costs. This is a completely different approach and would have been a better path than Obamacare. It was suggested by Republicans \u2013 and ridiculed by the president \u2013 at the 2010 White House health-care summit.\u201d\nU.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said: \u00a0\u201cIt is time to eliminate the individual mandate for all Americans. We have clear proof now that the President\u2019s health care law is hurting more people than it is helping.\u00a0We know that more fake \u2018fixes\u2019 won\u2019t solve the problem \u2013 they just continue to add to Americans\u2019 confusion, anxiety and anger about this law. And after blatantly deriding the value of catastrophic plans in 2010, it\u2019s ironic that the President is now embracing them. The White House\u2019s latest backtrack is more proof that President Obama ignored good Republican ideas and pushed through a law full of bad ideas that would never work.\u00a0 President Obama has changed his health care law so many times that it is now completely unrecognizable \u2013 and fatally flawed.\u201d\nAlexander and Barrasso, along with Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), on Wednesday introduced legislation that would reverse the Obama administration\u2019s recent decision to delay next year\u2019s Obamacare insurance enrollment deadline until after the 2014 election. \u201cThe Premium Disclosure Act\u201d would also require the administration to provide premium increase and cost-sharing information to Americans prior to open enrollment so they have time to make decisions about their health care.\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-desjarlais-introduces-the-restoring-our-commitment-to-our-nations", "Rep. DesJarlais Introduces the Restoring Our Commitment to Our Nation's Veterans Act", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Scott DesJarlais", "D000616", "desjarlais.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Representative Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04), today introduced the \u201cRestoring our Commitment to our Nation\u2019s Veterans Act.\u201d This legislation would replace the cost of living adjustment (COLA) cuts for military retirees that were included in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 with reductions to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s Prevention and Public Health Fund.\nAfter introducing this legislation, Representative DesJarlais released the following the statement:\n\u201cImposing these cuts on our military retirees breaks our commitment to those who bravely risked their lives in defense of this nation. It was one of the key reasons I voted against the Ryan-Murray Budget Deal. I am calling on all my colleagues, both those who voted in favor of these cuts and those who did not, to support this legislation immediately restoring these benefits we owe to our veterans. We have an opportunity to do the right thing by eliminating a slush fund being used as a taxpayer funded lobbying effort for ObamaCare.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center?ID=60DCC95B-3BA9-4BB3-BD4C-0110DCF1376A", "Rep. DesJarlais Introduces the Restoring Our Commitment to Our Nation's Veterans Act", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Scott DesJarlais", "D000616", "desjarlais.house.gov", "desjarlais", "https://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center", "scraper", "Representative Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04), today introduced the \u201cRestoring our Commitment to our Nation\u2019s Veterans Act.\u201d This legislation would replace the cost of living adjustment (COLA) cuts for military retirees that were included in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 with reductions to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s Prevention and Public Health Fund.\n\nAfter introducing this legislation, Representative DesJarlais released the following the statement:\n\n\u201cImposing these cuts on our military retirees breaks our commitment to those who bravely risked their lives in defense of this nation. It was one of the key reasons I voted against the Ryan-Murray Budget Deal. I am calling on all my colleagues, both those who voted in favor of these cuts and those who did not, to support this legislation immediately restoring these benefits we owe to our veterans. We have an opportunity to do the right thing by eliminating a slush fund being used as a taxpayer funded lobbying effort for ObamaCare.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:40:02Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140109220955/http://black.house.gov:80/press-release/black-neal-introduce-comprehensive-care-payment-innovation-act", "Black, Neal Introduce Comprehensive Care Payment Innovation Act", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013\u00a0Today, Congressmen Diane Black (R-TN-06) and Richard E. Neal (D \u2013 MA-01) introduced the Comprehensive Care Payment Innovation Act \u2013 legislation that would allow Medicare\u2019s fee-for-service program to prioritize patient outcomes and quality through a more cost-effective delivery system.\n\u201cAs a nurse for more than 40 years, I take great joy in knowing that Americans are healthier and living longer than they were 20 years ago,\u201d said Congressman Black.\u00a0 \u201cWhile there is no doubt this is in part due to the men and women who provide exceptional medicine, with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, Congress must take action to ensure that we have a health care infrastructure in place that can provide quality, affordable care for seniors. That is why I have introduced the Comprehensive Care Payment Innovation Act\u2013a commonsense measure that would allow Medicare providers to bundle certain services in a manner that focuses on improving patient outcomes while lowering costs for taxpayers.\u201d\n\u201cHospitals in Massachusetts and across the country are used to pushing the envelope on innovative advances in patient care and this legislation will advance the effort to help hospitals and other providers to better focus on overall patient care, increasing value rather than volume of care.\u00a0 This should be a \u2018win win\u2019 for hospitals, healthcare costs, but most importantly for patients,\u201d said Congressman Neal.\nThe Comprehensive Care Payment Innovation Act would create a voluntary bundle payment program for Medicare that allows health care providers to treat a beneficiary for an episode of care, such as a hip or knee replacement, for the entire continuum of care.\u00a0 The provider would receive one lump sum payment that would cover the cost of the patient for the hospitalization and conclude 90 days afterward.\u00a0 All services would be covered in the bundle, which means the provider would take greater responsibility for patient outcomes.\u00a0\nA bundle payment allows providers to develop greater efficiencies in health care delivery and ensures quality care for seniors.\u00a0 In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, in its Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 to 2023 report, cited bundle payments as a method to achieve greater health care savings.\nFor a more comprehensive bill summary, click here, or for the bill text, click here.\n####", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221002738/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=57bcec1b-9463-414a-a774-cedad20b75e9", "Corker Opposes Excess Spending in Defense Bill", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, today announced his opposition to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act because it authorizes spending above limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as well as the recent budget agreement. He voted against ending debate on NDAA since only two amendments were allowed to be considered, and he will vote \u201cno\u201d on final passage of the bill tonight.\n\u201cWashington\u2019s refusal to appropriately deal with our fiscal issues flies in the face of the courage and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Our country\u2019s deficits weaken the nation they fight to protect, so I don\u2019t think contributing to the spend-now-pay-later mentality of Congress is an appropriate way to honor their service,\u201d said Corker.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=421c44b2-0c71-477e-baa0-7514f9d97d4b", "Alexander: Defense Bill Key to Military Readiness, Tennessee Installations", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says he\u2019ll vote yes on legislation supporting troop pay, Second Amendment rights against UN Arms Trade Treaty\r\n***\r\n\u201cI am voting for this legislation because it ensures that the men and women wearing the uniform of our Armed Services are paid, and gives them the support they need to fight for our freedoms and keep us safe.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 19 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today announced that he would vote in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes funding for military pay, construction projects impacting Tennessee and a range of weapons programs.\r\n\u201cThe National Defense Authorization Act is the most important legislation affecting the military that Congress considers,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cI am voting for this legislation because it ensures that the men and women wearing the uniform of our Armed Services are paid, and gives them the support they need to fight for our freedoms and keep us safe.\u201d\r\nThe National Defense Authorization Act authorizes funding for the Department of Defense on a range of fronts. It includes military pay \u2013 which would expire for combat troops without passage of this legislation \u2013 and construction projects impacting members of the military and their families. It also provides funding for weapons programs, in addition to addressing a range of policies, including the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.\r\n\u00a0\r\nSpecifically, the legislation:\r\n \r\nProvides military pay, including a 1 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel. Pay for combat personnel would have expired at the end of 2013.\r\nProvides funding for military construction projects in Tennessee, including: $137 million at Fort Campbell, $18 million at McGree Tyson Air National Guard Base near Knoxville, $4.3 million for the Navy in Memphis and $2.2 million at Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma.\r\nProhibits funding from being used to implement any part of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty without advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, of which Alexander said, \u201cThe U.N. Arms Trade Treaty violates the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans and all Americans by failing to protect the lawful ownership and use of firearms.\u201d\r\nIncludes more than 30 provisions related to combatting sexual assault in the military.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=cd36ef9b-c511-49a6-b5cf-71ac292d09dd", "Alexander: Obamacare Delivers Unwelcome Christmas Present, Unhappy New Year for Many Tennesseans", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says Obamacare is increasing costs and reducing health care choices for Tennesseans, businesses and school districts\r\n***\r\n\u201cUnfortunately, at least 82,000 Tennesseans are losing their health policies this year, and that\u2019s an unwelcome Christmas present. Even more unfortunately, an Unhappy New Year is coming in which hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans could lose the employer-sponsored policies they have and like when Obamacare\u2019s burdensome mandates on employers kick in.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 19 \u2013 In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) highlighted the ways Obamacare has increased costs and reduced choices for Tennesseans in 2013, and warned of more widespread consequences in the New Year.\r\n\u201cThe fact t least 82,000 Tennesseans will begin to lose their individual health insurance policies starting Jan. 1 is an unwelcome Christmas present,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cAnd it\u2019ll be an unhappy New Year for many more Tennesseans who get their insurance on the job when Obamacare\u2019s burdensome mandates on employers kick in.\u201d\r\nThe senator discussed how Obamacare\u2019s mandates have outlawed many insurance plans \u2013 despite the president\u2019s promise that \u201cIf you like your health insurance, you can keep it\u201d \u2013 will increase costs for individuals and businesses and is even burdening school districts.\r\nAlexander\u2019s remarks as prepared are below:\r\nFor the last couple months, we\u2019ve heard countless stories from constituents who are losing the health plans they purchased on the individual market.\u00a0\r\nAccording to America\u2019s Health Insurance Plans, there are 19 million Americans in the individual market.\u00a0The Obama administration knew in 2010 that the rules it wrote for health plans would mean at least 47 percent to 60 percent of those policies could not be legally offered under Obamacare by 2014.\u00a0 Yet the President still said to people:\u00a0\u201cIf you like your health insurance, you can keep it.\u201d\r\nBy now we all know what the president said wasn\u2019t true. According to news reports collected by my staff, at least 5 million Americans, including 82,000 Tennesseans, will lose their individual plans starting Jan. 1. That\u2019s an unwelcome Christmas present for at least 82,000 Tennesseans (16,000 Tennesseans are losing their CoverTN plan; 66,000 Tennesseans will also lose their BlueCross Blue Shield of Tennessee coverage). \u00a0\r\nMy constituent Emily from Middle Tennessee told me in a recent letter: \u201cI cannot keep my current plan because it does not meet the standards of coverage. This alone is a travesty. CoverTN has been a lifeline \u2026.With the discontinuation of CoverTN, I am being forced to purchase a plan though the Exchange\u2026My insurance premiums alone will increase a staggering 410 percent. My out-of-pocket expense will increase by more than $6,000 a year \u2013 that includes subsidies. Please help me understand how this is \u2018affordable.\u2019\u201d\r\nUnfortunately, Emily is not the only one experiencing \u201crate shock.\u201d\u00a0 Millions of Americans are losing their insurance plans and then being forced to buy new plans with higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.\r\nAccording to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, Tennesseans can expect to pay up to three times more on the exchanges being set up under Obamacare for the health insurance they now have.\r\n \r\nIn 2013, a 27-year-old man in Memphis could buy a private insurance plan for as low as $41 a month.\u00a0On the exchange for insurance coverage in 2014, the lowest state average is $119 a month\u2014a 190 percent increase.\u00a0\r\n \r\n \r\nToday, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can also buy a plan for as low as $58 a month.\u00a0 On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month\u2014a 97 percent increase.\u00a0 Even with a tax subsidy if she made $25,000 a year, that plan is $104 a month, almost twice what she could pay today if the $58 plan was all she felt she needed.\r\n \r\n \r\nToday, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange will cost, even with the new tax subsidy.\u00a0\r\n \r\n \r\nIn Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available in the exchange.\r\n \r\nAccording to HealthPocket, Inc., a consumer-oriented health research firm, the average individual deductible for a bronze plan on the federally run exchange is $5,081 a year.\u00a0\r\nThat is 42 percent more than the average deductible of $3,589 for an individually purchased plan in 2013.\r\nAnd according to Deloitte, that is 348 percent more than the $1,135 average deductible for an employer health plan in 2013.\r\nAccording to Avalere Health, 90 percent of bronze plans require patients to pay 40 percent of the cost of their Tier 3 and 4 drugs out of their own pockets, compared with 29 percent of employer-sponsored plans that most Americans currently use. Most silver plans also require patients to pay 40 percent. For cancer patients and those with chronic illnesses, this kind of cost-sharing could mean they will pay thousands of dollars out of pocket or go without the drugs they need to stay healthy.\r\nAmericans had to wait until the exchanges opened on October 1st to find out just how much they were going to have to pay for insurance in 2014.\r\nWith such dramatic hikes in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, it\u2019s no wonder Americans are outraged.\r\nAnd then, just before Thanksgiving, we learned that the Obama administration is delaying open enrollment for 2015 until after the mid-term elections in November.\r\nThe only American consumers this change will help are Democratic politicians\u00a0who voted for Obamacare,\u00a0because it delays disclosure of some of the law's most insidious effects until after the election.\r\nSenators Barrasso, Enzi, and I today introduced a bill called the \u201cPremium Disclosure Act\u201d to change the open enrollment date back to October and to provide Americans notice of their premiums and cost-sharing requirements 30 days in advance so that they can plan for the future knowing their health care costs for the next year.\r\nThis is a common-sense proposal that I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me in passing.\r\nAs my colleague Senator Barrasso likes to say, what we now know about Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg.\u00a0\r\nMuch of the media attention has focused upon the disastrous rollout of the website and the19 million Americans in the individual market. But just below the tip of the iceberg are nearly 160 million Americans who the Congressional Budget Office says have insurance through their employers and who will also soon start to feel the effects of Obamacare.\u00a0\r\nThink about issues like restrictive grandfathered plan rules, limits on the number of hours employees can work and be considered part-time, the mandate that employers provide government-approved insurance or pay a fine, and the millions of dollars in new taxes on health plans. All of these issues will have an impact on employer-sponsored health insurance in both the public and private sectors.\r\nWe\u2019re already starting to see the effects of the law and it hasn\u2019t even gone fully into effect. Employers such as Sea World, Trader Joe\u2019s, The Home Depot, and other companies have publicly said they are reducing worker hours or dropping part-time employee health benefits.\u00a0\r\nThe CEO of Ruby Tuesday told me that the cost to implement Obamacare is equal to the profit his company earned last year.\r\nIn case you think these are isolated examples, the National Association of Manufacturers says more than three-fourths of manufacturers cited rising health care and insurance costs as their most important business challenge.\u00a0\r\nThe U.S. Chamber of commerce also has a membership survey which says 74 percent of businesses are reporting that the health care law makes it harder for their firms to hire new workers.\r\nMany of these businesses self-insure, meaning they design and pay directly for the health plans they offer to their employees.\r\nAccording to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 100 million Americans currently have an employer-sponsored health plan that is self-insured.\u00a0\r\nSelf-insurance is a method of providing health insurance that has worked well since its inception in 1974 and should be preserved.\r\nLast month, Senators Rubio, Risch, McConnell and I introduced a bill to ensure the Obama administration does not change the rules that allow companies to insure themselves against a medical claim that could bankrupt them. \u00a0\u00a0\r\nAny effort by the Obama administration to change the rules on companies that self-insure will break the president\u2019s promise to millions more hardworking Americans. It won\u2019t matter if they like their employer\u2019s health care plans; many won\u2019t be able to keep them.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIt\u2019s not just the private sector facing fiscal challenges because of Obamacare. Our nation\u2019s schools, colleges, and universities are also being hit hard.\r\nThere\u2019s no shortage of examples in Tennessee of local leaders dealing with the burdens of Obamacare:\r\n \r\nFranklin Special School District has begun limiting substitute teachers to working four days a week, in order to avoid paying between $1 million to 4.5 million more per year in health care costs.\r\n \r\n \r\nMaury County Schools is also limiting its substitute teachers to no more than 28 hours a week for the same reason. As one school board member told the local news, \u201cStudents struggle enough having one substitute teacher, but then now we\u2019re going to have to possibly split the substitute time between two substitute teachers. It just makes it hard on the students to learn.\u201d\r\n \r\n \r\nWilson County Board of Education wrote to tell me that Obamacare\u2019s \u201creinsurance fee\u201d will cost the district an additional $165,000 in 2014 alone.\r\n \r\n \r\nAt least nine other Tennessee school districts are reportedly limiting employee work hours or entire jobs, including:\r\n\r\nClarksville County Schools\r\nRutherford County Schools\r\nJohnson City Schools\r\nCarter County Schools\r\nWashington County School District\r\nOneida Special School District\r\nScott County School System\r\nStewart County School System\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nCumberland University in Lebanon, Tennessee, has adopted a new policy to limit adjunct faculty to no more than three courses each term \u2013 meaning that they will not be allowed to offer a course even if they are the most qualified instructor available.\r\n \r\nThe impact of Obamacare on education is by no means limited to Tennessee.\u00a0 Investor\u2019s Business Daily has identified well over 100 school districts and institutions of higher education nationwide that have made cuts and/or limited employee work hours because of Obamacare.\u00a0 That number is climbing daily, again suggesting that this is just the tip of the iceberg.\r\nWho pays the price for this? Our children. Cash-strapped schools simply do not have the resources to absorb these costs, so they\u2019re forced to make difficult choices that will impact our nation\u2019s education system.\r\nFor these reasons \u2013 broken promises, higher costs, fewer choices \u2013 Obamacare was an historic mistake. It expanded a health care delivery system we already knew cost too much, and left Americans with fewer choices.\r\nNow, what would we do differently, as Republicans, if we could elect a Republican Senate in 2014, and a Republican president in 2016? We would repeal and replace Obamacare. We would replace it with step-by-step reforms reduce health care costs and put patients in charge by giving them more choices.\r\nHere are some of the steps we would take to transform health care so Americans could afford it:\r\n \r\nMake Medicare solvent so seniors can depend on it to be there for them and their grandchildren.\r\n \r\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 2.\u00a0Give Governors more flexibility with their state Medicaid programs so \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 they can lower costs, improve health outcomes, and have more money \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 for other programs like education and roads.\r\n \r\nStrengthen innovative workplace wellness programs that empower employees with more incentives to make healthy lifestyle choices.\r\n  \r\nLet small businesses pool their resources and offer lower cost insurance plans for their employees.\r\n  \r\nProvide families the opportunity to purchase insurance across state lines, creating greater competition between insurance companies and lowering premiums for everyone.\u00a0\r\n \r\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a06. Expand access to Health Savings Accounts and catastrophic health  \u00a0insurance plans, giving people more affordable insurance options that fit  \u00a0their lifestyles.\r\n \r\nIncentivize the growth of private health insurance exchanges to give consumers expanded health insurance choices and allow them to keep insurance between jobs.\r\n  \r\nMake it easier for patients to compare prices and quality of doctors and medical services.\u00a0\r\n  \r\nIncentivize states to reform junk lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone and are driving medical professionals out of their profession.\r\n \r\nWhen Irving Kristol died not long ago, James Q. Wilson wrote a tribute in the Wall Street Journal that struck me. He said that when they began their association as neoconservatives they were \u201cpolicy skeptics.\u201d He said that was their common view. And by that I think he must have meant that they did not believe that Washington could through a comprehensive piece of legislation fix our entire health care system, that what Washington should do \u2013 particularly in this iPhone age \u2013 is go step by step in a direction that allows for more personal freedom to Americans so they can live longer, live healthier, live safer, and be happier.\r\nThat\u2019s what Republicans would like to do.\r\nBut unfortunately, at least 82,000 Tennesseans are losing their health policies this year, and that\u2019s an unwelcome Christmas present. Even more unfortunately, an Unhappy New Year is coming in which hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans could lose the employer-sponsored policies they have and like when Obamacare\u2019s burdensome mandates on employers kick in.\r\nWe\u2019re ready to go in a different direction. We want to create a way for Americans to have more choices, more competition, and insurance they can purchase at a lower cost.\r\n\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://fleischmann.house.gov/press-release/media-advisory-chuck-fleischmann-make-important-announcement-etec", "Media Advisory: Chuck Fleischmann To Make Important Announcement At ETEC", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Chuck Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Oak Ridge \u2212 Congressman Chuck Fleischmann will be addressing the East Tennessee Economic Council on Thursday, December 19th.\u00a0 During his speech the Congressman will give an update on the pending budget situation and make an important economic announcement for East Tennessee.\u00a0 Press is welcome at the event.\u00a0\nDate: Thursday, December 19, 2013\nTime: 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Media Availability: Immediately following\u00a0\nLocation: ETEC Meeting Room\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01201 Oak Ridge Turnpike\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Oak Ridge, TN 37830", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases/media-advisory-chuck-fleischmann-make-important-announcement-etec", "Media Advisory: Chuck Fleischmann To Make Important Announcement At ETEC", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Charles J. \"Chuck\" Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", "fleischmann", "https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases", "scraper", "Oak Ridge \u2212 Congressman Chuck Fleischmann will be addressing the East Tennessee Economic Council on Thursday, December 19th. During his speech the Congressman will give an update on the pending budget situation and make an important economic announcement for East Tennessee. Press is welcome at the event.\n\nDate: Thursday, December 19, 2013\n\nTime: 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Media Availability: Immediately following\n\nLocation: ETEC Meeting Room\n\n1201 Oak Ridge Turnpike\n\nOak Ridge, TN 37830", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:40:02Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140307024759/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a25351c9-de18-4129-b09a-41356392e440", "Alexander, Barrasso, Enzi Introduce Bill to Reverse Administration\u2019s \u201cPolitically Motivated\u201d Decision to Delay Next Year\u2019s Obamacare Insurance Enrollment Until After 2014 Election", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "December 18 2013  - \nLegislation would require Obama administration to open enrollment prior to election as originally planned, disclose premium increase and cost-sharing information to American families beforehand\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 18 \u2013 Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) today introduced legislation that would reverse the Obama administration\u2019s recent decision to delay next year\u2019s Obamacare insurance enrollment deadline until after the 2014 election. \u201cThe Premium Disclosure Act\u201d would also require the administration to provide premium increase and cost-sharing information to Americans prior to open enrollment so they have time to make decisions about their health care.\nIn 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that enrollment in the Obamacare exchanges for 2015 would begin Oct. 15 of next year. But after two months of negative public reaction to the exchange\u2019s high premiums, deductibles and co-insurance, agency officials delayed enrollment and disclosure of next year\u2019s insurance cost increases until after the 2014 elections.\nThis legislation will also make it easier for families to plan for expenses in 2015 by requiring HHS to disclose health insurance plan and cost information 30 days in advance of open enrollment. For the current open enrollment season, agency officials were not required to disclose any information and did not do so until the exchanges opened on Oct. 1.\u00a0\nAlexander, the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, said: \u201cThe only Americans the Obama administration\u2019s delay will help is Democratic politicians who voted for Obamacare, because it delays disclosure of some of the law\u2019s most insidious effects for 2015 until after the election. This legislation would stop the administration from playing politics with Americans\u2019 health care, and ensure that families will know what the costs will be well before the exchanges open.\u201d\nBarrasso said: \u201cThe decision to delay the enrollment season by a mere month adds to the Administration\u2019s long record of misleading the American people about this health care law.\u00a0 Instead of trying to hide the skyrocketing costs, they need to come clean about the terrible impacts of this law. The fact is that many Americans can\u2019t keep their coverage, can\u2019t keep their doctor and can\u2019t afford this law. Our bill will deliver the transparency that the American people deserve when making important health care decisions for their families.\u201d\nEnzi said: \u201cEarlier rounds of health care mandates were not popular, so the Administration has sought to delay as many of them as possible until after the next election. Our legislation would not only prevent this political move, but would make sure families have premium and cost-sharing information in time to make more informed decisions for themselves.\u201d\nThe two-page bill sets the open enrollment dates of the exchanges from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7 in statute, rather than after the November 2014 mid-term elections as the Obama administration currently has planned. It also requires the administration to provide American families with notice of any premium increases and cost-sharing requirements 30 days before open enrollment. Alexander noted that the 30-day notice \u2013 which HHS says is not possible \u2013 is the same that seniors receive for Medicare Advantage, a program that provides private insurance options under Medicare.\nHHS announced in November that it will delay the beginning of the next Obamacare enrollment season by one month, until Nov. 15, 2014, after the midterm elections, instead of beginning open enrollment season the department\u2019s previously announced date of Oct. 15.\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Multimedia&ContentRecord_id=4db17122-de72-4ae0-aa28-a5f736bc216f", "Alexander: Obamacare Brings Unwelcome Christmas Present, Unhappy New Year for Many Tennesseans", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today on the Senate floor highlighted how Obamacare has increased costs and reduced health care choices for Tennesseans, and warned of more widespread consequences in the New Year.On the floor, Alexander said: \"The fact that at least 82,000 Tennesseans will begin to lose their individual health insurance policies starting Jan. 1 is an unwelcome Christmas present. And it'll be an unhappy New Year for many more Tennesseans who get their insurance on the job when Obamacare's burdensome mandates on employers kick in.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Multimedia&ContentRecord_id=ceb8d02b-f240-42db-8329-7d54c892612f", "Alexander, Barrasso, Enzi Bill Would Reverse Administration\u2019s \u201cPolitically Motivated\u201d Obamacare Insurance Enrollment Delay", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) today introduced legislation that would reverse the Obama administration\u2019s recent decision to delay next year\u2019s Obamacare insurance enrollment deadline until after the 2014 election. \u201cThe Premium Disclosure Act\u201d would also require the administration to provide premium increase and cost-sharing information to Americans prior to open enrollment so they have time to make decisions about their health care.\r\nAlexander, the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, said: \u201cThe only Americans the Obama administration\u2019s delay will help is Democratic politicians who voted for Obamacare, because it delays disclosure of some of the law\u2019s most insidious effects for 2015 until after the election. This legislation would stop the administration from playing politics with Americans\u2019 health care, and ensure that families will know what the costs will be well before the exchanges open.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=e3617c65-6af7-48d3-91b5-e4c23c416782", "Alexander Votes Against Budget Agreement", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote against the Ryan-Murray budget agreement:\r\n\u201cI voted against the budget agreement because it avoids the federal government\u2019s most urgent need: reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending. Instead, it spends savings that should be used to strengthen Medicare, pensions, and the air transportation system. It is particularly troubling that the budget agreement takes money from pensions in a way that treats military retirees worse than the civilian federal employees.\r\n\u201cIt would have been better to pay for this agreement with a small part of the $1 trillion in entitlement savings that Sen. Corker and I have identified in our \u2018Fiscal Sustainability Act,\u2019 or with entitlement savings suggested in the president\u2019s budget. \u00a0\r\n\u201cAlthough I can\u2019t support it, I appreciate the efforts of Rep. Ryan and Sen. Murray to bring certainty to the budget process, which is why I voted Tuesday to allow a Senate vote on their agreement, which had passed the House with two-to-one Republican support.\u201d\u00a0\r\nIn addition to its failure to address growth of mandatory entitlement spending \u2013 such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security \u2013 Alexander cited four major objections to the budget agreement. Alexander objected to the agreement because it:\r\n \r\nCuts $22 billion in 2022 and 2023 in Medicare reimbursements to doctors and other health care providers, for savings that may never materialize.\r\nIncreases pension premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by $7.9 billion, to pay for unrelated spending.\r\nCuts the annual cost-of-living benefits for military retirees under the age of 62 by 1 percent, to pay for unrelated spending. This would impact current retirees, as opposed to new hires as in the case of changes to civilian federal employee pensions.\r\nIncreases by $12.6 billion airport security fees \u2013 which generally get passed on to airline passengers \u2013 to pay for unrelated spending. Such fees should be used to improve airport security.\r\n \r\nIn February, Senators Alexander and Corker introduced the\u00a0\u201cFiscal Sustainability Act,\u201d S. 11, to reduce the growth of entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) by nearly $1 trillion in the next decade in order to improve the programs\u2019 solvency. The bill incorporates many of the recommendations made by President Obama\u2019s Debt Commission (Simpson-Bowles) as well as by former Republican Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, budget director for former President Clinton.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SpeechesFloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=90881e7a-cb4d-4c88-b081-c898cb6b3f85", "Floor Speech: Obamacare Delivers Unwelcome Christmas Present", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "I congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his comments.\u00a0 Sometimes I think Republican Senators especially should begin and end every speech with an answer to the question, \u201cWhat would the Senator do if he were in charge?\u201d\u00a0 And the Senator from Missouri has said that very eloquently.\u00a0 It is not the first time what Republicans would do has been said on this floor.\u00a0 He mentioned that the law was passed 3 1/2 years ago.\u00a0 We counted it one time. We mentioned 173 times on this floor the Republican step-by-step proposal for a different approach to health care in this country.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We said, \u201cDon't expect Senator McConnell or any other Republican to come in with a 3,000-page Republican bill in a wheelbarrow.\u201d\u00a0 We don't believe in that.\u00a0 We believe in a different direction, a different approach.\u00a0 We don't believe we are wise enough in Washington to write 3,000 pages of rules to govern every aspect of our health care system in America that takes 18 or 19 percent of the economy.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We live in the iPhone age, where we want to increase the personal freedom of Americans to live longer, better, safer, and healthier.\u00a0 We want people to be able to do these things for themselves.\u00a0 We want to increase choice, competition, and in that way lower costs.\u00a0 If we lower costs, then more people will be able to afford to buy health insurance.\u00a0 That is the real way to expand health insurance in America -- make it more affordable; make it so people can afford it.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So I am beginning these short remarks with a salute to the Senator from Missouri for talking about what we would do if we were in charge, and I am going to end in that way as well.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For the last couple of months, we have heard countless stories from constituents who are losing the health plans they purchased on the individual market.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to America's Health Insurance Plans, there are 19 million Americans in the individual market.\u00a0 The Obama administration knew in 2010 that the rules it wrote for health plans would mean that 47 to 60 percent of those policies could not be legally offered under Obamacare by 2014.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the President still said, \"If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.\"\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Now we all know that wasn't true.\u00a0 According to news reports collected by my staff, at least 5 million Americans, including 82,000 Tennesseans, will lose their individual plans starting January 1.\u00a0 That is an unwelcome Christmas present for those 82,000 Tennesseans.\u00a0 16,000 Tennesseans are losing their CoverTN plans; these are people who especially need help. \u00a0There are also 66,000 Tennesseans who will lose their Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee coverage.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I heard from a woman named Emilie, who is from Middle Tennessee.\u00a0 She is 39 years of age and has lupus.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 She wrote:\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cI cannot keep my current plan because it doesn't meet the standards of coverage.\u00a0 This alone is a travesty.\u00a0 CoverTN has been a lifeline....With the discontinuation of CoverTN, I am being forced to purchase a plan through the Exchange....My insurance premiums alone will increase a staggering 410 percent.\u00a0 My out-of-pocket expense will increase by more than $6,000 a year -- that includes subsidies.\u00a0 Please help me understand how this is \u2018affordable.\u2019\"\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Unfortunately, Emilie is not the only one experiencing rate shock.\u00a0 Millions of Americans are losing their insurance plans.\u00a0 They are being forced to buy new plans, many of them with higher premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, Tennesseans can expect to pay up to three times more on the exchanges being set up under Obamacare for the health insurance they now have.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In 2013, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a private insurance plan for as low as $41 a month.\u00a0 On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month -- a 190-percent increase.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can buy a plan for as low as $58 a month.\u00a0 On the exchange, the lowest priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month -- a 97-percent increase.\u00a0 Even with a tax subsidy, if she made $25,000 a year, the plan would be $104 a month -- almost twice what she could pay today if the $58 plan was all she felt she needed.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Today, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange will cost, even with the new tax subsidy.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available in the exchange.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to HealthPocket Inc., a consumer-oriented health research firm, the average individual deductible for a bronze plan on the federally-run exchange is $5,081 a year.\u00a0 That is 42 percent more than the average deductible of $3,500 for an individually purchased plan in 2013.\u00a0 According to Deloitte, that is 348 percent more than the $1,135 average deductible for an employer health plan in 2013.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 These are a lot of numbers, but Americans -- millions of them -- are getting familiar with these numbers because this has gone from being political to very personal.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to Avalere Health, 90 percent of bronze plans require patients to pay 40 percent of the cost of their tier 3 and 4 drugs out of their own pockets, compared with 29 percent of employer-sponsored plans that most Americans currently use.\u00a0 Most silver plans also require patients to pay 40 percent.\u00a0 For cancer patients and those with chronic illnesses, this kind of cost sharing could mean they will pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket or go without the drugs they need to stay healthy.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Americans had to wait until the exchanges opened on Oct.1 to find out just how much they were going to have to pay for insurance in 2014.\u00a0 With such dramatic hikes in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, it is no wonder that Americans are outraged.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Then, just before Thanksgiving, we learned that the Obama administration is delaying open enrollment for 2015 until after the midterm elections in November.\u00a0 The only American consumers this change will help are Democratic politicians who voted for Obamacare because it would delay disclosure of some of the law's most insidious effects until after the election.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Senators Barrasso, Enzi, and I introduced today the Premium Disclosure Act.\u00a0 We want to change the open enrollment date back to October and provide Americans notice of their premiums and cost-sharing requirements 30 days in advance so that they can plan for the future knowing their health care costs for the next year.\u00a0 This is a commonsense proposal that I hope my colleagues will support.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As my colleague Senator Barrasso likes to say, what we know now about Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg.\u00a0 Much of the media attention has focused on the disastrous rollout of the website and the 19 million Americans in the individual market.\u00a0 But just below the tip of the iceberg are 160 million Americans -- nearly 10 times more than have individual policies -- who the Congressional Budget Office says get their insurance through the job, employer insurance.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Think about issues such as restrictive grandfathered plan rules, limits on the number of hours employees can work and be considered part time, the mandate that employers provide government-approved insurance or pay a fine, and the millions of dollars in new taxes on health plans.\u00a0 All of these issues will have an impact on employer-sponsored health insurance in both the public and private sector.\u00a0 We are already seeing that.\u00a0 Employers such as Sea World, Trader Joe's, The Home Depot, and other companies have publicly said they are reducing worker hours or dropping part-time employee health benefits.\u00a0 The chief executive officer of Ruby Tuesday, a restaurant company, told me that the cost to implement Obamacare would be equal to the profit his company earned all of last year.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In case you think these are isolated examples, the National Association of Manufacturers says that more than three-fourths of manufacturers cited rising health care and insurance costs as the most important business challenge.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The U.S. Chamber also has a membership survey saying that 74 percent of businesses are reporting that the health care law makes it harder for their firms to hire new workers.\u00a0 This is at a time when jobs are supposed to be the principal concern in our country.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Many of these businesses self-insure, meaning they design and pay directly for the health plans they offer their employees.\u00a0 According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 100 million Americans currently have employer-sponsored health plans that are self-insured.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Self-insurance is a method of providing health insurance that has worked well since its inception in 1974.\u00a0 It needs to be preserved.\u00a0 Last month Senators Rubio, Risch, McConnell and I introduced a bill to make sure the Obama administration doesn't change that, doesn't change the rule that allows the companies to insure themselves against a medical claim that could bankrupt them.\u00a0 Any effort by the Obama administration to change the rule on companies that self-insure will break the President's promise to millions of Americans.\u00a0 It won't matter if they like their employers' health plans; they won't be able to keep them.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is not only the private sector facing fiscal challenges because of Obamacare.\u00a0 Our Nation's schools, colleges and universities are also being hit hard.\u00a0 There is no shortage of examples in my State of Tennessee of local leaders dealing with the burdens of Obamacare.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Franklin Special School District has begun limiting substitute teachers to working 4 days a week in order to avoid paying between $1 million and $4.5 million more per year in health care costs.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Maury County Schools, south of Nashville, is also limiting its substitute teachers to no more than 28 hours a week for the same reason.\u00a0 One school board member told the local news:\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Students struggle enough having one substitute teacher, but then now we're going to have to possibly split the substitute time between two substitute teachers.\u00a0 It just makes it hard on the students to learn.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Wilson County Board of Education wrote to tell me that Obamacare's reinsurance fee will cost the district an additional $165,000 in 2014 alone.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At least eight other Tennessee school districts are reportedly limiting employee work hours or entire jobs, including Clarksville, Rutherford County, Johnson City, Carter County, Washington County, Oneida Special School District, Scott County and Stewart County.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cumberland University in Lebanon has adopted a new policy to limit adjunct faculty to no more than three courses each term, meaning they won't be able to offer a course even if they are the most qualified instructor available.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The impact of Obamacare on education is by no means limited to Tennessee.\u00a0 Investor's Business Daily has identified well over 100 school districts and institutions of higher education nationwide that have made cuts or limited employee work hours because of Obamacare. That number is climbing daily, again suggesting this is only the tip of the iceberg.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Remember, what we are hearing about today are individual policies.\u00a0 What we are going to hear about next year are employer policies being cancelled, new costs, and there are 10 times as many Americans with employer policies as individual policies.\u00a0 Who pays the price for this?\u00a0 Our children.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cash-strapped schools simply don't have the money to absorb these costs, so they are forced to make difficult choices.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For these reasons -- broken promises, higher costs, fewer choices -- Obamacare was an historic mistake.\u00a0 It expanded a health care delivery system that already costs too much and left Americans with fewer choices.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would like to end in\u00a0the same way, and I will do that with an answer to this question:\u00a0 What would we do if we were in charge?\u00a0 What if we elected a Republican Senate and even a Republican President in 2016?\u00a0 We would replace Obamacare, not by moving backward, but by moving in a different direction.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Remember, Obamacare's real problem was it expanded a delivery system that already costs too much.\u00a0 What we would do instead is go step by step to introduce new ways to increase choices, to have more competition and to lower costs.\u00a0\u00a0 We would make Medicare solvent, so seniors can depend on it.\u00a0 We would give governors more flexibility with Medicaid so they can create programs with lower costs.\u00a0 We would repeal the Obamacare wellness regulation -- the Senator from Missouri talked about that -- and replace it with one that makes it easier, not harder, for employers to give employees lower health insurance costs if they live a healthy lifestyle.\u00a0 We would let small businesses pool their resources and offer low-cost insurance plans for their employees.\u00a0 The Congressional Budget Office says that Senator Enzi's bill would allow coverage for 750,000 more Americans at a lower cost if we did that.\u00a0 We would allow families to purchase insurance across state lines.\u00a0 If there is a policy regulated by Kentucky that fits my needs, and I want to buy it, why shouldn't I be able to do it if I can afford it?\u00a0 We will expand health savings accounts.\u00a0 We would incentivize the growth of private health insurance exchanges.\u00a0 That is beginning to develop all across our country, giving more choices to employees.\u00a0 We would make it easier for patients to compare prices and quality of doctors and medical services.\u00a0 We would incentivize states to reform junk lawsuits.\u00a0 Those are the steps in the right direction where we would like to go.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When Irving Kristol died not long ago, James Q.\u00a0 Wilson wrote a tribute in The Wall Street Journal which struck me.\u00a0 He said when they began their association as neoconservatives -- they were mostly Democrats -- he said we were policy skeptics.\u00a0 He said that was mainly what our common view was.\u00a0 By that, I think he must have meant they did not believe Washington could, through a comprehensive piece of legislation, fix our whole health care system; that what Washington should do, particularly in this iPhone age, is to go step by step in a direction that gives more personal freedom to consumers, to Americans, so they can live longer, live healthier, live safer, and be happier.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That is what we would like to do.\u00a0 That is how we would like to change Obamacare, and we would like to have that opportunity.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So unfortunately, an unwelcome Christmas present this year for 82,000 Tennesseans is that they are losing their individual policies.\u00a0 Even more unfortunately, an unhappy New Year is coming, in which hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans will lose their employer policies -- the policies they get through their employers -- because of Obamacare. We are ready to go in a different direction and create a way for Americans to have more choices, more competition, and insurance they can purchase at a lower cost.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221002751/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=3c5bacf1-267a-40d9-a637-de8a58a703fc", "Alexander, Corker Welcome Lee University\u2019s \u201cVoices of Lee\u201d to Tennessee Tuesday", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 \u2013 U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) today welcomed a performance by the Voices of Lee, the travelling choir of Lee University in Cleveland, Tenn., during Tennessee Tuesday, the weekly breakfast the senators hold for Tennesseans visiting the Capitol. The choir performing at today\u2019s event is part of the Lee University Festival Choir that Alexander, as a member of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, personally recommended to perform at the presidential inauguration this past January. (Click here to see video of today\u2019s performance.)\nRecalling that announcement as he introduced the choir this morning, Alexander said, \u201cOne of my prerogatives as a committee member was to identify one group to perform at the presidential inauguration. So, I drove down to Lee University in Cleveland, and they assembled the student body there, and I said, \u2018We don\u2019t know who the president is going to be, but we do know one thing: that the Lee University singers will be singing at the inauguration of the President of the United States\u2019\u2026They are terrific musicians and they represent our country and our state and their community in a beautiful way.\u201d \u00a0\nCorker said, \u201cAs mayor of Chattanooga, I had the opportunity to hear talented young people from Lee University perform many times, and I was delighted to welcome the \u2018Voices of Lee\u2019 to Washington this morning. The recognition they received from Lamar Alexander, the Senate\u2019s resident musician, is high praise indeed.\u201d\nBeginning a long history with Lee, Alexander invited Lynn Golden of Lee College, as the university was called at the time, to sing the national anthem when he was sworn-in as governor of Tennessee on January 20, 1979. The new governor had met and heard Lynn sing during his 1,000-mile campaign walk across Tennessee.\nAt the breakfast today, the choir performed \u201cSilver Bells\u201d and a rendition of The Preamble to the United States Constitution, transitioning into \u201cAmerica the Beautiful.\u201d\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221002805/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=c521dd70-7c6b-4ee6-a16c-71a6fc71b67c", "Corker to Vote No on Budget", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., announced today that he will vote against the budget deal before the Senate because it busts budget caps without making meaningful changes to mandatory programs.\nEarlier today Corker voted against cloture, which is a vote to end debate on the budget deal. Majority Leader Harry Reid filled the amendment tree on this bill on Sunday, allowing no amendments and no debate.\u00a0 Since there was no debate and there were no amendments, Corker did not feel it was appropriate to support cloture. \n\u201cBecause of the Budget Control Act, for three years in a row, Congress has spent less on discretionary programs than the year before.\u00a0 While I appreciate the dilemma Paul Ryan was in, it's disappointing the misguided strategy of the House this fall weakened our hand on fiscal issues and that House appropriators indicated they were unwilling to live within the budget discipline laid out in the sequester.\u00a0\u00a0 So with the afterglow of the \u2018bipartisan\u2019 deal fading, I think everyone can see this budget deal busts the budget caps by $45,000,000,000 in the first year alone without making meaningful changes to mandatory programs, violating the only real progress we have made in getting our fiscal house in order and demonstrating that Congress continues to lack the discipline to control spending even in this small way.\u00a0 Spending now and paying later is the cause of our deficit problems, not the solution,\u201d said Corker.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085039/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-introduces-legislation-permanently-eliminate-illegal-alien-lobbyist-position-ice", "Black Introduces Legislation to Permanently Eliminate Illegal Alien Lobbyist Position at ICE", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013\u00a0Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) has introduced H.R. 3732, the Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) Act. Last March, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, which contained language to defund the illegal alien lobbyist position within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Sec. 567 here). This \u201cPublic Advocate\u201d acted as a lobbyist for illegal aliens by serving as a special point of contact for those who had flouted our nation\u2019s immigration laws.\nDespite the House and Senate passing language to defund this position and stop this waste of precious taxpayer dollars, and the President signing it into law, ICE simply rebranded the office as \u201cCommunity Outreach\u201d and allowed its employees to continue their activities as before. This complete disregard for the law was reported on by multiple news outlets and federal watchdogs, such as Fox News and Judicial Watch. In the face of this backlash, ICE has continued to shamelessly operate as if it has done nothing wrong.\n\u201cIt is an outrage that federal bureaucrats think they can simply skirt the law, in essence ignoring the will of the people by playing a shell game and hiding ICE employees and activities with a mere title change,\u201d said Congressman Black. \u201cTo stop this blatant abuse of power, I have introduced H.R. 3732, the Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) Act. This bill would defund both positions and prohibit the creation of any new position within ICE that would allow the agency to ignore the law and continue its pro-illegal immigration activities. It is of utmost importance that ICE be held accountable and be required to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter.\u201d\nDespite formal inquiries and letters, Congressman Black has received no response from ICE as to the nature of this position change. She has also demanded information about the operations of this position under the Freedom of Information Act.\nFor text of this legislation, click here.\nAdditional Resources: \n06/07/12: House Passes Black\u2019s Amendment to Prohibit Funding for Illegal Alien Lobbyist\n09/23/13: Black Letter to ICE Demands Answers on the Defunded \u201cPublic Advocate\u201d Position\n12/16/13: Congressman Black\u2019s FOIA Request\n\u00a0\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140307001532/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Multimedia&ContentRecord_id=dd278bb2-d1c8-4a79-98f7-80a0b157f733", "Lee University's \"Voices of Lee\" Perform at Tennessee Tuesday", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "December 17 2013  - \nU.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) today welcomed a performance by the Voices of Lee, the travelling choir of Lee University in Cleveland, Tenn., during Tennessee Tuesday, the weekly breakfast the senators hold for Tennesseans visiting the Capitol. The choir performing at today's event is part of the Lee University Festival Choir that Alexander, as a member of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, personally recommended to perform at the presidential inauguration this past January.Recalling that announcement as he introduced the choir this morning, Alexander said, \"One of my prerogatives as a committee member was to identify one group to perform at the presidential inauguration. So, I drove down to Lee University in Cleveland, and they assembled the student body there, and I said, 'We don't know who the president is going to be, but we do know one thing: that the Lee University singers will be singing at the inauguration of the President of the United States'...They are terrific musicians and they represent our country and our state and their community in a beautiful way.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1f1fb17c-2856-494c-9fd2-bfb0a80b9957", "Alexander, Corker Welcome Lee University\u2019s \u201cVoices of Lee\u201d to Tennessee Tuesday", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senators, Tennesseans visiting Washington treated to performance by members of university choir that performed at January\u2019s presidential inauguration\u00a0\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 17 \u2013 U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) today welcomed a performance by the Voices of Lee, the travelling choir of Lee University in Cleveland, Tenn., during Tennessee Tuesday, the weekly breakfast the senators hold for Tennesseans visiting the Capitol. The choir performing at today\u2019s event is part of the Lee University Festival Choir that Alexander, as a member of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, personally recommended to perform at the presidential inauguration this past January. (Click here to see video of today\u2019s performance.)\r\nRecalling that announcement as he introduced the choir this morning, Alexander said, \u201cOne of my prerogatives as a committee member was to identify one group to perform at the presidential inauguration. So, I drove down to Lee University in Cleveland, and they assembled the student body there, and I said, \u2018We don\u2019t know who the president is going to be, but we do know one thing: that the Lee University singers will be singing at the inauguration of the President of the United States\u2019\u2026They are terrific musicians and they represent our country and our state and their community in a beautiful way.\u201d \u00a0\r\nCorker said, \u201cAs mayor of Chattanooga, I had the opportunity to hear talented young people from Lee University perform many times, and I was delighted to welcome the \u2018Voices of Lee\u2019 to Washington this morning. The recognition they received from Lamar Alexander, the Senate\u2019s resident musician, is high praise indeed.\u201d\r\nBeginning a long history with Lee, Alexander invited Lynn Golden of Lee College, as the university was called at the time, to sing the national anthem when he was sworn-in as governor of Tennessee on January 20, 1979. The new governor had met and heard Lynn sing during his 1,000-mile campaign walk across Tennessee.\r\nAt the breakfast today, the choir performed \u201cSilver Bells\u201d and a rendition of The Preamble to the United States Constitution, transitioning into \u201cAmerica the Beautiful.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=582e67a7-44fa-4667-9eb9-02200a878e48", "Alexander: End Wind Production Tax Credit to Pay for Budget Agreement", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senators call on Senate Finance Committee to let wind production tax credit expire; Alexander says billions being wasted could go toward budget agreement to reduce debt or replace sequester\r\n***\r\n\u201cCongress is struggling to find $63 billion to spend in the budget agreement, when all we have to do is get rid of the wasteful wind production tax credit. For the next 10 years, extending the tax credit one year at a time could cost $60 billion or more. Using the wind production tax credit to pay for all or part of the budget agreement would do this country more good than extending this subsidy for expensive, low-quality wind electricity ever could.\u201d\r\n\u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 17 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and a bipartisan group of senators today sent a letter to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), calling on them to let wind power \u201cstand on its own\u201d in the marketplace by allowing the wind production tax credit to expire as required under current law.\r\nThe bipartisan letter, led by Alexander and Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), states that after more than 20 years and eight extensions, a 1992 tax credit originally intended to boost a fledgling technology is now subsidizing a \u201cmature technology,\u201d wasting taxpayer money and distorting energy markets by \u201cpicking winners and losers.\u201d It requests that the Finance Committee exclude the wind production tax credit \u2013 which under current law will have provided $22 billion to wind producers between 1992 and 2022 \u2013 from any legislation the committee may consider.\r\nThe letter was signed by several members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Signatories include Senators Alexander, Manchin, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Jim Risch (R-Ida.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)\u00a0\r\n\u201cCongress is struggling to find $63 billion to spend in the budget agreement, when all we have to do is get rid of the wasteful wind production tax credit,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cFor the next 10 years, extending the tax credit one year at a time could cost $60 billion or more. Using the wind production tax credit to pay for all or part of the budget agreement would do this country more good than extending this subsidy for expensive, low-quality wind electricity ever could.\u201d\r\nThe senators write, \u201cOur nation\u2019s energy policy must make economic sense for taxpayers and not manipulate markets.\u00a0Continuation of the wind PTC not only picks winners and losers, it is distorting our energy markets and it's past time to end a temporary tax credit that was put into law in 1992. After more than 20 years, and tens of billions of tax-payer dollars, it\u2019s time to let the wind PTC expire and continue to invest in new technologies.\u201d\u00a0\r\nIn the letter, the senators call for the Finance Committee to let the wind production tax credit\u00a0expire as scheduled at the end of 2013 and not consider any kind of extension, pointing out that wind producers will continue to qualify for subsidies if the wind facility is placed in service before Jan. 1, 2016. As it stands now, the wind production tax credit will have given $22 billion to wind producers by 2022, according to the most recent estimate from the Congressional Research Service. That doesn\u2019t include additional subsidies to wind as part of President Obama\u2019s federal stimulus bill, which total another $12.9 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury.\r\nThe letter also describes how the wind production tax credit is wasting taxpayer money on what the Obama administration has called a \u201cmature technology\u201d while distorting energy markets, putting cheaper and more reliable forms of energy, such as coal and nuclear, at a competitive disadvantage.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6437155c-9baa-4465-9a23-ee964546d19b", "Alexander to Vote Against Budget Agreement", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on Senate consideration of the budget agreement passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 332-94:\r\n\u201cI will vote against the budget agreement because it avoids the federal government\u2019s most urgent need: reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending. Instead, it spends savings that should be used to strengthen Medicare, pensions, and the air transportation system. \u00a0\r\n\u201cIt would have been better to pay for this agreement with a small part of the $1 trillion in entitlement savings that Sen. Corker and I have identified in our \u2018Fiscal Sustainability Act,\u2019 or with entitlement savings suggested in the president\u2019s budget. \u00a0\r\n\u201cAlthough I can\u2019t support it, I appreciate the efforts of Rep. Ryan and Sen. Murray to bring certainty to the budget process, which is why I voted earlier today to allow a Senate vote on their agreement, which had passed the House with two-to-one Republican support.\u201d\u00a0\r\nIn February, Senators Alexander and Corker introduced the\u00a0\u201cFiscal Sustainability Act,\u201d S. 11, to reduce the growth of entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) by nearly $1 trillion in the next decade in order to improve the programs\u2019 solvency. The bill incorporates many of the recommendations made by President Obama\u2019s Debt Commission (Simpson-Bowles) as well as by former Republican Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, budget director for former President Clinton.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SpeechesFloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=0fda688e-8444-49e9-8c2c-ca656f51188d", "Floor speech: The debt-paying generation", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "We are watching America pass from the hands of the \"greatest generation\" to the hands of the \u201cdebt-paying generation\u201d with nothing to show for it but the bill.\u00a0 For months Republicans have challenged President Obama to fix the federal debt, to save entitlement programs that Americans depend upon, and to rescue young Americans from being forever known as the debt-paying generation. \u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Earlier this year, for example, I called on the president to show the same kind of leadership that President Johnson did on civil rights, that President Nixon did on China, that President Carter did on the Panama Canal Treaty, and that President Reagan did on Social Security.\u00a0 Confront your own party.\u00a0 Say what needs to be said.\u00a0 Do what needs to be done.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0This has not happened.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I appreciate very much the efforts of the senator from Washington and Representative Ryan to try to bring certainty to the budget process.\u00a0 That is why I voted today to allow a vote on the House-passed budget agreement.\u00a0 It seems to me, at least, that a Republican senator could allow a vote on legislation passed by the House of Representatives with the support of the House Republican leadership and two-thirds of the House Republicans, so I voted yes to allow a vote.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 However, I am going to vote against the Ryan-Murray budget amendment because it avoids the federal government's single greatest challenge; that is, reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending.\u00a0 Instead, it spends savings that should be used to strengthen Medicare, to strengthen pensions, and to strengthen the air transportation system.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I believe in user fees.\u00a0 When you build a highway, you have a gas tax to pay for the highway.\u00a0 You do not raise the gas tax to pay for education.\u00a0 You do not raise the gas tax to pay for a health program.\u00a0 A user fee is related to the service it provides.\u00a0 This budget agreement does not withstand that test.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It would have been much better to pay for this budget agreement by using a small part of the almost $1 trillion in entitlement savings that Senator Corker and I have suggested in the Fiscal Sustainability Act or with meaningful entitlement savings from the president's own budget.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Fiscal Sustainability Act that Senator Corker and I have suggested would slow the growth of out-of-control mandatory spending by, among other things, recommending a more realistic Consumer Price Index.\u00a0 This is a Consumer Price Index that most economists have said is more realistic in its assessment of what the increase in the standard of living is.\u00a0 The monthly difference between the current Consumer Price Index and the more accurate Consumer Price Index is about $3 per month for the average beneficiary, which is less than the average cost of a gallon of gasoline.\u00a0 This modest change would help to slow the growth -- not cut but help slow the growth of mandatory entitlement spending.\u00a0 The purpose of that is to help make those programs solvent so beneficiaries can depend on them.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Medicare trustees have told us that Medicare will not have enough money in it in 13 years to pay all of the hospital bills.\u00a0 What are seniors going to think of senators who in 2013 did not take the steps to make Medicare solvent?\u00a0 We could do that if we would begin to adopt some of the recommendations in the Corker-Alexander Fiscal Sustainability Act or in the president's own budget.\u00a0 He also recommended a smaller version of the more realistic Consumer Price Index.\u00a0 He recommended several hundred billion other dollars of changes in entitlement programs that Republican senators might be able to agree with.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To go back to the Consumer Price Index, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we could save $162 billion over 10 years if we adopted a more realistic Consumer Price Index for entitlement programs.\u00a0 That is twice as much money as we needed for the budget agreement.\u00a0 The rest could have been used to reduce the debt today, and the reduction would be even more in future years.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As I emphasized before, the purpose of reducing the growth of entitlement spending is so the programs are solvent, so a Medicare beneficiary does not get to a point in 13 years and say:\u00a0 Why does Medicare not have enough money to pay for all of my hospital bill?\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Here is another way we could have cut wasteful spending:\u00a0 Eliminate the wind production tax credit.\u00a0 The senator from West Virginia and I have written a letter to the Finance Committee and suggested we do that.\u00a0 Here we are in the budget agreement struggling to find $63 billion over the next 10 years.\u00a0 Where could we find $63 billion?\u00a0 That amount about equals what we could save if we did not extend the wind production tax credit each year for the next 10 years.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So any way you slice it, we could either have taken some of the president's suggested savings in entitlement spending, some of Senator Corker's and my suggested savings, we could have taken half of the savings from the more realistic Consumer Price Index, paid for the budget agreement that way, and then I could have voted for it because we would have moved money from the out-of-control side of the budget to relieve the sequester, and we would have done what we should have done.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What I have to ask with all respect is, Where was the president in all of this?\u00a0 I mean, if Lyndon Johnson can pass a civil rights bill and Richard Nixon can go to China, if Jimmy Carter can pass the Panama Canal Treaty and Ronald Reagan can work with Tip O'Neill on Social Security, why can't President Obama get involved with his own budget recommendations and help us begin to deal with entitlement spending, which everybody knows is the single biggest problem we have facing our country?\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Washington could learn a lot about debt and taxes from Tennessee.\u00a0 Tennessee's tax burden ranks third lowest of any state, it has the lowest per capita debt, and it balances its budget every year.\u00a0 All that did not happen by accident.\u00a0 I was governor when we needed three big road programs.\u00a0 Instead of borrowing the money, we paid for it as we went.\u00a0 We used user fees, the gasoline tax, but we applied that to the roads.\u00a0 Guess where we are today?\u00a0 We have one of the best four-lane highway systems in America and zero road debt.\u00a0 While other States have billions of dollars of road debt, we have zero.\u00a0 So all of our gas tax money goes to keeping one of the best four-lane highway systems in the country.\u00a0 Those policies have paid off.\u00a0 According to the Department of Labor, Tennessee is the fourth best state in the country in net new jobs.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Getting debt under control is the foremost problem we have facing our country.\u00a0 If we do not do that, the people who depend upon Medicare and other important programs will be not able to depend on them to pay their hospital bills.\u00a0 Runaway spending is going to leave our young Americans forever known as the debt-paying generation.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We are watching America pass from the hands of the \"greatest generation\" to the debt-paying generation with nothing to show for it but the bill.\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131225101447/http://black.house.gov:80/press-release/black-introduces-federal-exchange-data-breach-notification-act-2013", "Black Introduces the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013\u00a0Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) has introduced H.R. 3731, the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013. This commonsense reform would simply require the federal government to notify individuals if their personal information has been compromised on the federal Obamacare exchange.\n\u201cWhether through Navigators with no background checks, or inadequate security testing on their website, the Obama Administration has thrown Americans\u2019 data security out the window when it comes to Obamacare,\u201d said Congressman Black. \u201cIT experts have repeatedly raised red flags about the security of the information people are putting into the exchanges, and it is only fair that the Administration gives people proper notice if this information has been compromised. Americans deserve this basic notice so that they can protect themselves from cyber attacks and identity theft. Most state run exchanges are subject to laws that guarantee this notice, and the federal government imposes these same rules on the private sector, yet they have gone out of their way to avoid imposing this basic diligence on their own Obamacare exchange. This is clearly wrong, and why I have introduced the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013 \u2013 legislation that requires that the Federal Trade Commission to notify individuals whose personal information has been jeopardized by a security breach.\u201d\nAccording to a report from Watchdog.org, the Department of Health and Human Services ignored requests from experts to include data breach notification policies when developing the federal exchange. As they report, under current law, \u201chacks that happen behind the scenes \u2014potentially stealing everything from Social Security numbers to Department of Homeland Security watch lists \u2014 never have to be reported.\u201d\nAdditional Resources:\nBlack Statement on Sebelius\u2019 \u201cNavigator\u201d Comment\nBlack, Meehan Seek Answers on IRS Security Testing\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085111/http://black.house.gov/press-release/case-you-missed-it-require-feds-disclose-security-breaches-healthcaregov", "In Case You Missed It: Require Feds to Disclose Security Breaches on Healthcare.gov", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Congresswoman: Require Feds to Disclose Security Breaches on Healthcare.gov\nBy Elizabeth Harrington\nPublished December 16, 2013\nA bill in the House of Representatives would require the federal government to tell Americans if their personal information has been stolen while using Healthcare.gov.\nRep. Diane Black (R., Tenn.) introduced the \u201cFederal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013\u201d on Thursday to address privacy concerns regarding the Obamacare insurance website, which has been live for months despite its lack of fundamental security safeguards.\nThe two-page bill (H.R. 3731) would \u201csimply require the federal government to notify individuals if their personal information has been compromised on the federal Obamacare exchange.\u201d\n\u201cWhether through Navigators with no background checks, or inadequate security testing on their website, the Obama administration has thrown Americans\u2019 data security out the window when it comes to Obamacare,\u201d Black said in a statement.\nBlack cited a report from Watchdog.org, which explained that no law currently requires notification when the security of online government databases is breached.\nMany state-run exchanges are required to disclose security incidents. For instance, the Minnesota health exchange was compromised even before it launched, resulting in the leak of 2,400 insurance brokers\u2019 Social Security numbers.\nShould Black\u2019s bill be signed into law, failure to disclose a security breach on the federal health exchange would be classified as an \u201cunfair or deceptive act\u201d under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which can carry a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.\nCyber security experts have warned Americans to stay away from the Obamacare website, saying no security has been built into its over 500 million lines of code, leaving Americans\u2019 personal information at risk.\nLast week, the House science committee sent a letter to the White House asking the administration what, if any, steps have been taken to address the security flaws within Healthcare.gov.\nBlack said her bill would at least allow Americans to know if their data has been hacked while using Healthcare.gov.\n\u201cIT experts have repeatedly raised red flags about the security of the information people are putting into the exchanges, and it is only fair that the administration gives people proper notice if this information has been compromised,\u201d she said. \u201cAmericans deserve this basic notice so that they can protect themselves from cyber attacks and identity theft.\u201d\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://fleischmann.house.gov/press-release/house-passes-bipartisan-budget-act", "House Passes Bipartisan Budget Act", "2013-12-13", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Chuck Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2212 The House of Representatives has passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.\u00a0 Following the vote, Congressman Fleischmann released the following statement.\n\u201cTonight, the House took a modest step toward reforming spending and setting our government on a more stable path.\u00a0 This agreement maintains sequester savings while also reforming the mandatory spending which is driving our national debt.\u00a0 In fact, this bill has a $23 billion net deficit reduction and ensures we will not shut down the government in 2014.\n\u201cWhile this bill is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction.\u00a0 For the first time since I have been in Congress, we will finally return to a regular appropriations process, an important step to ending the cycle of governing from crisis to crisis.\u00a0 I hope the Senate will quickly pass this bill so we can continue moving toward the real spending reform our nation so desperately needs.\u201d\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases/house-passes-bipartisan-budget-act", "House Passes Bipartisan Budget Act", "2013-12-13", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Charles J. \"Chuck\" Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", "fleischmann", "https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases", "scraper", "WASHINGTON\u2212 The House of Representatives has passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Following the vote, Congressman Fleischmann released the following statement.\n\n\u201cTonight, the House took a modest step toward reforming spending and setting our government on a more stable path. This agreement maintains sequester savings while also reforming the mandatory spending which is driving our national debt. In fact, this bill has a $23 billion net deficit reduction and ensures we will not shut down the government in 2014.\n\n\u201cWhile this bill is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. For the first time since I have been in Congress, we will finally return to a regular appropriations process, an important step to ending the cycle of governing from crisis to crisis. I hope the Senate will quickly pass this bill so we can continue moving toward the real spending reform our nation so desperately needs.\u201d\n\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:40:02Z"], ["http://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-desjarlais-votes-against-ryan-murray-budget-deal", "Rep. DesJarlais votes against Ryan-Murray budget deal", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Scott DesJarlais", "D000616", "desjarlais.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Congressman Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04) today released the following statement after voting against the Ryan-Murray budget deal:\n\u201cNot only does this budget deal fail to adequately address our nation\u2019s debt and deficit, it trades real spending cuts for the promise of future reductions. Further, this bill raises taxes under the guise of increasing user fees. My constituents are adamantly opposed to the idea of sending more of their money to Washington to pay for further government expansion.\n\u201cThis budget does not reflect the independent, conservative values we hold in Tennessee\u2019s Fourth Congressional District. Rather, this plan reflects the unacceptable status quo I was elected to fight against. Tennesseans are tired of career politicians who put more faith in manufactured poll numbers and the advice of high-priced political consultants than the views of their constituents.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://duncan.house.gov/press-release/duncan-opposes-budget-bill", "Duncan Opposes Budget Bill", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "John Duncan", "D000533", "duncan.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON--Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) released the following statement Thursday on his vote against a budget bill before the House of Representatives: \"I could not vote for a bill that increases spending by $63 billion when our National debt is more than $17 trillion dollars and climbing higher and faster than ever before. \u201cThe big increase in spending in this bill is offset only by promises of future cuts that could be changed by future Congresses. \u201cI agree with a column this week by Howard Kurtz, who wrote: \u2018Turns out nobody likes this budget deal except the press, which loves bipartisan agreements, no matter how puny.\u2019 \u201cIt also goes back on sequester cuts that were very minimal cuts, only about 2%. But you can never satisfy government\u2019s appetite for more money.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://fleischmann.house.gov/press-release/rep-fleischmann-submits-comments-defense-nuclear-facilities-safety-board", "Rep. Fleischmann Submits Comments to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Chuck Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "On December 10, 2013, Congressman Fleischmann submitted comments to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board\u2019s Safety in Design, Operations, and Emergency Preparedness at the Y-12 National Security Complex Public Hearing and Meeting. Click on the attachment below to read the letter.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://fleischmann.house.gov/press-release/rep-fleischmann-submits-letter-proposed-land-transfer-changes", "Rep. Fleischmann Submits Letter On Proposed Land Transfer Changes", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Chuck Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "On December 11, 2013, Congressman Fleischmann sent a letter to Secretary Moniz regarding the proposed land transfer changes that could greatly impact the Oak Ridge community.\u00a0 Click on the attachment below to read the letter.\n\t\t\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center?ID=E6A11D5B-564A-4C4D-8D5D-F32900414C3F", "Rep. DesJarlais votes against Ryan-Murray budget deal", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Scott DesJarlais", "D000616", "desjarlais.house.gov", "desjarlais", "https://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center", "scraper", "Congressman Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04) today released the following statement after voting against the Ryan-Murray budget deal:\n\n\u201cNot only does this budget deal fail to adequately address our nation\u2019s debt and deficit, it trades real spending cuts for the promise of future reductions. Further, this bill raises taxes under the guise of increasing user fees. My constituents are adamantly opposed to the idea of sending more of their money to Washington to pay for further government expansion.\n\n\u201cThis budget does not reflect the independent, conservative values we hold in Tennessee\u2019s Fourth Congressional District. Rather, this plan reflects the unacceptable status quo I was elected to fight against. Tennesseans are tired of career politicians who put more faith in manufactured poll numbers and the advice of high-priced political consultants than the views of their constituents.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:40:02Z"], ["https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-fleischmann-submits-comments-defense-nuclear-facilities-safety-board", "Rep. Fleischmann Submits Comments to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Charles J. \"Chuck\" Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", "fleischmann", "https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases", "scraper", "On December 10, 2013, Congressman Fleischmann submitted comments to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board\u2019s Safety in Design, Operations, and Emergency Preparedness at the Y-12 National Security Complex Public Hearing and Meeting. Click on the attachment below to read the letter.\n\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:40:02Z"], ["https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-fleischmann-submits-letter-proposed-land-transfer-changes", "Rep. Fleischmann Submits Letter On Proposed Land Transfer Changes", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Charles J. \"Chuck\" Fleischmann", "F000459", "fleischmann.house.gov", "fleischmann", "https://fleischmann.house.gov/media/press-releases", "scraper", "On December 11, 2013, Congressman Fleischmann sent a letter to Secretary Moniz regarding the proposed land transfer changes that could greatly impact the Oak Ridge community. Click on the attachment below to read the letter.\n\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:40:02Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140220235609/http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364345", "Blackburn Fights for America's Military", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Marsha Blackburn", "B001243", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) issued the following statement in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.Based on two bills, H.R 1960 and S.1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 is a bipartisan agreement on America\u2019s national security goals, resources, and policies. One NDAA provision, a restoration of the Army and Air Force flying hours, secured by Congressman Blackburn provides important resources to the Fort Campbell and broader military community. \u201cThroughout my career, I have worked hard to make sure America\u2019s military heroes had what they needed to fight the causes at hand. It is immoral to ask our military servicemen and women to suit up and ship out without the proper resources, training, and funds they need. It only takes a few weeks for our nation\u2019s pilots and crew members to lose currency, putting their lives and our nation\u2019s security at risk. We need to make sure resources are available to keep their training up to date. \u201cThe NDAA is a vital mechanism to provide funding for America\u2019s military. Passed for 51 consecutive years, it has a long and bipartisan history. On behalf of all the outstanding troops of the Tennessee Seventh Congressional District, and their families who serve at home, I am pleased to support this legislation.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140220235919/http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364336", "Blackburn Statement in Support of Budget Agreement", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Marsha Blackburn", "B001243", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) issued the following statement today in support of the Budget Agreement approved by the House of Representatives.\u201cThis agreement returns the power of the purse to Congress and allows us to take control of the budget process so we can begin to make permanent reforms to mandatory spending that will result in long term savings without raising taxes that President Obama wanted and needs to run his failed programs. It also achieves 100 percent of the Budget Control Act\u2019s spending cuts and reduces the deficit by an additional $23 billion. \u201cFurthermore, the agreement reins in waste, fraud and abuse by ending the permanent extension of unemployment benefits and putting a stop to government payments for prisoners and the deceased. Most importantly for our men and women in our military, the budget agreement will allow Congress and the Pentagon to return to regular order so we can better manage the cuts facing our military so that they will not damage our national security or vital installations like Fort Campbell. In addition, this bill ensures that our seniors will be able to continue to have access to their physicians and the care they deserve.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221002824/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=0435e2a7-62b2-444e-b8dd-e5a6698911e8", "Corker: \u201cNo Sacrifice\u201d for Iran in Interim Deal", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 During a Senate Banking Committee hearing on negotiations over Iran\u2019s nuclear program, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the interim agreement requires \u201cno sacrifice\u201d of Iran and that the sanctions relief being offered by the U.S. risks creating \u201ca rush\u201d to do business with Iran.\n\u201cOnce you begin loosening sanctions, and people begin to see that Iran is now going to become not a rogue country but part of the international community\u2026there is a rush\u2026to do business with them.\u00a0 And I think that\u2019s why we\u2019re all concerned that we did an interim deal that has no sacrifice on their part whatsoever,\u201d said Corker.\u00a0 \u201cObviously, we\u2019re disappointed but hopeful that somehow you can put the genie back in the bottle and end up with some type of agreement that averts warfare.\u00a0 Because of all of us do want this to succeed.\u00a0 We just don\u2019t know how we get there with an interim deal framed in this way.\u201d\nOn November 21, Corker introduced legislation, the Iran Nuclear Compliance Act of 2013, to keep the pressure on Iran during the negotiations and prevent an interim agreement from becoming the final deal.\u00a0The bill requires Iran to fully comply with any interim deal and meet the basic conditions for an acceptable final agreement before the president of the United States could waive additional sanctions.\u00a0 It further requires an immediate snapback of all sanctions after confirmation of Iran\u2019s noncompliance at any point or if an acceptable final deal isn\u2019t reached within six months.\nKey provisions of the legislation are available here. Full text of the bill and an additional summary are available here.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085233/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-statement-house-passage-budget-conference-agreement", "Black Statement on House Passage of Budget Conference Agreement", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington \u2013 Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) issued the following statement upon House passage of the bipartisan budget agreement:\n\u201cWhile this budget agreement is far from perfect, I believe it is a step in the right direction,\u201d said Congressman Black. \u201cDespite demands from Democrats, this budget plan will reduce our deficit by $23 billion over current law without raising taxes. Also, it will restore needed certainty to our budgeting process by returning Congress to regular order. This means that we can stop governing from crisis to crisis and focus on promoting economic growth and protecting Americans from the disastrous effects of Obamacare.\u201d\n\u201cIn addition, this agreement protects our military from devastating cuts which will help make sure our troops have what they need to keep us safe. I wish that this agreement went further to rein in Washington spending, but until conservatives control both Chambers of Congress and the White House, we must act incrementally where we can. This budget agreement reduces our deficit and moves us in the right direction.\u201d\nFor more information on the agreement, click here.\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20150110083938/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a08a17af-9a3e-4f26-8632-2f53c26b4015", "Alexander: Small Modular Reactors \u201cAn Additional Source of Clean, Cheap, Reliable Energy\u201d", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on the federal government\u2019s awarding of the second round of licensing support for the production of small modular nuclear reactors:\n\u201cThis is another step toward an additional source of clean, cheap, reliable energy. Congress directed the U.S. Department of Energy to make up to two competitive licensing support awards, and now the department has done so.\u201d\nThe U.S. Department of Energy today announced that it had selected Oregon-based NuScale for its second award for licensing support. The first award for licensing support went to Babcock & Wilcox of Tennessee, under which small modular reactors will be constructed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.\nSmall modular reactors are a form of technology under development that would allow for nuclear power installations that are smaller than traditional nuclear power plants, with less capital investment.\n\u00a0\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3d6f677f-94cd-46f3-8b44-0a7da6dba385", "Alexander, Feinstein Introduce Legislation to Stop Airplane Cell Phone Conversations", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Alexander says \u201ctext messages, yes; conversations, no\u201d\r\n***\r\n\u201cThis legislation is about avoiding something nobody wants: nearly 2 million passengers a day, hurtling through space, trapped in 17-inch-wide seats, yapping their innermost thoughts.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 12 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today introduced legislation to prohibit cell phone conversations on commercial airline flights, a possibility the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to consider today.\r\n\u201cKeeping phone conversations private on commercial flights may not be enshrined in the Constitution, but it is certainly enshrined in common sense,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cThis legislation is about avoiding something nobody wants: nearly 2 million passengers a day, hurtling through space, trapped in 17-inch-wide seats, yapping their innermost thoughts.\u201d\r\nU.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), an original cosponsor of the legislation, said: \u201cFlying on a commercial airline\u2014in a confined space, often for many hours\u2014is a unique travel experience that is, candidly, not conducive to numerous passengers talking on cell phones.\u00a0 This bill recognizes the use of cell phones to make calls during flights can be disruptive and irritating to other passengers and would prevent such communications during domestic flights.\u00a0 The bill, however, would not affect the ability to communicate via text and email during a flight.\u201d\r\nThe legislation, the Commercial Flight Courtesy Act, would prohibit the use of voice communication through cell phones on regularly scheduled commercial flights, after the Federal Communications Commission announced it is exploring what type of cell phone use is safe on airplanes. It would allow the use of cell phones for texting and other electronic communication, if the FCC were to approve such communications. It would also allow the use of personal electronic devices such as Kindles and iPads during flight, which the Federal Aviation Administration recently approved.\r\nThe FCC is scheduled to hold a public meeting this afternoon on a possible rule change approving the use of such technology on airplanes, a step it has acknowledged would \u201copen the door\u201d to approved cell phone conversations on flights. Alexander\u2019s legislation mirrors current regulation. It only applies to commercial airlines, not private charter flights or foreign carriers, unless the latter is flying between U.S. airports. It exempts federal air marshals and flight crews for official business.\r\nAlexander continued, \u201cWhen you stop and think about what we hear now in airport lobbies \u2013 babbling about last night\u2019s love life, next week\u2019s schedule, arguments with spouses \u2013 it\u2019s not hard to see why the FCC shouldn\u2019t allow cell phone conversations on airplanes. The solution is simple: text messages, yes; conversations, no.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c45714de-bd7c-41a0-80d0-3de7121653bb", "Alexander: Get Washington Out of the Way, College Accreditation Too Costly", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says Vanderbilt spends 5,000 hours to accredit College of Arts and Sciences, 8,000 hours for School of Engineering\r\n***\r\n\u201cThe whole purpose of accreditation to begin with was an effort by autonomous institutions to regulate themselves with the sole purpose of determining quality. \u2026 Are the accreditors doing some things they don\u2019t need to be doing? And are they spending enough time really focused on quality?\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 12 \u2013 The senior Republican on the Senate education committee today questioned whether \u201cthe federal government has overstepped\u201d in college accreditation, asking witnesses at a hearing to consider whether federal requirements have accreditors losing their focus on quality.\r\nU.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, recounted the history of accreditation, noting that it began as a way for colleges to self-regulate and ensure quality. As federal aid became tied to accreditation standards, Alexander said, the federal government added requirements that may be harming efforts to ensure quality education. He asked witnesses to help identify those areas.\r\n\u00a0\u201cI think it is important to look back at where accreditation came from to see what it\u2019s central purpose is, whether the accreditors are fulfilling that role, what is the federal government\u2019s role in accreditation, and has the federal government overstepped to the point that accreditors are not doing what they were designed to do,\u201d Alexander said.\r\nComparing the single page of requirements from 1952 with stacks of paper of current federal statute and regulation, Alexander noted that federal accreditors now must consider 93 criteria. Alexander said, \u201cThis is what it is today. This is the law, these are the regulations. These are the sub-regulations \u2013 still quite a bit, and I think one of the things we want to know is, is all this necessary?\r\n\u201cIn our previous hearings, I have suggested that, through no evil intention of anybody, we\u2019ve reauthorized the Higher Education Act, I think nine times since 1965, and maybe we\u2019ve piled on laws and regulations, without thinking about what could be removed.\u201d\r\nThe senator described several phases of how the accreditation process has evolved from a simple way for schools to self-regulate to an extensive system of federal regulation. They included:\r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\nThe beginning of accreditation back in 1885 as a way for schools to differentiate for themselves whether they were high schools or colleges. About 3 percent of Americans were completing college at that point, Alexander said.\r\nThe increasing use of accreditation to determine quality among colleges, including the G.I. Bill tying approval of federal financial aid for veterans of the Korean War to the accreditation of colleges. Veterans were able to use federal money to go to any accredited schools, at which point about 6 percent of Americans were completing college, Alexander said.\r\nThe requirement in 1965 that any student receiving federal financial aid go to a federally accredited university, which led over time to increased federal regulation of the accreditation process. Today, Vanderbilt University devotes more than 5,000 hours to accreditation-related work for its College of Arts and Sciences, and up to 8,000 hours for its School of Engineering, Alexander said.\r\n \r\n\u201cThe whole purpose of accreditation to begin with was an effort by autonomous institutions to regulate themselves with the sole purpose of determining quality.\r\n\u201cThe federal government then \u2013 understandably, because we spend lot of money to help students \u2013 said, well, we want to make sure they are going to proper institutions, and so we have gotten involved in giving the accreditors more to do.\r\n\u201cAre the accreditors doing some things they don\u2019t need to be doing? And are they spending enough time really focused on quality?\u201d\r\nWhile questioning witnesses, the senator asked them to identify areas where the committee could clarify the proper role of accreditors and the federal government. Alexander said, \u201cHelp us sort out what accreditors are supposed to do, what the federal government is supposed to do, and what accreditors are doing now that you don\u2019t need to be doing.\r\n\u201cThe only other thing to do is hire a bunch of regulators and put them in the Department of Education and travel around and see 7,000 institutions and that would be a disaster. They wouldn\u2019t have a clue about what they were seeing.\u201d\r\nAlexander\u2019s full opening remarks follow:\r\nI want to welcome our witnesses and thank Chairman Harkin for this hearing. I especially appreciate the even-handed way he\u2019s approached all of these subjects on higher education and I look forward to working with him to doing our best to try to reauthorize higher education next year.\r\nI am glad that we are looking at the role of accreditation in all types of the six or seven thousand higher education institutions we have, and I think it is important to look back at where accreditation came from to see what it\u2019s central purpose is, whether the accreditors are fulfilling that role, what is the federal government\u2019s role in accreditation, and has the federal government overstepped to the point that accreditors are not doing what they were designed to do.\r\nIt\u2019s worth it to me to go back to where accreditation started.\u00a0\r\nThe first accrediting agencies emerged more than 120 years ago, in the late 1800s. That was a very different time. There were not many colleges, most of them were private, and they had abandoned the classical curriculum and some were adopting the new elective system.\u00a0\r\nThere were new types of institutions \u2013 it wasn\u2019t even clear what the difference was between a high school and a college, so the accrediting agencies\u2019 first role in that phase was to help create common admission standards so you could decide what was a high school and what was a college.\u00a0\r\nAnd the first effort at that was in 1885, at the turn of the 20th century, Mr. Chairman \u2013 when all this was going on, less than 13 percent of Americans were completing high school and less than 3 percent were completing college degrees. There wasn\u2019t any federal involvement at all in any of that.\r\nThen the G.I. Bill came in 1944 - money for veterans - and they could even spend the money at high schools. The number of people going to college doubled, but still wasn\u2019t really very many.\u00a0\r\nThen the Korean War came, and the Korean War G.I. Bill specified that institutions of higher education needed to be accredited by federally recognized accreditors in order for a veteran to spend money there. So, it began to tie the federal government to the existing institutions.\r\nAnd at that time, only about 35 percent of students were graduating from high school and 6 percent were completing college. That\u2019s the time of the Korean War. So, this is where this all came from.\r\nState approval of institutions was enough, everybody thought, for all of these higher education institutions. That pretty well lasted until 1965 with the federal student aid. It would only go to institutions recognized by a federally recognized accreditor. That\u2019s what the 1965 Higher Education Act did.\r\nThat tied eligibility to receive federal aid to federal regulation \u2013 but the law pretty well remained silent.\u00a0\r\nThis page [holding up a single sheet of paper], Mr. Chairman, is the entire amount of federal law on accreditation in the federal government in 1952, at the end of the Korean War.\r\nAnd this is what it is today [holding up a stack of papers]. This is the law, these are the regulations. These are the sub-regulations \u2013 still quite a bit, and I think one of the things we want to know is, is all this necessary?\r\nIn our previous hearings, I have suggested that, through no evil intention of anybody, we\u2019ve reauthorized the Higher Education Act, I think nine times since 1965, and maybe we\u2019ve piled on laws and regulations, without thinking about what could be removed. I\u2019ll be interested to see what you think about whether we are adding unnecessary costs and delays to institutions with these federal requirements.\r\nBriefly, in 1992 \u2013 and I was Education Secretary at that time [of the] the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Sen. Kennedy was particularly involved in this. Sen. Harkin was on the committee at that time.\r\nIt defined the areas that accreditors needed to examine, and by then, 80 percent of Americans were completing high school and 21 percent were completing college. And that language was modified and expanded in 1998 and 2008.\r\nSo now we have 93 different criteria that accreditors must consider when determining institutional quality.\r\nI think the main point to make Mr. Chairman, and I\u2019ll bring my remarks to a conclusion so that we can hear from our witnesses. The whole purpose of accreditation to begin with was an effort by autonomous institutions to regulate themselves with the sole purpose of determining quality.\r\nThe federal government then \u2013 understandably, because we spend lot of money to help students \u2013 said, well, we want to make sure they are going to proper institutions, and so we have gotten involved in giving the accreditors more to do.\r\nI think we have to think about \u2013 have we asked the accreditors to do some things that they shouldn\u2019t be doing? Are the accreditors doing some things they don\u2019t need to be doing? And are they spending enough time really focused on quality?\r\nAt Vanderbilt University, they estimate its College of Arts and Sciences devotes more than 5,000 hours to accreditation-related work every year, and that its School of Engineering devotes up to 8,000 hours of work every year on accreditation.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThat is probably way too much, so we are looking for advice and we are trying to work together to sort through what has been done, and I appreciate the chairman giving me a little more time to talk about this. But I have watched it from various angles, from the angle of a university president, an education secretary and a governor, and I have gotten pretty mad at accreditors sometimes when they came in and told me what to do that I didn\u2019t think needed to be done \u2013 for example, when I was president of the University of Tennessee.\r\nSo I welcome your testimony, I thank the chairman for the hearing, and I look forward to the opportunity to ask questions.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://roe.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364105", "Roe Joins Scalise, Blackburn to request meeting with President Obama to discuss health care alternative", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Phil Roe", "R000582", "roe.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.  In a letter sent to President Barack Obama today, three Members of the Republican Study Committee who helped craft the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act requested a meeting to discuss a better way to health care reform. The letter was signed by RSC Chairman Steve Scalise, Congressman Phil Roe and Congressman Marsha Blackburn.\r\nThe letter comes in response to President Obama's statement earlier this month that the only alternative that Obamacare's critics have is, well, let's just go back to the status quo  because they sure haven't presented an alternative.\r\nThe American Health Care Reform Act currently has 117 cosponsors  a number that grows every day, the members write in the letter. Our legislation is anything but the status quo  it is a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system. In addition to the American Health Care Reform Act, Members of the RSC have introduced more than 200 health care related bills this Congress. As a caucus, we are dedicated to improving access to health care for all Americans. We welcome the opportunity to share these ideas with you.\r\nThe full text of the letter can be found here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085258/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-commends-house-passage-gabriella-miller-kids-first-research-act", "Black Commends House Passage of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington \u2013 Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) issued the following statement upon House passage of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act \u2013 bipartisan legislation she cosponsored that would eliminate taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party conventions and use these funds to expand pediatric research at the National Institutes of Health:\n\u201cI am pleased that the House has passed this commonsense measure today,\u201d said Congressman Black. \u201cWhile we work to reduce government spending, it is also important that we target taxpayer dollars in ways that can best help the American people. Taking federal funds from political events to expand research into pediatric illnesses is a step in the right direction, and I am proud to support this important legislation to improve children\u2019s healthcare.\u201d\nFor more information on the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, click here.\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085444/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-statement-budget-conference-agreement", "Black Statement on Budget Conference Agreement", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington \u2013 Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06), member of the bicameral budget conference committee, issued the following statement on the agreement reached:\n\u201cWhile far from perfect, this agreement represents a modest step in the right direction,\u201d said Congressman Black. \u201cBy restoring our budgeting process to regular order, we can stop governing from crisis to crisis and provide some needed certainty to the way Washington works for the American people. Furthermore, this deal reduces our deficit without raising taxes and provides smarter cuts and reforms that will help make our government more responsible and efficient. We have much more work to do to tackle our nation\u2019s fiscal challenges, but in a divided government, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.\u201d\nFor more information on the agreement, click here.\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20160116033259/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=0f6bd362-da8f-4205-aa37-0003435d4723", "Alexander Names New Chief of Staff", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) released the following statement:\n\u201cI have named David Cleary as my chief of staff. David has worked with me for eight years and fortunately is well-prepared to step into this position.\n\u201cEarlier today, I was informed by the United States Senate legal counsel\u2019s office that law enforcement agents were conducting a search of the personal residence of Ryan Loskarn, who has been chief of staff of my Washington, D.C., office, regarding allegations involving child pornography. I am stunned, surprised and disappointed by what I have learned. Based on this information, I immediately placed Mr. Loskarn on administrative leave without pay. The office is fully cooperating with the investigation.\n\u201cThe courts will judge Mr. Loskarn\u2019s guilt or innocence, but under these circumstances, he cannot continue to fulfill his duties as chief of staff of this office. Therefore, as of today, I have removed him from the payroll.\u201d\nDavid Cleary has served as Alexander\u2019s legislative director since 2011 and as Republican staff director for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee since 2012. He has been working with Alexander since 2006. Cleary previously served as a staff member on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce under then-Chairman John Boehner (R-Ohio), and as a legislative analyst for the U.S. Department of Education. Cleary earned a B.A. in Political Science and Master of Public Administration from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He is married to Marci Vanim Cleary and they have a 6-year old daughter, Maria.\u00a0\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=5cdac021-031f-4b25-94a0-68ee77c20e4d", "Alexander Introduces Bill to Include Four Tennessee Civil War Battlefields in National Park System", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says the legislation, introduced in House by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, will \u201cpreserve and protect our heritage\u201d in Tennessee\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today announced that he introduced legislation that would expand the boundary of Shiloh National Military Park to include three Civil War battlefields in Tennessee and designate Parker\u2019s Crossroads as an affiliated area of the National Park System. U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Brentwood) introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year.\r\n\u201cAs Americans, we have a special obligation to preserve and protect our heritage,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cIncluding these Civil War battlefields in the National Park System will honor that commitment, while providing an opportunity to attract more visitors to Tennessee and encourage the local economies.\u201d\r\n\u201cI am pleased to be working with Senator Alexander in preserving this important piece of our national history,\u201d Blackburn said. \u201cTennessee played a vital role in the Civil War and it\u2019s important that we remember those who lost their lives on these hallowed grounds while fighting for what they believed in. This legislation will preserve our history for future generations and encourage all to travel to West Tennessee to see it firsthand.\u201d\r\nThe legislation would designate battlefields at Davis Bridge and Fallen Timbers in Tennessee and Russell House (which is in Tennessee and Mississippi) as part of Shiloh National Military Park. It will also include Parker\u2019s Crossroads of Tennessee in the National Park System. The National Park Service has already determined these battlefields are nationally significant and in need of preservation and protection, and the majority of the land included in this legislation is currently owned by the State of Tennessee or the Civil War Trust, which would speed the process of including these areas in the system.\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d49234b5-ae5c-4da6-9293-97f3a1b82a30", "Alexander Statement on Law Enforcement Investigation of Chief of Staff", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) released the following statement:\r\n\u201cI was just informed by the United States Senate legal counsel\u2019s office that law enforcement agents are conducting a search of the personal residence of Ryan Loskarn, the chief of staff of my Washington, D.C., office regarding allegations involving child pornography. I am stunned, surprised and disappointed by what I have learned. Based on this information, I immediately placed Mr. Loskarn on administrative leave without pay. The office is fully cooperating with the investigation.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085716/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-challenges-sebelius-defend-obamacare-broken-promises", "Black Challenges Sebelius to Defend Obamacare Broken Promises", "2013-12-10", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington \u2013 Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) issued the following statement ahead of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius\u2019 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday:\n\u201cObamacare is an unmitigated disaster that is resulting in dropped coverage, skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, and causing Americans across the country to lose access to the doctors and hospitals they know. This is in direct contrast to repeated promises made by the President and his Administration. Furthermore, the website is not secure, potentially risking the security of Americans\u2019 most sensitive personal information as they seek to enroll in the exchanges. How does Secretary Sebelius intend to rectify the pain that this Administration has inflicted on the American public by Obamacare? Every day I hear from my constituents about how they are being impacted by this law. For instance, Steve Jones, a Pastor from Cookeville, Tennessee, wrote this to me:\n\u2018I am one of those who were lied to. I have received my cancellation letter. I have been trying for weeks to get through the system so I can purchase insurance, even though I don't like it. I cannot. I have called the center three times this week alone and each time after a lengthy time of the agent trying to help me, I have been told the system is now down to call back later. I have submitted an application online but have been waiting for weeks to get my identity verified, as in the early days of the system the attempt online failed. I have uploaded all they asked for but still cannot even get to the area of purchasing insurance. I am dealing with what is likely prostate cancer and if I cannot get this done in the next two weeks I will go January at least without insurance. I have never been so discouraged with our country as I am now.\u2019\n\u201cSadly, stories such as Steve\u2019s have become emblematic of the disastrous effects Obamacare is having on Americans across the country. Secretary Sebelius must answer for this Administration\u2019s broken promises, and must tell Steve and the American people how she plans to stop the pain Obamacare is causing them.\u201d\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=e9c799ce-d808-4aa5-9055-e04966cbf800", "Alexander: Majority Leader Reid, the \u201cObstructionist in Chief,\u201d Broke Senate Rules to \u201cHelp Obama Administration Advance its Radical Agenda Unchecked Through the Courts and Executive Agencies\u201d", "2013-12-10", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says Democratic Leader has imposed \u201cgag rules\u201d 191 times, \u201ccutting off the right of American voices to be heard on the Senate floor\u201d\r\n***\r\n\u201cThe \u2018nuclear option\u2019 vote was not about the filibuster \u2026 The vote was about allowing the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it \u2026 In a country that prizes the rule of law, we now have a Senate without any rules because the Senate majority has decided, for the first time, that a majority can change the rules at any time, for any reason it wants, which makes this a body without rules.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 10 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), in a speech last night on the Senate floor, said that Senate Majority Harry Reid has become the Senate\u2019s \u201cobstructionist in chief.\u201d\r\nAlexander said Reid has imposed gag rules 191 times, \u201ccutting off the right of American voices to be heard on the Senate floor. Seventy-seven times this majority leader has cut off amendments in a body whose whole purpose is to amend, debate, and vote. He has filed a motion to cut off debate 114 times on the same day he has introduced a bill, and he calls that a \u2018filibuster.\u2019\u201d\r\nOn Nov. 21, Reid and 51 other Senate Democrats exercised the so-called \u201cnuclear option,\u201d voting to end the right to filibuster presidential nominations, except for those to the U.S. Supreme Court.\r\nAlexander said the \u201c\u2018nuclear option\u2019 vote was not about the filibuster \u2026 The vote was about allowing the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it,\u201d and \u201cI know of only one cure for this dangerous trend, and that is one word, an election \u2013 the election of six new Republican senators, so power plays such as Obamacare and the Nov. 21 rules change will be ended and the Senate will again be alive with bills, amendments, and debates, reflecting the will of the American people on the important issues of our time.\u201d\r\nThe full text of the speech follows:\r\n\u00a0\r\nI appreciate the courtesy of the majority leader in allowing me to ask him a question. I have more to say about this whole subject. But let me go back to my point. There are 13 district judges on the calendar. On November 21, when we last met, there were 13 district judges. There is only one person in this chamber who can bring a judge from the calendar to the floor for confirmation. That is the majority leader. Why did he not bring them all up? Why didn't he move them? Because under our rules, all he has to do is make a motion that so-and-so district judge be confirmed. If he files cloture, we have to wait one day, and then we have two hours of debate.\r\nNever in the history of the country, according to the Congressional Research Service, has a district judge been denied his or her seat because of a failed cloture vote, because of a filibuster. I know this from personal experience, because a judge named McConnell from Rhode Island was nominated by President Obama at the recommendation of the Rhode Island senators, and there were a number on this side who said we should filibuster the judge.\u00a0\r\nI thought not. I argued to all of the Republicans that we never had done that in history and we ought not to do it, we ought not to start it. So, what has happened? I believe, with all due respect, the majority leader is manufacturing a crisis. There is no crisis with those 13 district judges. He is the one who could bring them up. He could have done it on Thursday, November 21, the day he changed the rules. Friday would be the intervening day. The maximum amount of debate the Democrats could require on each judge would be one hour, if they yield back their hour. So in 13 hours, before midnight tonight, they could all be district judges. They were sitting on the calendar waiting for the majority leader to move.\u00a0\r\nThe same is true with the sub-cabinet members. But let's just stay with the district judges for a minute. I know I am right about this because I have sat down with the Senate historian. I sat down with the Congressional Research Service.\u00a0 I said, has there ever been a president's nominee for a federal district judge who has not been confirmed because of a failed cloture vote? The answer is zero \u2013 not for President Obama, not for President Bush, not for President Clinton, not for any president.\r\nBecause Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, believed that the district judges were moving too slowly through the Senate, we changed the rules this past year. We said that with district judges, once there is a cloture vote \u2013 and remember, no judge has ever been denied his seat because of a cloture vote. Once there is a cloture vote, there can only be two hours of debate, one for the minority and one for the majority. So, this is a manufactured crisis. That is what was done in order to do what the Democratic majority did on November 21, which is the most stunning development in the history of the Senate in terms of a rules change, and I intend to talk about that tonight. I want to go through some very specific facts \u2013 not speeches, not something made up, but facts.\r\nI am glad that the majority leader moved four district judges but every one of the other nine might ask, \u201cMr. Majority Leader, why did you not move my name? Why are you leaving me out?\u201d Because you could move it on Monday, wait a day, and on Wednesday you could confirm every single one of the judges there.\r\nThe reason was because the majority leader wanted to make it look like there was a problem here so he could do as Senator Levin said we did on November 21 \u2013 in effect, create a Senate without rules \u2013 over the objection of 48 senators the Democratic majority established a precedent that the Senate can change the rules any time it wants to for any reason it wants to. So, I want to speak a little bit tonight about how I and other senators are expected to serve in a Senate with no rules.\r\nYesterday was a pretty exciting day in the National Football League. There were a lot of close games. The Ravens and the Vikings scored five touchdowns in two minutes and one second. In Pittsburgh, Miami was ahead when the Steelers\u2019 Anthony Brown raced into the end zone after a series of lateral passes. It was one of those things where it is the last play of the game and they start playing, passing to each other. It rarely works. Every now and then it does, and it appeared to in this case because Brown was the last one with the ball. He got into the end zone before time expired, but the officials ruled he had stepped out of bounds before scoring.\r\nWhat if Pittsburgh had said yesterday, \u201cWait a minute, we are the home team. We will change the rules and say if you step out of bounds only once as you are running toward the end zone with lateral passes on the last play of the game, then you score, so Pittsburgh wins the game\u201d?\r\nOr what if they had said, \u201cWe are the home team. We will just add five minutes and see if we can win the game in that five minutes\u201d? They would have been happy in Pittsburgh yesterday, but maybe not for long.\r\nBut what happens when Miami becomes the home team and Pittsburgh goes to Miami to play and Miami changes the rules in the middle of the game so Miami can win? What would happen to the game of professional football if the home team could change the rules in the middle of the game to get the result it wanted? The National Football League knows. They spend a lot of time on rules. They know if there is no integrity for the rules there is no integrity for the game, and pretty soon the fans do not watch the game because the game has no integrity.\u00a0\r\nThat is why the NFL goes to such great lengths about its rules. There are officials all over the field. They are standing, you know, right in the middle of the play. There is an instant review of every call they make. When they make a call, they huddle to see if they interpreted the rule right.\u00a0 If a coach doesn't like it, he has an opportunity to challenge the ruling. There is someone up in a box who looks at that and reviews it. Today, Monday morning in New York, in the National Football League office, senior retired officials get together and they review every single call and every single no-call that was made yesterday in every league game. They grade every single official based on those calls, and rarely does anyone get 100 percent. The NFL is in a constant review of the rules because if there is no integrity to the rules, they know there is no integrity to the game, and there will be no fans.\u00a0\r\nI say this because on Thursday, the last day we were here, November 21, before senators went home for Thanksgiving, the Democratic majority destroyed the rules of the Senate. With all of the Republican members opposed and three Democratic members opposed, the Senate voted 52 to 48 to invoke the so-called nuclear option, allowing a majority of senators present and voting \u2013 so not necessarily 51 \u2013 to approve presidential nominees except for Supreme Court Justices. For those positions, they eliminated the filibuster, which required 60 votes to proceed to an up-or-down majority vote.\r\nThat is what Senator Reid went through a few minutes ago.\u00a0 He was saying that we will move for cloture, we will have an intervening day, and then we will have a cloture vote. Before Thursday, before November 21, that took 60 votes. Although, as I said, in the case of federal district judges it had never been used to deny a seat. But now it only takes a majority of those present and voting. This was the most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote the rules because it creates a perpetual opportunity for what Alexis de Tocqueville called, when he traveled our country in the 1830s, one of the greatest threats to our democracy, and that is the \u201ctyranny of the majority.\u201d\r\nThis stunning rules change by the Senate majority can best be described as Obamacare II. One of the things that Americans really didn't like about the new health care law, Obamacare, was that it was passed in the dead of night by a purely partisan vote during a snowstorm. It showed that those who had the votes could do whatever they wanted no matter what the minority thought, and we can see the results: millions of Americans having their policies canceled. Next year, tens of millions will \u2013 those who get their insurance through employers. This is another example of that kind of power play. This time the goal was to help the administration and the Democratic majority advance its radical agenda, unchecked through the courts and the executive agencies.\r\nAs the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, said \u2013 quoting a former Republican senator, Senator Vandenberg \u2013 Senator Levin is a Democrat \u2013 said on that Thursday, \u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\"\u00a0\r\n\u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\u201d\r\nSimilar to the Pittsburgh game, if the home team can change its rules at any time there are no rules to the game.\u00a0\r\nEvery child knows that there have to be rules to the game. So, I have this question: How am I and how are other senators supposed to serve in a Senate with no rules? How is this different from what could have happened in Pittsburgh if they changed the rules in the middle of the game? Or if the Red Sox, finding themselves behind in the ninth inning, added a few innings just to make sure they beat the Cardinals in the World Series. In the Senate, future majorities could do whatever they want, end the filibuster for legislation, removing any obstacle to the tyranny of the majority. Just as if there were no integrity of the rules of football and there would be no integrity of the game and there would be no fans, if there were no integrity to the rules of the Senate, there is no integrity for the Senate and no respect for this part of our system of government.\r\nI think I was not overstating it when I said this is the most dangerous change to the rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them. When he did write the rules, he had this to say about why we have rules. His words are in the Senate rules book that every single one of us has and hopefully have read at least the beginning parts of. This is worth reading \u2013 by Jefferson. It is titled, \u201cThe Importance of Adhering to Rules.\u201d\r\nRemember the argument here is not about the filibuster; it is about how the rules were changed.\u00a0 \u201cThe Importance of Adhering to Rules.\u201d I am going to read a little bit of this. According to Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Senate rules:\r\n\u201cMr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons, used to say, \u201cit was a maxim he had often heard, when he was a young man, from old and experienced members, that nothing tended to throw power more into the hand of administration and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding:\u00a0 that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority; and that they were in many instances a shelter, and a protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.\u201d\r\nThis is Thomas Jefferson writing about the importance of rules when he wrote the Senate rules. Continuing:\r\n\u201cSo far the maxim is certainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power, are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found necessary from time to time, and are become the law of the House; by a strict adherence to which, the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.\u201d\r\nI would think a majority that claims to protect the rights of minorities would be interested in these words of Jefferson and especially in the following words:\r\n\u201cAnd whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.\u201d\r\nThat was Thomas Jefferson on the importance of Senate rules when he wrote them at the beginning of our country.\r\nThe majority has set a precedent that destroys those rules \u2013 that destroys the integrity of the rules because a Senate in which a majority can change the rules at any time for any reason is a Senate with no rules. That is why it is not too much to say that the Democratic majority has created a perpetual opportunity for the tyranny of the majority. The majority can do anything it wants any time it wants.\r\nIn this case, what it wanted to do was stack the federal court that hears most of the challenges to its radical regulatory agenda with judges who believe in that agenda. Who knows what the next power play will be. First it was Obamacare; then Obamacare II, the change of the rules. What we do know is that this majority has set an unprecedented precedent. They have set the precedent to do whatever they want to do anytime they want to do it. They have created a Senate without rules.\r\nNow, let's talk a little bit about what the justification might be for such a stunning action, because there are so many words thrown around that don't represent facts at all that I wonder about this. For example, the Democrats complain that their radical action was warranted because the Senate is broken. I agree with that. I will explain in a few moments why I think so. Their reason is that President Obama's appointees have been unfairly denied seats by failed cloture votes or filibusters. The charge was \u2013 and you heard the majority leader a few minutes ago \u2013 things have gotten so bad that this Republican minority has treated President Obama unfairly by denying his nominees their seats by failed cloture votes or filibusters. The Democrats have gotten themselves in a room and convinced each other that this is true, but it is flat-out not true.\r\nAccording to the Congressional Research Service \u2013 and I have researched this for several months and asked them this question: Has there ever been any Supreme Court nominee, by any president, who has been denied his or her seat by a filibuster? The answer is no. It is zero. (Now, there is one possible exception. Abe Fortas was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson as Chief Justice.\u00a0 The nomination was in trouble on both sides of the aisle, and to help his friend Abe Fortas save face, President Johnson engineered a cloture vote in 1968. I think the vote was 45 to 43. They called that a win to help Abe \u201csave face.\u201d) But certainly President Obama's nominees have not been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote, and neither have any other presidents\u2019.\u00a0\r\nHave there ever been any cabinet members of President Obama or any other president who have been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote or by a filibuster? According to the Congressional Research Service, the answer is no. The number is zero.\u00a0 There have been no cabinet members who have been denied their seats in the Obama administration by a failed cloture vote.\r\nHave there ever been any federal district judges denied their seats by a failed cloture vote for President Obama or any other president? The answer is zero. Except for perhaps Fortas, there has never been a Supreme Court Justice, cabinet member, or federal district judge nomination in the history of President Obama \u2013 and never in the history of this country has a president's nomination been denied by a filibuster. Interesting.\u00a0\r\nThen why did we go to this stunning radical move on November 21? Well, maybe it was because of sub-cabinet members. How many of those have been denied their seats by a filibuster, according to the Congressional Research Service? Two of President Obama's, three of President George W. Bush's, and two of President Clinton's. That is a total of seven in the history of the Senate when a filibuster has said to a sub-cabinet member that we are going to deny them their seat because of a filibuster or a failed cloture vote. So, President Obama has been treated about exactly the same as his last two predecessors.\r\nIn all of those I just mentioned, among Cabinet members, district judges, Supreme Court Justices, and sub-cabinet members, we only found two Obama nominees who have been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote. Now, that is a fact. That is not a piece of Republican propaganda. That comes from the Congressional Research Service.\r\nWhy is there a fuss about this? Well, maybe it is because of the federal circuit judges. Well, let's talk about that. As for appeals court judges, Republican filibusters have blocked five. Why did that happen? That happened as a result of what happened in 2003, the year I came to the Senate.\u00a0\r\nThen, Democrats got together and said, \u201cWe think President Bush's nominees are too conservative, so, for the first time in the history of the Senate, we are going to block 10 of President Bush's nominees basically because they are too conservative.\u201d I knew some of those judges. I used to clerk on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge John Minor Wisdom. I knew the respect he had for Judge Pryor. I knew Mr. Pickering, who had really been a pioneer for civil rights in the State of Mississippi in the 1960s and 1970s when it was hard to do that.\r\nThe truth is that the majority of Democrats said, \u201cWe are going to block 10 of the Bush judges. It has never been done before, but we are going to do it with a cloture vote.\u201d\r\nWell, as you can guess, everyone on the Republican side \u2013 and the majority then \u2013 got very excited. The majority leader, Senator Frist, said, \u201cWe are going to change the rules\u201d and do something that Senator Lott \u2013 a majority leader at one time \u2013 said was the \u201cnuclear option.\u201d\r\nThere was great consternation. In 2006, Senator Reid said \u2013 and he recounts this very well in his book \u2013 \u201cto do so would be the end of the Senate.\u201d\r\nI made two speeches. I suggested that, well, this is a terrible thing to do. A president ought to have an up-or-down vote on his circuit judges. So, why don't we see if we can't get a few Republicans and a few Democrats and just take it out of the hands of the leaders and agree we will only use the filibuster on circuit judges in extraordinary circumstances, which was the result.\u00a0 I said at the time that I would never vote for a filibuster on a circuit judge. I adjusted my view to be the same as the Senate precedent that came out of the Gang of 14. Of the 10 Bush judges, five were not confirmed and five were confirmed. In 2003, Democratic senators for the first time in history refused to confirm five presidential nominees for the federal court of appeals by a cloture vote \u2013 by a filibuster \u2013 and the expected happened. Over time, the Republicans now have blocked five nominations. So, Republicans and Democrats are even.\r\nWhen you start something, things have a way of coming back around. What the Democrats said was fair to do in 2003 and 2004, the Republicans now say is fair to do. If the Democrats think the Republican nominees are too conservative, they will block five of them. If we think President Obama's nominees are too liberal, then we will block five of them. We put in the trash heap the tradition that we will never use the filibuster on federal courts of appeals judges.\r\nThe majority leader and others have said, \u201cWell, that is not the only problem. The problem is that President Obama has had to wait too long to get his judges confirmed.\u201d\r\nAgain, that is not true either. This is another case where the Democrats apparently have gotten themselves in a room and convinced themselves that something that isn't true is true. According to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama's second-term cabinet nominees have been confirmed at about the same pace as President Bush's cabinet nominees and President Clinton's cabinet nominees.\r\nThe other day, I heard the majority leader use the example of the distinguished Secretary of Defense and a former member of this body, Senator Hagel, as an example of delay. Well, let me comment on that, if I may. Senator Hagel's nomination was reported to the Senate floor.\r\nThe day after it was reported by the Armed Services Committee, the majority leader filed cloture and called that a filibuster.\u00a0\r\nNow, many Republican senators \u2013 I watched the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina and others say on the floor to the majority leader, \u201cThat is premature. You are cutting off debate before we have had a chance to consider the Secretary of Defense of this country.\u00a0 If you will allow us more time\u201d \u2013 at that time we were going into the Presidents Day recess for a week \u2013 \u201cwe will cut off debate the day we come back and then we will have an up-or-down vote.\u201d\r\nBut, no, the majority leader and the White House said, \u201cRam it through.\u201d\u00a0\r\nThey insisted on a vote, the vote was turned down, and he called that a filibuster. I call it cutting off debate \u2013 cutting off debate prematurely. Why in the world wouldn't you allow a Secretary of Defense to be on the floor for more than one day before you cut off the debate prematurely and call it a filibuster?\r\nThe majority leader said: Well, we could be attacked.\u00a0\r\nI think he must have forgotten we had a perfectly adequate Secretary of Defense in place \u2013 Leon Panetta \u2013 until the next one was confirmed, and he was going to be confirmed because the majority had the majority of votes to do that and a cabinet member had never been denied his or her seat because of a cloture vote.\r\nI want to keep coming back to that. A Cabinet member has never been denied confirmation because of a failed cloture vote. A Cabinet member will be confirmed after a while \u2013 after you have questions. But in that case, they filed cloture after one day.\r\nNow, in my case, 20 years ago, when President Bush nominated me as the education secretary, there was a Democratic Senate. I was announced in December, nominated in January, and it was March before some of the Democratic senators saw fit to give me a vote, and I was confirmed by unanimous consent. During that time I tried to get ready for our education program. It gave me some time to work. When President Reagan nominated Ed Meese to be the attorney general, it took a year before the Senate confirmed Ed Meese, but he was confirmed. There have been some cabinet members who have withdrawn their names because they have become embarrassed or for some other reason.\u00a0\r\nIf the question is whether a failed cloture vote has ever been used to deny a cabinet member his or her seat, the answer is no. In the case of Secretary Hagel, I would think one day is not quite long enough to file a motion to cut off debate and claim it is a filibuster.\r\nWhat about judges? Has the Senate been slow on judges?\u00a0\r\nThis year the Senate has confirmed 36 of the president's second-term nominees to circuit and district courts, compared with 14 for President Bush as of November 21 in his second term in 2005. These things are never exact because there are vacancies for a variety of reasons. That is a pretty big difference. It is very hard to argue that it is unfair. But the majority leader did argue successfully that the minority was holding up district judges in order to negotiate for other points.\u00a0 He did that the second time a bipartisan group of us sat down to talk about how to change the Senate rules so we could move along better.\r\nSo what the Senate agreed to do earlier this year was to change the rules to make it easier to confirm district judges.\r\nHere is the procedure: Remember, first they have to be on the calendar. How do they get on the calendar? A committee majority puts them on the calendar. What party has the majority in the Judiciary Committee? The Judiciary Committee majority is Democratic. That puts them on the calendar. So Democrats put them on the calendar. Only the majority leader can take them off the calendar, and when he does that, he has no motion to proceed; he just takes them right off just like he did tonight. If he wants to, he can just bring them up and ask unanimous consent that they be approved, which they often are.\r\nI am told by the Republican leader's office that when the majority leader rammed the rules change through on November 21, there were about 40 or so noncontroversial \u2013 so-called \u2013 nominees who were about to be confirmed, including many district judges. But tonight the majority leader has selected four of the 13 district judges who are on the calendar and made a big show out of the fact that we are going to take an intervening day tomorrow and then we are going to vote on them, I guess, beginning on Wednesday. Under the rules change he asked for, the debate on each one of those can only be two hours, and it is divided evenly, which means the Democrats have an hour and the Republicans have an hour. If the Democrats want to speed things up, they can give their hour back. On a noncontroversial judge, Republicans normally wouldn't say anything, except a word or two of praise. But let\u2019s say the Republicans are upset by the rules changes and we are going to say we will take that whole hour. The Democrats could say two or three minutes of praise for the district judge and we could confirm those four in four hours. That is half a day's work.\r\nThe question I asked the majority leader was, \u201cWhat about the other nine? What about the other nine district judges who are sitting on this calendar, put there by the Democratic majority of the Judiciary Committee, and only one person in the Senate can bring them up for a vote, and he didn't bring them up?\u201d Why doesn't he bring them up? He could bring them up today. Tomorrow would be the intervening day and we could vote on Wednesday and vote on them all. He could have brought every single district judge up Thursday before recess, when he turned the Senate into a place that has no rules; Friday would have been the intervening day, and we could have been voting all day today, and by the time we went home for supper, every district judge would be confirmed because of the earlier rules change that limited post-cloture debate on district judges to 2 hours. The only reason I can see to go through all of this is to manufacture a crisis to make the American people think that somehow the minority is abusing its privileges.\r\nI read the Executive Calendar on November 21 very carefully. Remember, this is the document that is on every senator's desk. A nominee has to be on here in order to be confirmed. If a person is an executive nominee, the only person who can bring it up is the majority leader. It is the same with legislation. So legislative matters require a motion of consent. There were only 16 on the calendar who had been there three weeks and only eight more who had been there more than nine weeks, and two of the eight were being held up by Democratic senators. That is hardly a crisis.\r\nFinally, let me address the claim the majority leader didn't take seriously; that is, Republicans have unfairly blocked the president from filling vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remember, I pointed out the Democrats started this by saying that if President Bush nominates judges that are too conservative, we will block them, so the Republicans now have blocked an equal number of President Obama's judges. But that is not the primary reason for blocking them. The primary reason is stated in a letter written on July 27, 2006, to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Republican, Senator Specter, from all of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. President Bush had nominated someone for this same court, the District of Columbia Federal Circuit Court, and this is what the Democratic Senators said in 2006:\r\n\u201cWe believe that Mr. Keisler should under no circumstances be considered \u2013 much less confirmed \u2013 by this Committee before we first address the very need for that judgeship, receive and review necessary information about the nominee, and deal with the genuine judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.\u201d\r\nIn other words, what the Democrats were saying \u2013 and it included a number of the most distinguished members of this body \u2013 the chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, Senator Feingold, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kohl, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Biden \u2013 they were saying that this court, the D.C. court, is an important court, but it doesn't need any more judges. Before we add any more judges to a court that is underworked, we ought to consider transferring those judgeships to courts that are overworked.\r\nThat argument had been made since at least 2001 by Senator Grassley from Iowa, and finally, with some bipartisan cooperation in 2007, he achieved some success. With President Bush's agreement, the Republican president, he agreed with the Democratic senators that the D.C. Circuit should under no circumstances \u2013 those are their words in their letter \u2013 have more judges.\u00a0 They reduced by one the number of judges, and they transferred a judge to the Ninth Circuit, which was overworked.\r\nSo what Republicans have said about the three judges whom the president has nominated to the D.C. Circuit is, before we consider any of them, consider Senator Grassley's bill. Do in 2013 what you said we should do in 2006 and 2007 and which we did in a bipartisan way.\r\nSo how can this be dismissed when Republicans are asking to do in 2013 exactly what the Democrats successfully insisted on in 2006, which is to transfer judges from the courts where they are not needed to the courts where they are needed. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has a lower caseload by comparison today than it did in 2007 when, by a bipartisan agreement, it was considered underworked. The Democrats didn't think it was unfair then to insist that we not appoint more judges to a court that was underworked. It must be they are trying to manufacture a crisis now.\r\nSo if there is no good reason to change the rules in such a dramatic way as the majority did on November 21, why would the majority leader insist on cramming through in a power play a rules change that in 2006 he said would be the end of the Senate?\u00a0\r\nBecause the \u201cnuclear option\u201d vote was not about the filibuster. All of that is pretext. The vote was about allowing the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it.\r\nOne of the things the American people detest about Obamacare, as I said earlier, is that it was crammed through in the middle of the night in a partisan power play and we can see the results.\u00a0 Unlike the civil rights bill which had broad bipartisan support \u2013 I can remember Senator Dirksen and President Johnson working together on it when it required 67 votes in the Senate, and because it achieved that consensus, Senator Russell, the great opponent of the bill, went home to Georgia and said: It is the law of the land and we should now support it.\r\nWhen we cram a big social change \u2013 or any big change \u2013 through the Congress, we are going to get the kind of result we get with Obamacare today: millions of people losing their policies, tens of millions will next year, great concern, Web site not working. That is what we get when we cram things through in a partisan way, and the Democrats have done it again.\r\nSo if the filibuster was not the problem, then why is the Senate not functioning better? Why are we so low in public opinion polls? Frankly, it is because of the Senate leadership. I have had the privilege over the years of watching the Senate. I came here for the first time in 1967 as an aide to Senator Howard Baker, the future majority leader of the Senate. I watched Senator Mansfield and Senator Dirksen. I watched Senator Byrd and Senator Baker. I watched Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Senator Frist. I wasn't in the Senate all of that time \u2013 I have only been here since 2003 \u2013 but I have seen it over that time up close. All of them could operate this body very well under the rules we had until Thursday of two weeks ago, until November 21.\r\nI was at the Rules Committee meeting when Senator Byrd, former majority leader and acknowledged as the great historian of the Senate, came. He could barely speak, but he had one last message for the Senate and it was: Don't change the filibuster. He called it the necessary fence against the excesses of the executive and the popular will. That was what Senator Byrd said. He also said that under the rules we had until November 21, a majority leader could operate the Senate if he wanted to.\r\nThe current majority leader seems to be unable to do that, and we saw an example of it here tonight. He brings up four district judges, while there are 13 on the calendar. He could have brought them up on November 21 and we could have been voting on all of them today. He could bring them all up today and we could vote on all of them Wednesday, but he is parceling them out as if there were a crisis somewhere. Why is he doing that? I don't see why he is doing that. It is not the way to make the Senate function. It is not what Senator Byrd would do. It is not what Senator Baker would do. I saw them come in and open the Senate to amendments, put a bill on the floor, ask for amendments. Here came 300 amendments. Ask for unanimous consent to cut off amendments. They got unanimous consent because nobody could think of any other amendments, and then Senator Byrd would say \u2013 and Senator Baker did as well \u2013 all right, let's start voting, and vote, vote, vote, vote. Then we could get to about Wednesday or Thursday and senators would think, well, maybe my amendment is not so important, and by Friday, when it was clear the majority leader was going to finish the bill that week, they would drop the amendments, and we got it done.\r\nSo the Senate wasn\u2019t a perfect place \u2013 things were still bumpy. There was Senator Metzenbaum sitting in the front row objecting. There was Senator Williams before him, Senator Allen before him, exercising their rights, but the majority leaders were able to work with that. The Senate worked on Mondays and Fridays, it worked at night, and the threat of that usually caused people who were trying to not show a proper amount of restraint and use of their privileges to back down.\r\nInstead, what the current majority leader does \u2013 and we heard him tonight \u2013 is complain about obstructionism when there isn't any, certainly not on nominations. I am not going to say senators on both sides of the aisle haven't abused their privileges and slowed down the Senate. But he complains about obstructionism when, in fact, he has become the obstructionist in chief by making it more difficult for those of us who are elected from our states to represent the people who have a right to be heard.\r\n\u201cSeventy-seven times this majority leader has cut off amendments in a body whose whole purpose is to amend, debate, and vote. I call it a \u2018gag rule,\u2019 with the majority cutting off the right of American voices to be heard on the Senate floor. He has filed a motion to cut off debate 114 times on the same day he has introduced a bill, and he calls that a \u2018filibuster.\u2019 I call that a gag rule. He has bypassed Senate committees in an unprecedented way: 76 times in the last seven years.\u201d\r\nHe set himself up as the king of the Senate.\r\n\u201cMay I offer an amendment on Iran?\u201d a senator might ask.\r\n\u00a0No.\r\n\u201cMay I offer an amendment on Egypt?\u201d No.\u00a0\r\n\u201cHow about an amendment on Obamacare?\u201d No.\r\n\u201cWhat about a bill on the National Labor Relations Board?\u201d No.\u00a0\r\n\u201cCan we work on appropriations bills?\u201d No.\u00a0\r\nOnly one person is deciding what happens here, when, in fact, the history of the Senate has been a place of virtually unlimited debate on virtually any amendment. That has been the history of the Senate. It is different than the House of Representatives. It has been different than any other body in the world. It operates by unanimous consent, and it requires restraint which hasn't always been exercised, but majority leaders who have been effective have found their way to deal with that.\r\nI have spent the last three years doing my best to help make this place function. I cannot say where this rules change on November 21 will lead, but it is heading in a dangerous direction \u2013 a direction that is dangerous for the Senate and dangerous for our country.\r\nThis is a country that prizes the rule of law. Other countries around the world that do not have it wish they did, they wish they had a country with the rule of law.\u00a0\r\nSo in a country that prizes the rule of law, we now have a Senate without any rules because the Senate majority has decided, for the first time, that a majority can change the rules at any time, for any reason it wants, which makes this a body without rules.\r\nIn a country that yearns for solutions on Iran, on health care, on our debt crisis, we have a king of the Senate saying, \u201cNo amendments, no debate, I will make all the decisions.\u201d\r\nI know of only one cure for this dangerous trend, and that is one word, an election \u2013 the election of six new Republican senators, so power plays such as Obamacare and the November 21 rules change will be ended and the Senate will again be alive with bills, amendments, and debates, reflecting the will of the American people on the important issues of our time.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140108114616/http://black.house.gov:80/press-release/black-meehan-seek-answers-irs-security-testing", "Black, Meehan Seek Answers on IRS Security Testing", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 Congressmen Diane Black (R-TN-06) and Patrick Meehan (R-PA-07) sent a letter to Danny Werfel, the Acting Commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in response to a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The IRS is responsible for administering tax credits under Obamacare and TIGTA has reported that \u201ccritical\u201d elements of the security controls failed during testing, potentially risking the exposure of sensitive taxpayer information. Below is the text of their letter, or a digital copy can be found here.\n\u00a0\nThe Honorable Daniel I. Werfel\nActing Commissioner, the Internal Revenue Service\nU.S. Department of the Treasury\n1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 3241\nWashington, DC 20224\n\u00a0\nDear Commissioner Werfel:\nAmericans face a great threat to their personal security online, as it is widely understood that information systems can be hacked.\u00a0 Bad actors are constantly in search of opportunities to exploit vulnerabilities in our infrastructure, many of which are related to misconfigured system components and software flaws.\u00a0 Given this reality, we are concerned for the integrity and security of the sensitive personal data transmitted through the new health insurance exchanges. \u00a0As you know, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for administering the premium tax credits (PTCs) established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).\u00a0 Now that the health care exchanges are open for business, it is imperative that the IRS has processes in place to keep taxpayer information secure.\nRecently, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a report that was completed on September 27, 2013 \u2013 days before the launch of the Healthcare.gov website.\u00a0 TIGTA determined that IRS has completed development and testing for the Premium Tax Credit Computation Engine (PTC-CE), which will calculate the PTC for eligible Americans.\u00a0 However, \u201ccritical\u201d elements of the security controls failed during testing.\u00a0 Specifically, the report found that twelve controls were only partially implemented during the testing process.\u00a0 The ACA infrastructure components included in those twelve security controls also failed during the Security Controls Assessment, as they did not include the baseline configurations and mandatory configuration settings required by the National Institute of Standards (NIST) and Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) guidelines.\nThe report also found that Change Management Guidelines were not always adhered to when approved baseline security requirements were removed from the PTC Project.\u00a0 Just one of seven baseline requirements was removed from the PTC Project in accordance with the process outlined in the ACA Program Configuration Management Plan, which requires a change request (CR) and change impact assessment.\u00a0\u00a0 The IRS\u2019s IT Cybersecurity organization management stated that the organization does not have access to the CR Tracking System tool.\u00a0 Thus, it cannot ensure that CRs are approved, processed, and is \u201cunaware of when final changes to the baseline security requirements were implemented.\u201d\u00a0 This raises concerns as to whether the IRS can accurately determine how changed requirements will affect the security controls and operation of the PTC-CE.\nTIGTA recommended that the IRS IT Cybersecurity organization resolve or develop a plan with specific corrective actions and time periods for the failed security tests that were reviewed as part of the ACA Security Assessment and Authorization.\u00a0 TIGTA states this resolution or action plan \u201cis needed to ensure the IRS is addressing vulnerabilities in information systems that can be traced to software flaws and misconfigurations of system components for the PTC Project and across other information technology projects being developed\u201d under the ACA.\nWe are also concerned that the TIGTA report indicates that during audit fieldwork, IT Cybersecurity organization officials \u201ccould not provide documentation to verify the corrective measures for the failed test controls.\u201d\u00a0 According to the report, the IRS disagrees with the recommendation to develop an action plan and did not reference the audit findings that triggered the recommendation.\nWe find IRS\u2019 refusal to adopt a corrective action plan of serious concern as the sensitive personal information of American taxpayers may be at risk.\u00a0 This audit raises important questions as to whether the IRS can successfully protect taxpayer data against fraud and abuse.\u00a0 Therefore, to better understand how the IRS plans to securely and successfully transmit taxpayer data, we respectfully request you provide a written explanation of the IRS\u2019s process plan, along with copies of the documented policies for resolving the failed security tests.\u00a0 We also request an explanation on how the IRS coordinates with the ACA Program to ensure that change management guidelines are followed and that the PTC-CE operation is not impaired.\nThank you in advance for your attention to this letter.\u00a0 We look forward to your prompt reply.\u00a0\n\u00a0\nSincerely,\n\u00a0\nPatrick Meehan\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Diane Black\nMember of Congress\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Member of Congress\n####", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20150110095118/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1b902a94-df95-421b-8f6b-b82d8bec3424", "Alexander Says Farmers Are \u201cOriginal Conservatives,\u201d Highlights Importance of Farm Priorities", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Says farm bill, waterways are important priorities, along with opposing burdensome regulations such as Obamacare, EPA overreach\n***\n\u201cIn Tennessee, farmers work on more than 77,000 farms and take care of approximately 10.8 million acres of land. That means they\u2019re doing a full day\u2019s work before many people even start the workday, and shows why agriculture is one of Tennessee\u2019s most important industries.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\nFRANKLIN, Tenn., Dec. 9 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today highlighted the importance of agriculture in a speech to the Tennessee Farm Bureau, calling farmers the \u201coriginal conservatives\u201d and pledging to keep pushing their priorities \u2013 such as the farm bill \u2013 while fighting burdensome regulations and Obamacare.\n\u201cIn Tennessee, farmers work on more than 77,000 farms and take care of approximately 10.8 million acres of land. That means they\u2019re doing a full day\u2019s work before many people even start the workday, and shows why agriculture is one of Tennessee\u2019s most important industries,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cIt is my hope that legislation that improves certainty for farmers and allows them to increase production will become law, and that we can continue to push back against burdensome regulations. Farmers are the original conservatives, because they conserve and preserve the land for future production and future generations.\u201d\nAlexander spoke in Franklin at the annual meeting of the Tennessee Farm Bureau, applauding the nation\u2019s largest state farm bureau and its leaders for their work on behalf of farmers. The senator discussed a number of farm bureau priorities that have seen progress, including passage in the U.S. Senate, as well as challenges facing the industry that he intends to continue fighting against, such as the higher costs Obamacare is imposing on farmers.\nAlexander highlighted the following Farm Bureau priorities:\n\u00a0\n \nA five-year farm bill to provide certainty to Tennessee farmers. Alexander supported the Senate-passed bill and said he hopes negotiators can reconcile differences between that legislation and a House version, to give farmers a five-year farm bill. Alexander said, \u201cThis bill not only makes significant spending cuts, but it also reforms and modernizes agriculture programs and provides farmers the certainty they need to make future production decisions. It\u2019s time for Congress to act.\u201d\nPassage of immigration reform that secures the U.S. border while creating an immigration system that respects the rule of law and provides farmers with the labor force they need. The Senate has passed immigration reform, and Alexander said he hopes the U.S. House of Representatives will \u201cimprove the legislation and finish the job.\u201d\nThe Water Resources Development Act to prioritize U.S. ports and inland waterways. Both the Senate and House versions \u2013 currently awaiting action by a conference committee \u2013 include portions of Alexander\u2019s plan to replace Chickamauga Lock. Alexander said, \u201cMore than 11 million tons of agriculture products are transported on Tennessee\u2019s waterways annually, including 70,000 tons through Chickamauga Lock.\u201d Both versions also include Alexander\u2019s \u201cFreedom to Fish\u201d legislation to permanently stop the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from constructing physical barriers below 10 dams on the Cumberland River.\n \nAlexander also highlighted concerns for the agriculture industry, including:\n \nBurdensome regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. Those include requirements Alexander has pushed back against that would have farmers make costly upgrades to store fuel on their farms, as well as overreach on the Clean Water Act, which could regulate puddles in farmers\u2019 fields.\nObamacare, which Alexander said is increasing insurance costs and limiting options for Tennesseans, including farmers and businesses in the agriculture industry. Alexander said, \u201cI\u2019m fighting to repeal and replace Obamacare with step-by-step reforms that will reduce health care costs by encouraging competition, and put Tennesseans in control by giving them more choices.\u201d\n\u201cObamacare II,\u201d a rule change by Senate Democrats seeking to circumvent Republican opposition by allowing 51 votes to confirm presidential nominees \u2013 instead of 60. This will make it easier for President Obama to appoint people who will enact his \u201cradical regulatory agenda,\u201d Alexander said.\nWashington\u2019s out-of-control spending. Alexander said his Fiscal Sustainability Act, introduced with Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), would reduce out-of-control entitlement spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. He also noted that he has cosponsored legislation to repeal the federal estate tax, known as the death tax. Alexander said, \u201cWashington needs to address the out-of-control entitlement spending that is driving our $17 trillion debt and taking money out of your pockets.\u201d\n \n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SpeechesFloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=5560494c-98b6-4578-bb35-64a60eb0b217", "Floor speech: A Senate without rules", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "I appreciate the courtesy of the majority leader in allowing me to ask him a question. I have more to say about this whole subject. But let me go back to my point. There are 13 district judges on the calendar. On November 21, when we last met, there were 13 district judges. There is only one person in this chamber who can bring a judge from the calendar to the floor for confirmation. That is the majority leader. Why did he not bring them all up? Why didn't he move them? Because under our rules, all he has to do is make a motion that so-and-so district judge be confirmed. If he files cloture, we have to wait one day, and then we have two hours of debate.\r\nNever in the history of the country, according to the Congressional Research Service, has a district judge been denied his or her seat because of a failed cloture vote, because of a filibuster. I know this from personal experience, because a judge named McConnell from Rhode Island was nominated by President Obama at the recommendation of the Rhode Island senators, and there were a number on this side who said we should filibuster the judge.\r\nI thought not. I argued to all of the Republicans that we never had done that in history and we ought not to do it, we ought not to start it. So, what has happened? I believe, with all due respect, the majority leader is manufacturing a crisis. There is no crisis with those 13 district judges. He is the one who could bring them up. He could have done it on Thursday, November 21, the day he changed the rules. Friday would be the intervening day. The maximum amount of debate the Democrats could require on each judge would be one hour, if they yield back their hour. So in 13 hours, before midnight tonight, they could all be district judges. They were sitting on the calendar waiting for the majority leader to move.\r\nThe same is true with the sub-cabinet members. But let's just stay with the district judges for a minute. I know I am right about this because I have sat down with the Senate historian. I sat down with the Congressional Research Service.\u00a0 I said, has there ever been a president's nominee for a federal district judge who has not been confirmed because of a failed cloture vote? The answer is zero \u2013 not for President Obama, not for President Bush, not for President Clinton, not for any president.\r\nBecause Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, believed that the district judges were moving too slowly through the Senate, we changed the rules this past year. We said that with district judges, once there is a cloture vote \u2013 and remember, no judge has ever been denied his seat because of a cloture vote. Once there is a cloture vote, there can only be two hours of debate, one for the minority and one for the majority. So, this is a manufactured crisis. That is what was done in order to do what the Democratic majority did on November 21, which is the most stunning development in the history of the Senate in terms of a rules change, and I intend to talk about that tonight. I want to go through some very specific facts \u2013 not speeches, not something made up, but facts.\r\nI am glad that the majority leader moved four district judges but every one of the other nine might ask, \u201cMr. Majority Leader, why did you not move my name? Why are you leaving me out?\u201d Because you could move it on Monday, wait a day, and on Wednesday you could confirm every single one of the judges there.\r\nThe reason was because the majority leader wanted to make it look like there was a problem here so he could do as Senator Levin said we did on November 21 \u2013 in effect, create a Senate without rules \u2013 over the objection of 48 senators the Democratic majority established a precedent that the Senate can change the rules any time it wants to for any reason it wants to. So, I want to speak a little bit tonight about how I and other senators are expected to serve in a Senate with no rules.\r\nYesterday was a pretty exciting day in the National Football League. There were a lot of close games. The Ravens and the Vikings scored five touchdowns in two minutes and one second. In Pittsburgh, Miami was ahead when the Steelers\u2019 Anthony Brown raced into the end zone after a series of lateral passes. It was one of those things where it is the last play of the game and they start playing, passing to each other. It rarely works. Every now and then it does, and it appeared to in this case because Brown was the last one with the ball. He got into the end zone before time expired, but the officials ruled he had stepped out of bounds before scoring.\r\nWhat if Pittsburgh had said yesterday, \u201cWait a minute, we are the home team. We will change the rules and say if you step out of bounds only once as you are running toward the end zone with lateral passes on the last play of the game, then you score, so Pittsburgh wins the game\u201d?\r\nOr what if they had said, \u201cWe are the home team. We will just add five minutes and see if we can win the game in that five minutes\u201d? They would have been happy in Pittsburgh yesterday, but maybe not for long.\r\nBut what happens when Miami becomes the home team and Pittsburgh goes to Miami to play and Miami changes the rules in the middle of the game so Miami can win? What would happen to the game of professional football if the home team could change the rules in the middle of the game to get the result it wanted? The National Football League knows. They spend a lot of time on rules. They know if there is no integrity for the rules there is no integrity for the game, and pretty soon the fans do not watch the game because the game has no integrity.\r\nThat is why the NFL goes to such great lengths about its rules. There are officials all over the field. They are standing, you know, right in the middle of the play. There is an instant review of every call they make. When they make a call, they huddle to see if they interpreted the rule right.\u00a0 If a coach doesn't like it, he has an opportunity to challenge the ruling. There is someone up in a box who looks at that and reviews it. Today, Monday morning in New York, in the National Football League office, senior retired officials get together and they review every single call and every single no-call that was made yesterday in every league game. They grade every single official based on those calls, and rarely does anyone get 100 percent. The NFL is in a constant review of the rules because if there is no integrity to the rules, they know there is no integrity to the game, and there will be no fans.\r\nI say this because on Thursday, the last day we were here, November 21, before senators went home for Thanksgiving, the Democratic majority destroyed the rules of the Senate. With all of the Republican members opposed and three Democratic members opposed, the Senate voted 52 to 48 to invoke the so-called nuclear option, allowing a majority of senators present and voting \u2013 so not necessarily 51 \u2013 to approve presidential nominees except for Supreme Court Justices. For those positions, they eliminated the filibuster, which required 60 votes to proceed to an up-or-down majority vote.\r\nThat is what Senator Reid went through a few minutes ago.\u00a0 He was saying that we will move for cloture, we will have an intervening day, and then we will have a cloture vote. Before Thursday, before November 21, that took 60 votes. Although, as I said, in the case of federal district judges it had never been used to deny a seat. But now it only takes a majority of those present and voting. This was the most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote the rules because it creates a perpetual opportunity for what Alexis de Tocqueville called, when he traveled our country in the 1830s, one of the greatest threats to our democracy, and that is the \u201ctyranny of the majority.\u201d\r\nThis stunning rules change by the Senate majority can best be described as Obamacare II. One of the things that Americans really didn't like about the new health care law, Obamacare, was that it was passed in the dead of night by a purely partisan vote during a snowstorm. It showed that those who had the votes could do whatever they wanted no matter what the minority thought, and we can see the results: millions of Americans having their policies canceled. Next year, tens of millions will \u2013 those who get their insurance through employers. This is another example of that kind of power play. This time the goal was to help the administration and the Democratic majority advance its radical agenda, unchecked through the courts and the executive agencies.\r\nAs the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, said \u2013 quoting a former Republican senator, Senator Vandenberg \u2013 Senator Levin is a Democrat \u2013 said on that Thursday, \u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\u201d\r\n\u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\u201d\r\nSimilar to the Pittsburgh game, if the home team can change its rules at any time there are no rules to the game.\r\nEvery child knows that there have to be rules to the game. So, I have this question: How am I and how are other senators supposed to serve in a Senate with no rules? How is this different from what could have happened in Pittsburgh if they changed the rules in the middle of the game? Or if the Red Sox, finding themselves behind in the ninth inning, added a few innings just to make sure they beat the Cardinals in the World Series. In the Senate, future majorities could do whatever they want, end the filibuster for legislation, removing any obstacle to the tyranny of the majority. Just as if there were no integrity of the rules of football and there would be no integrity of the game and there would be no fans, if there were no integrity to the rules of the Senate, there is no integrity for the Senate and no respect for this part of our system of government.\r\nI think I was not overstating it when I said this is the most dangerous change to the rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them. When he did write the rules, he had this to say about why we have rules. His words are in the Senate rules book that every single one of us has and hopefully have read at least the beginning parts of. This is worth reading \u2013 by Jefferson. It is titled, \u201cThe Importance of Adhering to Rules.\u201d\r\nRemember the argument here is not about the filibuster; it is about how the rules were changed.\u00a0 \u201cThe Importance of Adhering to Rules.\u201d I am going to read a little bit of this. According to Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Senate rules:\r\n\u201cMr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons, used to say, \u201cit was a maxim he had often heard, when he was a young man, from old and experienced members, that nothing tended to throw power more into the hand of administration and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding:\u00a0 that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority; and that they were in many instances a shelter, and a protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.\u201d\r\nThis is Thomas Jefferson writing about the importance of rules when he wrote the Senate rules. Continuing:\r\n\u201cSo far the maxim is certainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power, are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found necessary from time to time, and are become the law of the House; by a strict adherence to which, the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.\u201d\r\nI would think a majority that claims to protect the rights of minorities would be interested in these words of Jefferson and especially in the following words:\r\n\u201cAnd whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.\u201d\r\nThat was Thomas Jefferson on the importance of Senate rules when he wrote them at the beginning of our country.\r\nThe majority has set a precedent that destroys those rules \u2013 that destroys the integrity of the rules because a Senate in which a majority can change the rules at any time for any reason is a Senate with no rules. That is why it is not too much to say that the Democratic majority has created a perpetual opportunity for the tyranny of the majority. The majority can do anything it wants any time it wants.\r\nIn this case, what it wanted to do was stack the federal court that hears most of the challenges to its radical regulatory agenda with judges who believe in that agenda. Who knows what the next power play will be. First it was Obamacare; then Obamacare II, the change of the rules. What we do know is that this majority has set an unprecedented precedent. They have set the precedent to do whatever they want to do anytime they want to do it. They have created a Senate without rules.\r\nNow, let's talk a little bit about what the justification might be for such a stunning action, because there are so many words thrown around that don't represent facts at all that I wonder about this. For example, the Democrats complain that their radical action was warranted because the Senate is broken. I agree with that. I will explain in a few moments why I think so. Their reason is that President Obama's appointees have been unfairly denied seats by failed cloture votes or filibusters. The charge was \u2013 and you heard the majority leader a few minutes ago \u2013 things have gotten so bad that this Republican minority has treated President Obama unfairly by denying his nominees their seats by failed cloture votes or filibusters. The Democrats have gotten themselves in a room and convinced each other that this is true, but it is flat-out not true.\r\nAccording to the Congressional Research Service \u2013 and I have researched this for several months and asked them this question: Has there ever been any Supreme Court nominee, by any president, who has been denied his or her seat by a filibuster? The answer is no. It is zero. (Now, there is one possible exception. Abe Fortas was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson as Chief Justice.\u00a0 The nomination was in trouble on both sides of the aisle, and to help his friend Abe Fortas save face, President Johnson engineered a cloture vote in 1968. I think the vote was 45 to 43. They called that a win to help Abe \u201csave face.\u201d) But certainly President Obama's nominees have not been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote, and neither have any other presidents\u2019.\r\nHave there ever been any cabinet members of President Obama or any other president who have been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote or by a filibuster? According to the Congressional Research Service, the answer is no. The number is zero.\u00a0 There have been no cabinet members who have been denied their seats in the Obama administration by a failed cloture vote.\r\nHave there ever been any federal district judges denied their seats by a failed cloture vote for President Obama or any other president? The answer is zero. Except for perhaps Fortas, there has never been a Supreme Court Justice, cabinet member, or federal district judge nomination in the history of President Obama \u2013 and never in the history of this country has a president's nomination been denied by a filibuster. Interesting.\r\nThen why did we go to this stunning radical move on November 21? Well, maybe it was because of sub-cabinet members. How many of those have been denied their seats by a filibuster, according to the Congressional Research Service? Two of President Obama's, three of President George W. Bush's, and two of President Clinton's. That is a total of seven in the history of the Senate when a filibuster has said to a sub-cabinet member that we are going to deny them their seat because of a filibuster or a failed cloture vote. So, President Obama has been treated about exactly the same as his last two predecessors.\r\nIn all of those I just mentioned, among Cabinet members, district judges, Supreme Court Justices, and sub-cabinet members, we only found two Obama nominees who have been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote. Now, that is a fact. That is not a piece of Republican propaganda. That comes from the Congressional Research Service.\r\nWhy is there a fuss about this? Well, maybe it is because of the federal circuit judges. Well, let's talk about that. As for appeals court judges, Republican filibusters have blocked five. Why did that happen? That happened as a result of what happened in 2003, the year I came to the Senate.\u00a0\r\nThen, Democrats got together and said, \u201cWe think President Bush's nominees are too conservative, so, for the first time in the history of the Senate, we are going to block 10 of President Bush's nominees basically because they are too conservative.\u201d I knew some of those judges. I used to clerk on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge John Minor Wisdom. I knew the respect he had for Judge Pryor. I knew Mr. Pickering, who had really been a pioneer for civil rights in the State of Mississippi in the 1960s and 1970s when it was hard to do that.\r\nThe truth is that the majority of Democrats said, \u201cWe are going to block 10 of the Bush judges. It has never been done before, but we are going to do it with a cloture vote.\u201d\r\nWell, as you can guess, everyone on the Republican side \u2013 and the majority then \u2013 got very excited. The majority leader, Senator Frist, said, \u201cWe are going to change the rules\u201d and do something that Senator Lott \u2013 a majority leader at one time \u2013 said was the \u201cnuclear option.\u201d\r\nThere was great consternation. In 2006, Senator Reid said \u2013 and he recounts this very well in his book \u2013 \u201cto do so would be the end of the Senate.\u201d\r\nI made two speeches. I suggested that, well, this is a terrible thing to do. A president ought to have an up-or-down vote on his circuit judges. So, why don't we see if we can't get a few Republicans and a few Democrats and just take it out of the hands of the leaders and agree we will only use the filibuster on circuit judges in extraordinary circumstances, which was the result.\u00a0 I said at the time that I would never vote for a filibuster on a circuit judge. I adjusted my view to be the same as the Senate precedent that came out of the Gang of 14. Of the 10 Bush judges, five were not confirmed and five were confirmed. In 2003, Democratic senators for the first time in history refused to confirm five presidential nominees for the federal court of appeals by a cloture vote \u2013 by a filibuster \u2013 and the expected happened. Over time, the Republicans now have blocked five nominations. So, Republicans and Democrats are even.\r\nWhen you start something, things have a way of coming back around. What the Democrats said was fair to do in 2003 and 2004, the Republicans now say is fair to do. If the Democrats think the Republican nominees are too conservative, they will block five of them. If we think President Obama's nominees are too liberal, then we will block five of them. We put in the trash heap the tradition that we will never use the filibuster on federal courts of appeals judges.\r\nThe majority leader and others have said, \u201cWell, that is not the only problem. The problem is that President Obama has had to wait too long to get his judges confirmed.\u201d\r\nAgain, that is not true either. This is another case where the Democrats apparently have gotten themselves in a room and convinced themselves that something that isn't true is true. According to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama's second-term cabinet nominees have been confirmed at about the same pace as President Bush's cabinet nominees and President Clinton's cabinet nominees.\r\nThe other day, I heard the majority leader use the example of the distinguished Secretary of Defense and a former member of this body, Senator Hagel, as an example of delay. Well, let me comment on that, if I may. Senator Hagel's nomination was reported to the Senate floor.\r\nThe day after it was reported by the Armed Services Committee, the majority leader filed cloture and called that a filibuster.\r\nNow, many Republican senators \u2013 I watched the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina and others say on the floor to the majority leader, \u201cThat is premature. You are cutting off debate before we have had a chance to consider the Secretary of Defense of this country.\u00a0 If you will allow us more time\u201d \u2013 at that time we were going into the Presidents Day recess for a week \u2013 \u201cwe will cut off debate the day we come back and then we will have an up-or-down vote.\u201d\r\nBut, no, the majority leader and the White House said, \u201cRam it through.\u201d\r\nThey insisted on a vote, the vote was turned down, and he called that a filibuster. I call it cutting off debate \u2013 cutting off debate prematurely. Why in the world wouldn't you allow a Secretary of Defense to be on the floor for more than one day before you cut off the debate prematurely and call it a filibuster?\r\nThe majority leader said: Well, we could be attacked.\r\nI think he must have forgotten we had a perfectly adequate Secretary of Defense in place \u2013 Leon Panetta \u2013 until the next one was confirmed, and he was going to be confirmed because the majority had the majority of votes to do that and a cabinet member had never been denied his or her seat because of a cloture vote.\r\nI want to keep coming back to that. A Cabinet member has never been denied confirmation because of a failed cloture vote. A Cabinet member will be confirmed after a while \u2013 after you have questions. But in that case, they filed cloture after one day.\r\nNow, in my case, 20 years ago, when President Bush nominated me as the education secretary, there was a Democratic Senate. I was announced in December, nominated in January, and it was March before some of the Democratic senators saw fit to give me a vote, and I was confirmed by unanimous consent. During that time I tried to get ready for our education program. It gave me some time to work. When President Reagan nominated Ed Meese to be the attorney general, it took a year before the Senate confirmed Ed Meese, but he was confirmed. There have been some cabinet members who have withdrawn their names because they have become embarrassed or for some other reason.\r\nIf the question is whether a failed cloture vote has ever been used to deny a cabinet member his or her seat, the answer is no. In the case of Secretary Hagel, I would think one day is not quite long enough to file a motion to cut off debate and claim it is a filibuster.\r\nWhat about judges? Has the Senate been slow on judges?\u00a0\r\nThis year the Senate has confirmed 36 of the president's second-term nominees to circuit and district courts, compared with 14 for President Bush as of November 21 in his second term in 2005. These things are never exact because there are vacancies for a variety of reasons. That is a pretty big difference. It is very hard to argue that it is unfair. But the majority leader did argue successfully that the minority was holding up district judges in order to negotiate for other points.\u00a0 He did that the second time a bipartisan group of us sat down to talk about how to change the Senate rules so we could move along better.\r\nSo what the Senate agreed to do earlier this year was to change the rules to make it easier to confirm district judges.\r\nHere is the procedure: Remember, first they have to be on the calendar. How do they get on the calendar? A committee majority puts them on the calendar. What party has the majority in the Judiciary Committee? The Judiciary Committee majority is Democratic. That puts them on the calendar. So Democrats put them on the calendar. Only the majority leader can take them off the calendar, and when he does that, he has no motion to proceed; he just takes them right off just like he did tonight. If he wants to, he can just bring them up and ask unanimous consent that they be approved, which they often are.\r\nI am told by the Republican leader's office that when the majority leader rammed the rules change through on November 21, there were about 40 or so noncontroversial \u2013 so-called \u2013 nominees who were about to be confirmed, including many district judges. But tonight the majority leader has selected four of the 13 district judges who are on the calendar and made a big show out of the fact that we are going to take an intervening day tomorrow and then we are going to vote on them, I guess, beginning on Wednesday. Under the rules change he asked for, the debate on each one of those can only be two hours, and it is divided evenly, which means the Democrats have an hour and the Republicans have an hour. If the Democrats want to speed things up, they can give their hour back. On a noncontroversial judge, Republicans normally wouldn't say anything, except a word or two of praise. But let\u2019s say the Republicans are upset by the rules changes and we are going to say we will take that whole hour. The Democrats could say two or three minutes of praise for the district judge and we could confirm those four in four hours. That is half a day's work.\r\nThe question I asked the majority leader was, \u201cWhat about the other nine? What about the other nine district judges who are sitting on this calendar, put there by the Democratic majority of the Judiciary Committee, and only one person in the Senate can bring them up for a vote, and he didn't bring them up?\u201d Why doesn't he bring them up? He could bring them up today. Tomorrow would be the intervening day and we could vote on Wednesday and vote on them all. He could have brought every single district judge up Thursday before recess, when he turned the Senate into a place that has no rules; Friday would have been the intervening day, and we could have been voting all day today, and by the time we went home for supper, every district judge would be confirmed because of the earlier rules change that limited post-cloture debate on district judges to 2 hours. The only reason I can see to go through all of this is to manufacture a crisis to make the American people think that somehow the minority is abusing its privileges.\r\nI read the Executive Calendar on November 21 very carefully. Remember, this is the document that is on every senator's desk. A nominee has to be on here in order to be confirmed. If a person is an executive nominee, the only person who can bring it up is the majority leader. It is the same with legislation. So legislative matters require a motion of consent. There were only 16 on the calendar who had been there three weeks and only eight more who had been there more than nine weeks, and two of the eight were being held up by Democratic senators. That is hardly a crisis.\r\nFinally, let me address the claim the majority leader didn't take seriously; that is, Republicans have unfairly blocked the president from filling vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remember, I pointed out the Democrats started this by saying that if President Bush nominates judges that are too conservative, we will block them, so the Republicans now have blocked an equal number of President Obama's judges. But that is not the primary reason for blocking them. The primary reason is stated in a letter written on July 27, 2006, to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Republican, Senator Specter, from all of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. President Bush had nominated someone for this same court, the District of Columbia Federal Circuit Court, and this is what the Democratic Senators said in 2006:\r\n\u201cWe believe that Mr. Keisler should under no circumstances be considered \u2013 much less confirmed \u2013 by this Committee before we first address the very need for that judgeship, receive and review necessary information about the nominee, and deal with the genuine judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.\u201d\r\nIn other words, what the Democrats were saying \u2013 and it included a number of the most distinguished members of this body \u2013 the chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, Senator Feingold, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kohl, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Biden \u2013 they were saying that this court, the D.C. court, is an important court, but it doesn't need any more judges. Before we add any more judges to a court that is underworked, we ought to consider transferring those judgeships to courts that are overworked.\r\nThat argument had been made since at least 2001 by Senator Grassley from Iowa, and finally, with some bipartisan cooperation in 2007, he achieved some success. With President Bush's agreement, the Republican president, he agreed with the Democratic senators that the D.C. Circuit should under no circumstances \u2013 those are their words in their letter \u2013 have more judges.\u00a0 They reduced by one the number of judges, and they transferred a judge to the Ninth Circuit, which was overworked.\r\nSo what Republicans have said about the three judges whom the president has nominated to the D.C. Circuit is, before we consider any of them, consider Senator Grassley's bill. Do in 2013 what you said we should do in 2006 and 2007 and which we did in a bipartisan way.\r\nSo how can this be dismissed when Republicans are asking to do in 2013 exactly what the Democrats successfully insisted on in 2006, which is to transfer judges from the courts where they are not needed to the courts where they are needed. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has a lower caseload by comparison today than it did in 2007 when, by a bipartisan agreement, it was considered underworked. The Democrats didn't think it was unfair then to insist that we not appoint more judges to a court that was underworked. It must be they are trying to manufacture a crisis now.\r\nSo if there is no good reason to change the rules in such a dramatic way as the majority did on November 21, why would the majority leader insist on cramming through in a power play a rules change that in 2006 he said would be the end of the Senate?\u00a0\r\nBecause the vote was not about the filibuster. All of that is pretext. The vote was about allowing the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it.\r\nOne of the things the American people detest about Obamacare, as I said earlier, is that it was crammed through in the middle of the night in a partisan power play and we can see the results.\u00a0 Unlike the civil rights bill which had broad bipartisan support \u2013 I can remember Senator Dirksen and President Johnson working together on it when it required 67 votes in the Senate, and because it achieved that consensus, Senator Russell, the great opponent of the bill, went home to Georgia and said: It is the law of the land and we should now support it.\r\nWhen we cram a big social change \u2013 or any big change \u2013 through the Congress, we are going to get the kind of result we get with Obamacare today: millions of people losing their policies, tens of millions will next year, great concern, Web site not working. That is what we get when we cram things through in a partisan way, and the Democrats have done it again.\r\nSo if the filibuster was not the problem, then why is the Senate not functioning better? Why are we so low in public opinion polls? Frankly, it is because of the Senate leadership. I have had the privilege over the years of watching the Senate. I came here for the first time in 1967 as an aide to Senator Howard Baker, the future majority leader of the Senate. I watched Senator Mansfield and Senator Dirksen. I watched Senator Byrd and Senator Baker. I watched Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Senator Frist. I wasn't in the Senate all of that time \u2013 I have only been here since 2003 \u2013 but I have seen it over that time up close. All of them could operate this body very well under the rules we had until Thursday of two weeks ago, until November 21.\r\nI was at the Rules Committee meeting when Senator Byrd, former majority leader and acknowledged as the great historian of the Senate, came. He could barely speak, but he had one last message for the Senate and it was: Don't change the filibuster. He called it the necessary fence against the excesses of the executive and the popular will. That was what Senator Byrd said. He also said that under the rules we had until November 21, a majority leader could operate the Senate if he wanted to.\r\nThe current majority leader seems to be unable to do that, and we saw an example of it here tonight. He brings up four district judges, while there are 13 on the calendar. He could have brought them up on November 21 and we could have been voting on all of them today. He could bring them all up today and we could vote on all of them Wednesday, but he is parceling them out as if there were a crisis somewhere. Why is he doing that? I don't see why he is doing that. It is not the way to make the Senate function. It is not what Senator Byrd would do. It is not what Senator Baker would do. I saw them come in and open the Senate to amendments, put a bill on the floor, ask for amendments. Here came 300 amendments. Ask for unanimous consent to cut off amendments. They got unanimous consent because nobody could think of any other amendments, and then Senator Byrd would say \u2013 and Senator Baker did as well \u2013 all right, let's start voting, and vote, vote, vote, vote. Then we could get to about Wednesday or Thursday and senators would think, well, maybe my amendment is not so important, and by Friday, when it was clear the majority leader was going to finish the bill that week, they would drop the amendments, and we got it done.\r\nSo the Senate wasn\u2019t a perfect place \u2013 things were still bumpy. There was Senator Metzenbaum sitting in the front row objecting. There was Senator Williams before him, Senator Allen before him, exercising their rights, but the majority leaders were able to work with that. The Senate worked on Mondays and Fridays, it worked at night, and the threat of that usually caused people who were trying to not show a proper amount of restraint and use of their privileges to back down.\r\nInstead, what the current majority leader does \u2013 and we heard him tonight \u2013 is complain about obstructionism when there isn't any, certainly not on nominations. I am not going to say senators on both sides of the aisle haven't abused their privileges and slowed down the Senate. But he complains about obstructionism when, in fact, he has become the obstructionist in chief by making it more difficult for those of us who are elected from our states to represent the people who have a right to be heard.\r\nSeventy-seven times this majority leader has cut off amendments in a body whose whole purpose is to amend, debate, and vote. I call it a gag rule, with the majority cutting off the right of American voices to be heard on the Senate floor. There have been 114 times when he has filed a motion to cut off debate on the same day he has introduced a bill, and he calls that a filibuster. I call it a gag rule. He has bypassed Senate committees in an unprecedented way: 76 times in the last seven years.\r\nHe set himself up as the king of the Senate.\r\n\u201cMay I offer an amendment on Iran?\u201d a senator might ask. No.\r\n\u201cMay I offer an amendment on Egypt?\u201d No.\u00a0\r\n\u201cHow about an amendment on Obamacare?\u201d No.\r\n\u201cWhat about a bill on the National Labor Relations Board?\u201d No.\u00a0\r\n\u201cCan we work on appropriations bills?\u201d No.\u00a0\r\nOnly one person is deciding what happens here, when, in fact, the history of the Senate has been a place of virtually unlimited debate on virtually any amendment. That has been the history of the Senate. It is different than the House of Representatives. It has been different than any other body in the world. It operates by unanimous consent, and it requires restraint which hasn't always been exercised, but majority leaders who have been effective have found their way to deal with that.\r\nI have spent the last three years doing my best to help make this place function. I cannot say where this rules change on November 21 will lead, but it is heading in a dangerous direction \u2013 a direction that is dangerous for the Senate and dangerous for our country.\r\nThis is a country that prizes the rule of law. Other countries around the world that do not have it wish they did, they wish they had a country with the rule of law.\u00a0\r\nSo in a country that prizes the rule of law, we now have a Senate without any rules because the Senate majority has decided, for the first time, that a majority can change the rules at any time, for any reason it wants, which makes this a body without rules.\r\nIn a country that yearns for solutions on Iran, on health care, on our debt crisis, we have a king of the Senate saying, \u201cNo amendments, no debate, I will make all the decisions.\u201d\r\nI know of only one cure for this dangerous trend, and that is one word, an election \u2013 the election of six new Republican senators, so power plays such as Obamacare and the November 21 rules change will be ended and the Senate will again be alive with bills, amendments, and debates, reflecting the will of the American people on the important issues of our time.\r\nI ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record the letter from the year 2006 from the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee saying there should be no new judges added to the D.C. Court of Appeals because it is underworked.\r\nI yield the floor.\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20150110145517/http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=28b38984-b9b0-4752-9c7e-f14b480f5425", "Alexander Statement on Interior Department Rule Change", "2013-12-06", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Says Interior Department rule grants \u201cfederal hunting licenses\u201d to kill eagles\n***\n\u201cBy now it\u2019s no secret this administration will go to great lengths to tilt the scales to benefit the wind industry at great cost to taxpayers, and at the cost of killing a great symbol of our freedoms, the American bald eagle.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\nNASHVILLE, Dec. 6 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today made the following statement regarding the Interior Department\u2019s announced rule revision that will extend from five to 30 years permits allowing renewable energy projects to kill or injure American bald eagles:\n\u201cBy now it\u2019s no secret this administration will go to great lengths to tilt the scales to benefit the wind industry at great cost to taxpayers, and at the cost of killing a great symbol of freedom, the American bald eagle,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cIt\u2019s appalling that after bringing the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction, today\u2019s Interior Department announcement grants renewable energy projects what is essentially a federal hunting licenses to kill\u00a0not only American bald eagles, but also golden eagles. We need even treatment of the law for energy development, regardless of source, and this revised rule misses the mark by giving continued leniency to renewable energy projects, such as wind farms.\u201d\nThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated annual bird mortality from wind energy production to be approximately 440,000 in its fiscal year 2013 budget justification, and the figure is expected to exceed one million as more wind turbines are put in service.\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://roe.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363509", "Majority of House Majority supports RSC American Health Care Reform Act", "2013-12-05", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Phil Roe", "R000582", "roe.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. The RSC's American Health Care Reform Act today reached another milestone by gaining its 117th cosponsor, a majority of House GOP members.\r\nReps. Roe and Scalise released the following statements:\r\nI am proud to see support growing for the American Health Care Reform Act, a commonsense conservative plan to make health care less expensive and more accessible, said Dr. Phil Roe, Chairman of the RSC's Health Care Working Group. With a majority of House Republicans supporting this bill, it's time that President Obama stop claiming Republicans don't have solutions. The health care system in this country was broken before Obamacare, and his law has only made things worse. There is an answer to our country's health care problems, but President Obama's health care law is not it. This bill has real solutions and I am glad to see so many conservatives, under the leadership of Chairman Scalise, rally around it.\r\nAmerican families and small businesses deserve and demand real solutions to the serious problems that exist in our health care system, RSC Chairman Steve Scalise said. It is encouraging to see so much momentum building behind the American Health Care Reform Act, which is focused on putting patients back in charge of their health care decisions and lowering costs so hard-working taxpayers have more options for their families. I look forward to this bill continuing to gain momentum as it moves through the legislative process and ultimately comes up for a vote on the House Floor.\r\nH.R. 3121 was drafted by RSC Chairman Steve Scalise, RSC Health Care Working Group Chairman Dr. Phil Roe, and working group members Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Renee Ellmers, Dr. John Fleming, Dr. Paul Gosar, Dr. Tom Price, and Rep. Todd Rokita. Specifically, H.R. 3121, the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act:\r\n \r\n    Fully repeals President Obama's health care law.\r\n    Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard tax deduction for health insurance.\r\n    Spurs competition by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.\r\n    Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.\r\n    Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.\r\n    Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.\r\n    Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.\r\n \r\nMore information on H.R. 3121 can be found here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3748399d-2ca4-4c21-8ad2-72db5b9c66b5", "Alexander Statement on the Passing of Former South African President Nelson Mandela", "2013-12-05", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 5\u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today made the following statement on the passing of Nelson Mandela:\r\n \r\n\"Visiting Nelson Mandela's Robben Island prison cell and then reading his autobiography taught our family inspiring lessons from a remarkable life that helped to achieve a political result few imagined possible.\"\r\n \r\n                                                              ###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d38795e4-d06a-45da-9e39-2c1c0894ee0b", "Alexander on \"Statement of Facts\" in Case Against Former Chief of Staff", "2013-12-05", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) made the following statement when details of the criminal complaint against Ryan Loskarn were released:\r\n\u201cThe courts will determine his guilt or innocence, but the information in the complaint is repugnant and disturbing.\u201d\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085858/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-questions-website-security-income-verification-hearing-obamacare", "Black Questions Website Security, Income Verification at Hearing on Obamacare", "2013-12-04", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "(Click image above for video)\nWashington \u2013 Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) participated in a Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Hearing on Obamacare and questioned the witnesses participating on recent reports of severe security risks associated with the website. Congressman Black questioned whether it was fair to mandate that individuals use this website when their sensitive personal information could be at risk. To watch video of her questioning, click here.\nFor information about the hearing, click here.\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6aa7cef9-46dd-41c6-bc80-055a44cc4447", "Alexander Accepts \u201cRestoring the Balance\u201d States\u2019 Rights Award", "2013-12-04", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says states, local leaders should be left to make more decisions about taxes, education and other issues reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution\r\n***\r\n\u201cNothing made me madder when I was governor of Tennessee than folks in Washington thinking they knew best \u2013 coming up with a bright idea and leaving the state to pay for it, or keeping us from making our own decisions about taxes or education.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON, Dec. 4 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today spoke before the National Conference of State Legislatures and accepted its \u201cRestoring the Balance Award\u201d for standing up for the rights of states.\r\n\u201cNothing made me madder when I was governor of Tennessee than folks in Washington thinking they knew best \u2013 coming up with a bright idea and leaving the state to pay for it, or keeping us from making our own decisions about taxes or education,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cWe need to get the federal government out of the way and let governors, state legislators and local elected officials lead.\u201d\r\nThe \u201cRestoring the Balance Award\u201d is given to members of Congress who have worked successfully to advance and protect states\u2019 rights in United States\u2019 federal system of government. Examples of Alexander\u2019s work standing up for states\u2019 rights include the Marketplace Fairness Act \u2013 which would allow states to decide for themselves whether to require remote sellers such as online retailers to collect state sales taxes that are already owed on a sale \u2013 and his efforts to move decisions about whether schools and teachers are succeeding or failing back to states and local communities.\r\nOf the Marketplace Fairness Act, Alexander said: \u201cThe Marketplace Fairness Act is about two words: states\u2019 rights. I believe in the Tenth Amendment, and I don\u2019t think Tennessee or other states should have to play \u2018Mother, may I?\u2019 with the federal government to set their own tax policies.\u201d\r\nOf education reform, Alexander said: \u201cOver the last decade, the U.S. Department of Education has become so congested with federal mandates that it has become, in effect, a national school board. The best way to help 50 million children in 100,000 public schools learn what they need to know and be able to do is to return that responsibility squarely where it belongs\u2014on parents, teachers, communities and states.\u201d\r\nAlexander spoke at the National Conference of State Legislatures\u2019 fall forum, which included hundreds of state legislators, state staff and others from around the country.\r\nThe Marketplace Fairness Act passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 69-27 on May 6, and has the support of conservative leaders like Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, Reagan economist Arthur Laffer and Republican governors from all over the country. Alexander has also introduced legislation to fix \u201cNo Child Left Behind\u201d by restoring local authority when Congress considers its reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.\r\n\u00a0# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://duncan.house.gov/obamacare-costs-soaring-beyond-estimates", "Obamacare Costs Soaring Beyond Estimates", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "John Duncan", "D000533", "duncan.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Mister Speaker: Some are trying to create the impression that the only problem with Obamacare is the website, and the experts will soon fix that. Actually the biggest problem with the so-called Affordable Care Act is that it is unaffordable already. We are already having trouble paying for all the federal medical programs we have now. The costs of all our federal medical programs have been greatly underestimated at the start. Now with many millions more losing their coverage than the Administration predicted, added to the millions previously uninsured, the costs of Obamacare are already estimated at possibly four times more than when it was passed, and it is not even fully in place. And since it took 3 \u00bd years to even get a screwed-up website partially ready, most people don\u2019t believe the federal government can run our health care system efficiently in the first place. More bureaucratic, less-humane medical care and all at much greater cost to taxpayers at both the federal and state levels. This plan is already a mess that will ultimately lead to shortages, waiting periods, and great decline in the quality of American medical care.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221085940/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-statement-tigta-report-obamacare-fraud", "Black Statement on TIGTA Report on Obamacare Fraud", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013\u00a0Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) issued the following statement upon release of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration\u2019s report finding that the Internal Revenue Service has inadequate provisions in place to prevent Obamacare subsidy fraud:\n\u201cThis report confirms what many of us already knew: doling out subsidies before ensuring eligibility will lead to widespread fraud and abuse at taxpayer expense. This is why I introduced and the House passed legislation, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, that would have protected taxpayers from as much as $250 billion in fraudulent payments, according to one estimate. Verification is commonsense, but unfortunately the President decided to delay verifying eligibility for subsidies this summer in a mad rush to push forward with his unworkable healthcare law. Obamacare is a train wreck that is\u00a0 not only wrecking our healthcare system but also inviting widespread fraud and abuse at taxpayer expense.\u201d\nRESOURCES:\n9/12/13: House Passes Rep. Black Bill \u2013 No Subsidies Without Verification Act\n7/31/13: Black's Op-Ed in Investor's Business Daily: ObamaCare Honor System For Subsidies Will Invite Fraud\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221090012/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-house-floor-obamacare-unmitigated-disaster", "Black on House Floor: Obamacare is an Unmitigated Disaster", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "(Click image above for video)\nWashington \u2013 Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) took to the House floor to talk about the President\u2019s broken promises on Obamacare. She shared a story of a constituent whose insurance premiums are skyrocketing and urged Democratic lawmakers to break ranks with the President and help protect Americans from this disastrous law. To watch video of her remarks, click here.\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131215220025/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/video?ContentRecord_id=63e0f51e-7930-4d33-beb4-4f89221c4c3e", "Corker Discusses Obamacare and Iran on CBS' \"Face the Nation\"", "2013-12-01", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Dec 01 2013\n \n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\tDecember 1, 2013 - Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, talked about Obamacare and Iran on CBS' \"Face the Nation.\"\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\tPermalink: http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/12/corker-discusses-obamacare-and-iran-on-cbs-face-the-nation\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tClick play to view the video or follow this link  \n\t\t\t\thttp://youtu.be/0RZc2Ix23dE", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131215222944/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=9ae3193e-c389-4ebf-863e-7f40cc813ab8", "Corker on \u201cFace the Nation\u201d: \u201cA Lot of Negative Surprises\u201d as Americans Enroll in Obamacare", "2013-12-01", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 On CBS\u2019 \u201cFace the Nation\u201d today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said Americans will likely experience a lot of \u201cnegative surprises\u201d as they continue to enroll in Obamacare.\n\u201cWe all get calls from incredibly distressed citizens who have had their policies cancelled yet are unable to enroll in a new plan\u2026.At the end of the day, while there will be a few winners, most Americans are going to find a less dynamic health system, and they're going to find that the cost of the health care they're able to purchase is going to be a lot higher. They're also going to realize that their choices are far less,\u201d said Corker. \u201cUnfortunately as people enroll I think there's going to be a lot of negative surprises as to what they're able to enroll in.\u201d\nCorker further said the fundamentals of Obamacare were done in a \u201cchaotic\u201d way.\n\u201cGenerally speaking, the fundamentals of this to me were done in a chaotic way, much like we're seeing in the roll out\u2026. I don't know how you fix a program that was put together in this manner with only one side of the aisle and taking the shortcuts that were taken to put it in place,\u201d said Corker.\nAs mandated by law, Corker, his family and staff will enter the Obamacare exchanges on January 1, 2014.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://roe.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363052", "Roe Statement on Yearlong Delay of Online Enrollment for Small Businesses", "2013-11-27", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Phil Roe", "R000582", "roe.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. \u2013 Rep. Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) released the following statement on the Obama administration\u2019s delay in online enrollment for small businesses that want to purchase health coverage through the federally-run exchanges:\r\n\u201cThis announcement, made one day before Thanksgiving, is just further proof that Obamacare is a disaster,\u201d said Roe. \u201cThe administration broke another promise when they said that small businesses would be able to purchase insurance coverage through the website \u2018sometime in November.\u2019\u201d\r\n\u201cWhen President Obama talked about purchasing insurance through Healthcare.gov, he said it would be similar to purchasing a television online,\u201d Roe continued. \u201cThis is clearly not the case. You can\u2019t force someone to purchase a product without giving them a way to do it. We\u2019ve known for a while that Obamacare was unaffordable, but now it\u2019s proving to be unattainable. This is unacceptable and I believe it\u2019s unfair to leave the American people on the hook for the administration\u2019s failure to deliver what they\u2019ve promised. Today\u2019s announcement is further proof that we need to provide fairness for all Americans and delay this law altogether.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1170f9d0-c1e6-4839-8c5e-b70127d3ad9d", "Alexander Compounding Legislation Signed Into Law to Help \u201cPrevent Another Nightmare for Tennesseans Like Last Year\u2019s Terrifying Meningitis Outbreak\u201d", "2013-11-27", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "President signs Alexander compounding bill, which will make sterile compounded drugs safer by clarifying oversight of compounding pharmacies\r\n***\r\n\u201cTennesseans deserve this law to make it clear exactly who is in charge of overseeing each compounding facility, so there will be no questions about who\u2019s on the flagpole.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\n\r\nMARYVILLE, Nov. 27\u2013 Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, today praised the signing into law of The Drug Quality and Security Act, a result of a legislative agreement he reached with House and Senate health committee leaders to make injections of compounded sterile drugs safer.\r\nAlexander said: \u201cI have been working with my Senate colleagues for a year to find a solution that would help prevent a repeat of the terrifying meningitis outbreak that has killed 16 Tennesseans and made so many others so sick. Tennesseans deserve this law to make it clear exactly who is in charge of overseeing each compounding facility, so there will be no questions about who\u2019s on the flagpole.\u201d\r\nHe added: \u201cThis law affects the health and safety of millions of Americans. It is important in Tennessee to those 16 families who had a family member die.\u00a0 It is important to the dozens of families with a member of their family who is sick because of those injections.\u00a0 It is important to those families who may still become sick in our state and other states.\u201d\r\nLast November, when the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held its first hearing on the deadly meningitis outbreak, Alexander called for a new model of oversight of sterile compounding pharmacies. Alexander and HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) announced legislation agreement and the bill was passed by the House on Sept. 28. The bill, cleared by both houses of Congress on Nov. 18, \u00a0\u00a0clarifies current federal law regarding pharmacy compounding and resolves the patchwork of current federal regulation by applying a uniform standard nationwide.\r\nThe legislation distinguishes compounders engaged in traditional pharmacy practice from those making large volumes of compounded drugs without individual prescriptions. Compounders who wish to practice outside the scope of traditional pharmacy practice can register with the Food and Drug Administration as \u201coutsourcing facilities,\u201d subject to FDA oversight in much the same way as traditional manufacturers. Those who choose to remain traditional pharmacies will continue to be primarily regulated by State Boards of Pharmacy as they are in current law.\r\nIt also offers providers and patients better information about compounded drugs, by directing FDA to make a list of FDA-regulated outsourcing facilities available on FDA\u2019s website, requiring detailed labeling on compounded drugs, and prohibiting false and misleading advertising.\r\nThe bill also includes legislation to track and trace the more than 4 billion prescriptions that are written in America every year to help ensure their safety, replacing today\u2019s patchwork of state prescription-drug tracing laws by creating a new uniform framework for tracking drugs from the manufacturer to the pharmacy. There is currently no system for tracking the drugs that make up some 4 billion prescriptions per year in the United States, which means consumers can receive\u00a0drugs that are stolen, counterfeit, or ineffective.\r\nThis legislation requires the entire drug supply chain\u2014including manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers\u2014to pass along transaction information, history, and statements, as applicable, when there is a change of ownership. The last comprehensive effort to establish safeguards for the drug distribution supply chain was 25 years ago with the passage of The Prescription Drug Marketing Act.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=21d3802c-43a6-40e4-9bbc-6783d66cb0e5", "Alexander Bill to Reduce Premature Births Signed Into Law", "2013-11-27", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "President signs Alexander PREEMIE bill, which will reduce infant deaths and disabilities related to premature birth\r\n***\r\n\u201cThis is an important step to help reduce the rate of premature births in Tennessee, which is over 12 percent.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\r\nMARYVILLE, Nov. 27\u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today praised the signing into law of his bill to reduce infant deaths and disabilities by expanding research, education, and intervention activities related to premature birth.\r\n\u201cThis is an important step to help reduce the rate of premature births in Tennessee, which is over 12 percent. Our legislation will help doctors and researchers working on saving infant lives and preventing births from happening too early,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cWe have made great progress since we first put the spotlight on premature birth, but it remains the leading killer of newborns and a major cause of lasting disabilities.\u201d\r\nAlexander introduced the \u201cPREEMIE\u201d bill with committee member Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), which passed the HELP Committee in February and cleared both houses of Congress in early November. The legislation reauthorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u2019s (CDC) research and programs on preterm birth, including improving national data tracking on preterm birth, and conducting studies. The bill also reauthorizes programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration aimed at improving the treatment and outcome for infants born premature.\u00a0\r\nThe bill also includes two provisions: the CHIMP Act Amendments to ensure the National Institutes of Health is able to continue caring for the chimpanzees it owns; and a provision to create a National Pediatric Research Network to encourage collaboration among researchers and optimize pediatric research.\r\nThe legislation is supported by the March of Dimes Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Association of Women\u2019s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association of State & Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of County & City Health Officials.\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131207221943/http://black.house.gov/press-release/supreme-court-will-consider-americans%E2%80%99-religious-rights-under-obamacare", "Supreme Court Will Consider Americans\u2019 Religious Rights Under Obamacare", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington\u2014 Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius, a case challenging the ability of the government to force employers to provide services that violate their rights of conscience. Republicans and Democrats have joined together to support legislation that would overturn the coercive mandate.\nH.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, was introduced by Congressman Diane Black (R-TN), and is cosponsored by 188 members of the House. Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) is an original cosponsor of the bill. While Congressman Pitts supports the bill, he has a policy of not cosponsoring legislation referred to the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, which he chairs.\n\u201cI am pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Obama Administration\u2019s contraceptive mandate,\u201d said Congressman Diane Black. \u201cBeing an American means being able to freely choose our faith and live by the dictates of that faith at home, at church, and in the public square. This Administration\u2019s assault on religious liberty is an affront to our Constitution and the Supreme Court must now use this opportunity to preserve the liberties that our country was founded upon by striking down the HHS\u2019 unconstitutional mandate.\u201d\n\u201cI am very pleased that the Supreme Court will consider whether Obamacare is violating the religious freedom of employers,\u201d said Congressman Pitts. \u201cOne employer in my own district, Conestoga Wood Specialties, has been fighting alongside Hobby Lobby. Conestoga and people of faith across the nation are waiting to see if the court will protect their constitutional right to live out that faith in the marketplace.\u201d\n\u201cI\u2019m pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case that, at its core, is about preserving the most fundamental of American rights: the rights to religious liberty and conscience,\u201d said Congressman Lipinski. \u201cAlthough I am hopeful the justices will recognize that the HHS mandate infringes upon these basic constitutional rights, I will continue to be a strong supporter of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act to preserve these freedoms and protect Americans so they can practice their beliefs as they choose.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221090104/http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-discusses-impact-obamacare-fox-business%E2%80%99-varney-co", "Black Discusses Impact of Obamacare on Fox Business\u2019 Varney & Co.", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "(Click image above for video)\nWashington \u2013 Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN-06) joined host Stuart Varney on Fox Business\u2019 Varney & Co. to discuss the latest on Obamacare and its impact on our healthcare system. To watch the interview, click here.\nRELATED:\nFox News: Almost 80 million with employer health care plans could have coverage canceled, experts predict\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3c2a62b0-a9cd-4e30-9e44-2cad571acea3", "Alexander Says \u201cNo\u201d to Airplane Cell Phone Conversations", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says airline cabin privacy \u201cmay not be enshrined in the Constitution, but surely it is in common sense\u201d\r\n***\r\n\u201cImagine 2 million passengers, hurtling through space, trapped in 17-inch-wide seats, yapping their innermost thoughts. The Transportation Security Administration would have to hire three times as many air marshals to deal with fistfights.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\r\nMARYVILLE, Nov. 26 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander\u00a0(R-Tenn.)\u00a0said today that he will introduce legislation,\u00a0if necessary, to stop the Federal Communications Commission from allowing cell phone conversations on airplanes.\r\n\u201cImagine two million passengers, hurtling through space, trapped in 17-inch-wide seats, yapping their innermost thoughts,\u201d the senator said.\u00a0\u201cThe Transportation Security Administration would have to hire three times as many air marshals to deal with the fistfights.\u201d \u00a0\r\nAlexander continued. \u201cStop and think about what we hear now in airport lobbies from those who wander around shouting personal details into a microphone: babbling about last night\u2019s love life,\u00a0bathroom plans, next week\u2019s schedule, orders to an\u00a0assistant, arguments with spouses. Imagine this noise while you travel, restrained by your seatbelt, unable to escape.\u201d\r\nThe senator said. \u201cThe FCC commissioners will earn the gratitude of the two million Americans who fly each day by deciding: text messages, yes;\u00a0conversations, no.\u201d \u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8b519170-ca7e-4b73-b11a-deda99437c32", "Alexander Statement on Supreme Court Agreement To Review Obamacare Religious Freedom Case", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "MARYVILLE, Nov. 26 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, today released the following statement on the Supreme Court\u2019s announcement that it will review a mandate in Obamacare that requires business owners to offer employees reproductive services that violate the institutions\u2019 religious beliefs:\r\n\u201cRequiring business owners to defy the basic tenets of their faiths shows a disturbing disregard for the Constitution\u2019s protections of religious freedom, and I hope the Supreme Court agrees.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsArticles&ContentRecord_id=0095c70b-f7e9-4c25-9cb7-b62992bb6104", "Washington Post: Op-ed by Sen. Alexander: Without the filibuster, a tyranny of the majority", "2013-11-25", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Thursday\u2019s stunning\u00a0rules change by Senate Democrats\u00a0can best be described as Obamacare II: another exercise of partisan political power to permit the majority to do whatever it wants. This time, the goal was advancing its agenda unchecked through the courts and executive agencies.\r\nWith all Republican members opposed, the Senate voted 52 to 48 to invoke the \u201cnuclear option,\u201d allowing a majority of senators present and voting (so, not necessarily 51) to approve presidential nominees except for Supreme Court justices. For those positions, this eliminated the\u00a0filibuster, which required 60 votes to proceed to an up-or-down majority vote.\r\nThis was the most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since\u00a0Thomas Jefferson wrote them. It creates a perpetual opportunity for \u201ctyranny of the majority,\u201d which Alexis de Tocqueville called one of the greatest threats to American democracy.\r\nAs Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) noted, quoting former senator Arthur Vandenberg on Thursday: \u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\u201d It is as if the Red Sox, finding themselves behind in the ninth, added a few innings to make sure they could defeat the Cardinals in the World Series. Future majorities could, for example, end the filibuster for legislation, removing any obstacle to tyranny of the majority.\r\nDemocrats offered flimsy excuses, many of which are untrue:\r\nExcuse No. 1: President Obama\u2019s appointees have been unfairly denied seats by failed cloture votes, or filibusters.\r\nAccording to the\u00a0Congressional Research Service, no Supreme Court nominee has been defeated by filibuster in the Senate. None. (An arguable exception is\u00a0Abe Fortas\u2019s doomed nomination\u00a0as chief justice, about which President Lyndon Johnson engineered a face-saving cloture vote.)\r\nThe number of federal district judge and Cabinet nominees defeated by filibuster? Zero. Regarding sub-Cabinet nominees, there were two for President Obama, three for George W. Bush and two for Bill Clinton. That\u2019s it.\r\nAs for appeals court judges, Republican filibusters have blocked five, but that happened only after Democrats first blocked five. Beginning in 2003, Democrats blocked 10 Bush nominees. This was the first time that a president\u2019s circuit court nominees were blocked by the failure to obtain cloture. Republicans considered the nuclear option, decided against it, and five of the 10 were confirmed.\r\nExcuse No. 2: President Obama\u2019s nominees have waited too long for confirmation.\r\nAccording to the Congressional Research Service, Obama\u2019s second-term Cabinet nominees have been confirmed at about the same pace as those of Presidents Clinton and Bush.\r\nThis year, the Senate has confirmed 36 of Obama\u2019s second-term nominees to circuit and district courts, compared with 14 for Bush at this point in 2005.\r\nOn Friday, the Senate\u2019s executive calendar listed 54 nominees who have been waiting less than three weeks for confirmation, 16 who had waited for up to nine weeks and only eight who have been waiting more than nine weeks. Two of those eight nominees were being \u201cheld\u201d by Democratic senators.\r\nExcuse No. 3: Republican obstruction left the Democratic majority leader unable to act.\r\nOnly Democratic committee majorities can place nominees on the executive calendar. Only the majority leader can move their confirmation. He may do so anytime he chooses.\r\nWhat if obstructionist Republicans were to place holds on 10 sub-Cabinet nominees? Under the rules that existed before Thursday, the majority leader could have filed a cloture motion on those nominees on Monday and confirmed them by Friday \u2014 unless 41 Republicans voted against cloture. Again, that has happened to only two Obama nominees for non-judicial sub-Cabinet positions and only seven times in Senate history.\r\nIn his last Senate speech, former majority leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) warned against destroying the filibuster, which he called the \u201cnecessary fence\u201d against the executive and popular passions. Majority leaders could do whatever they needed to do under the rules, Byrd said.\r\nExcuse No. 4: Republicans have unfairly blocked the president from filling vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.\r\nIn 2006, Democrats insisted on doing precisely what Republicans are asking in 2013: moving judges from courts where they are not needed to where they are needed most. They did not think this unfair then.\r\nIn 2006, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Sens. Patrick Leahy, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, said that \u201cunder no circumstances\u201d should new judges be confirmed to the D.C. court because its workload was half the national average and there were judicial emergencies elsewhere.\r\nWith Bush\u2019s approval, the Senate reduced the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit by one, moving that slot to the 9th Circuit. The D.C. Circuit hears fewer cases today than it did in 2007.\r\nSo why would Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) engineer a rules change that he said in 2006 \u201cwould be the end of the Senate\u201d? Because the vote was not about the filibuster. It was about permitting the majority to do whatever it wants.\r\nCall it Obamacare II, for which the only cure is a referendum next November.\r\nRead more about this topic: Dana Milbank: Democrats\u2019 power grab Ruth Marcus: The Democrats\u2019 mistake The Post\u2019s View: The \u2018nuclear\u2019 fallout Eugene Robinson: Forced to go \u2018nuclear\u2019 Jennifer Rubin: \u2018Nuclear option\u2019 has many consequences James Downie: The GOP has only itself to blame\r\nLamar Alexander, a Republican, represents Tennessee in the Senate.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131128224708/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=b3538cce-ba5e-4dd9-b95e-87fa70dfa807", "Corker Introduces Legislation to Keep Pressure on Iran", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Following an announcement that the Senate will consider Iran legislation in December, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced a bill setting conditions for an acceptable final agreement with Iran that would restrict sanctions relief until Iran agrees to eliminate the threat of its nuclear program.\u00a0 The Iran Nuclear Compliance Act of 2013, consistent with Iran\u2019s existing obligations under the U.N. Security Council, requires Iran to fully comply with any interim deal reached in Geneva and further agree to the terms of an acceptable final agreement before the president of the United States could waive additional sanctions.\u00a0 Further, it would restore all sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the interim agreement.\n\u201cIt\u2019s important for the Senate to proceed with this debate and keep the pressure on Iran during negotiations over their illicit nuclear program,\u201d said Corker.\u00a0 \u201cMany of us have concerns that an interim agreement in Geneva will diminish U.S. leverage without Iran meeting its existing international obligations.\u00a0 That outcome could result in the interim deal becoming the final deal, legitimizing Iran\u2019s enrichment activities in violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions.\u00a0 Whatever the outcome in Geneva may be this week, I\u2019m hopeful the Senate will work in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen the position of the U.S. in these negotiations so we can reach a final status agreement that will prevent the Iranians from ever developing a nuclear weapon.\n\u201cToward that end, I\u2019ve offered legislation that would ensure Iran is in full compliance with any interim agreement and agrees to the essential terms of an acceptable final deal before the U.S. could further lift sanctions.\u00a0 It would further cause any sanctions relieved in the interim to snap back if Iran violates any of its commitments under such an agreement.\u00a0 We all want diplomacy to succeed, so I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration to support a successful outcome in these negotiations that are critical for the peace and security of the U.S. and the world.\u201d\nText of the legislation and a one-page summary are attached and available online here.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131202205404/http://black.house.gov:80/press-release/roll-call-improving-our-tax-code-american-students-and-families", "Roll Call: Improving Our Tax Code for American Students and Families", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "In Case You Missed It:  \nImproving Our Tax Code for American Students and Families\nBy Reps. Diane Black and Danny K. Davis\nPublished November 22, 2013\nOver the last few months, the media has described Congress as \u201cdysfunctional\u201d and \u201cbroken,\u201d and the public as \u201cfrustrated\u201d and \u201cangry\u201d with its lawmakers. Interestingly, those are the same words that are used to describe today\u2019s tax code.\nThat is what spurred the two of us \u2013 a Democrat from Chicago and a Republican from Nashville \u2013 to start working together to fix the tax code so that students and families would have an easier time affording higher education.\nIt\u2019s a well-known fact that the cost of education is climbing, and that for too many, the ability to save and pay for college without ending up under a mountain of debt, is simply out of reach. Today\u2019s broken tax code does little to ease that financial burden or provide a sense of security that education will be a reality in the future. In fact, because it is such a complex and confusing system, more than 80 percent of Americans say that dealing with the tax code makes them frustrated and angry.\nAs the chair and co-chair of the Ways and Means Committee Education Tax Reform Working Group, one of 11 working groups tasked with exploring how to make the tax code simpler and fairer for families, frustration with the code was a common theme in our meetings. Working with the Joint Committee on Taxation, we learned that currently there are 15 different tax breaks for education \u2014 four are designed to help individuals save prior to becoming a student, nine are available while the student is in school, and two exist for when the student has completed his or her education. It was overwhelming when we had tax experts explain it, and so it was not difficult to imagine parents trying to navigate and understand it all. After sorting through the 90 pages of IRS instructions, parents would simply just toss up their hands and say, \u201cI give up.\u201d\nDuring our time together on the Education Tax Reform Working Group, our work didn\u2019t end when we delivered our report to our colleagues. Instead, our desire to provide at least some relief from that frustration led the two of us to work even further to see how we could clean up the code and actually help students and families in their struggles to finance education costs.\nThat process has led us to introduce the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act. This legislation consolidates four existing education provisions \u2014 the Hope Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), the Lifetime Learning Credit, and the tuition deduction \u2014 into a single, modernized and strengthened AOTC. As outlined in the legislation, the new AOTC, which would be permanent and partially refundable, would:\n\u2022Provide a 100-percent tax credit for the first $2,000 of eligible higher education expenses and a 25-percent tax credit for the next $2,000 of such expenses (for a maximum credit of $2,500).\n\u2022The first $1,500 of the credit would be refundable, meaning that families could receive the benefit regardless of whether they have Federal income tax liability.\n\u2022The credit could be used to offset expenses for tuition, fees and course materials.\n\u2022The credit would be available for up to four years of post-secondary education at qualifying four-year universities, community colleges, and trade and vocational schools.\n\u2022The credit would begin to phase out for families with income between $86,000 and $126,000 (half those amounts for single individuals), ensuring that the credit provides the greatest benefit and value to low- and middle-income families.\nStreamlining the number of education provisions and retooling those that are most effective has another benefit, too \u2013 it allows us to simplify the code and reduce some of the confusion that exists today. As a result, students can spend less time figuring out how to finance the cost of a higher education and more time developing the skills they need to succeed in a knowledge-based economy.\nIt ought to be easier for any family to plan, save and invest in education. Our bipartisan bill makes common-sense reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer when it comes to helping Americans afford the cost of a college education.\nCongressman Diane Black, R-Tenn., is a member of the Ways and Means, and Budget Committees. Congressman Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., is a member of the Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f567a559-0310-4ada-a171-5527b51c4c94", "Alexander: Administration Moves Next Year\u2019s Obamacare Insurance Enrollment to After 2014 Election to \u201cHelp Democratic Politicians\u201d", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says he\u2019ll offer a legislative solution to reverse decision\r\n  \r\nMARYVILLE, Nov. 22 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, released the following statement on a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services announcement that it will delay the beginning of the next Obamacare enrollment season by one month, till Nov. 15, 2014, after the midterm elections, instead of beginning open enrollment season on the department\u2019s previously announced date of Oct. 15:\r\n\u201cThe only American consumers this change will help are Democratic politicians\u00a0who voted for Obamacare,\u00a0because it delays disclosure of some of the law's most insidious effects until after the election.\u201d\r\nAlexander will offer a legislative solution to provide Americans with proper notice of any premium increases before open enrollment on the exchanges begins, irrespective of political considerations, so that Americans will know what premiums they will have to pay in the exchanges before they open.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=WeeklyColumns&ContentRecord_id=2039655b-f3d8-4bf9-a57a-814618196dbe", "Weekly Column by Lamar Alexander: Helping to Prevent Another Meningitis Outbreak", "2013-11-22", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "On Monday, the U.S. Senate passed my legislation to help prevent another meningitis outbreak like the one last year that killed 16 Tennesseans and sickened so many others. Tennesseans deserve this legislation, which will soon become law and make clear exactly who is on the flagpole for overseeing the sorts of facilities that led to last year\u2019s outbreak.\r\nWhen the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee \u2013 of which I am the lead Republican \u2013 held its first hearings on this tragic outbreak last November, we looked at how could this possibly happen. The compounding facility in Massachusetts that produced these contaminated drugs operated more like a manufacturer, but it was unclear if the state or was the FDA in charge.\r\nI made it clear from the first Senate hearing that my priority was to find a way to clarify who is accountable\u2014who is on the flagpole\u2014for overseeing the safety of drugs made in these large-scale drug compounding facilities.\r\nThe legislation that is set to become law is the result of an agreement I helped reach between the Senate and House health committees to make it clear exactly who is in charge of overseeing each compounding facility. The U.S. House of Representatives passed it on Sept. 28.\r\nIt distinguishes compounders engaged in traditional pharmacy practice from those making large volumes of compounded drugs without individual prescriptions.\r\nIt also creates a new, voluntary third category called an \u201coutsourcing facility.\u201d\u00a0 If a drugstore chooses to be in this category, they follow one nationwide quality standard, and the FDA is responsible for all the drugs made in that facility.\u00a0FDA is on the flagpole.\r\nThose who choose to remain traditional pharmacies will continue to be primarily regulated by the state, as they are in current law.\r\nDuring this process, we heard stories like that of Diana Reed of Tennessee.\r\nDiana was healthy\u2014either ran or swam every day\u2014and was the arms, legs and voice to her husband, Wayne, who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease. Diana began receiving injections for neck pain and found herself diagnosed with meningitis from these injections. Only a few weeks later, 1,000 people packed Otter Creek Church in Brentwood for her funeral.\r\nFDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told us that if Congress failed to act, a crisis like the meningitis outbreak was \u201ca matter of when, not if.\u00a0\r\n\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I don't intend to sit through another hearing in which the FDA can point the finger at someone else instead of taking responsibility, or claim it didn't have enough authority \u2013 and once this bill becomes law, they won't be able to.\u00a0\r\n  \r\nThe bill we are sending to the president\u2019s desk affects the health and safety of every American, and I am pleased we have come to a consensus that takes a large step forward that they deserve.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221090224/http://black.house.gov/press-release/tennessean-new-health-bill-has-cure-obamacare", "The Tennessean: New Health Bill has Cure for Obamacare", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Diane Black", "B001273", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "In Case You Missed It: \nNew Health Bill has Cure for Obamacare\nBy Congressman Diane Black\nPublished November 21, 2013\nThe first numbers are in, and they are ugly. The Affordable Care Act\u2019s central promise of expanding access to health coverage is under threat as millions of Americans across the country are receiving notices that their existing policies are being canceled, while only about 106,000 have enrolled through the exchange websites.\nIn Tennessee, only 992 people have selected plans through the federal exchange, yet so far at least 94,000 Tennesseans across our state are at risk of being dropped from their existing plans. This is in direct contrast to President Obama\u2019s famous promise that \u201cif you like your plan, you can keep it \u2014 period.\u201d\nWith sagging poll numbers and growing turmoil among congressional Democrats, Obama attempted to \u201cfix\u201d the problem of mass cancellation notices by executive fiat. This is far from what is necessary to guarantee his promise, and my House colleagues and I swiftly moved to pass bipartisan legislation that would help protect people\u2019s existing coverage, the Keep Your Health Plan Act, which the president has cynically threatened to veto.\nBut canceled policies are not the only broken promise Americans are suffering from. With different plans come different doctors and hospitals. And rather than reducing premiums by $2,500 a year for the average American family as Obama promised, \u201cObamacare\u201d is causing premiums to skyrocket. On average, a 30-year-old male nonsmoker can expect a 260 percent increase in his premium, according to one study.\nIt\u2019s no secret that I have long opposed Obama\u2019s health care law. As a registered nurse for more than 40 years, I know that something had to be done to address problems in our health care system. But rather than a top-down federal rewrite of one-sixth of our economy, we need to expand access and work to lower costs with a more patient-centered, market-based approach.\nNow that Obamacare is rapidly careening off the tracks, I am often asked what can be done to fix it. The sad reality is that it can\u2019t simply be fixed; while there are steps that can be taken to ease the pain on some Americans now, these measures will often lead to unintended consequences for others. This is why the only true fix is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with smarter reforms.\nThis is why I have co-sponsored HR 3121, the American Health Care Reform Act, introduced by my fellow Tennessee Rep. Phil Roe, a physician who knows the ins and outs of the health care system. This bill has received the support of more than 100 members of Congress.\nThe first thing this legislation does is give us a blank slate to work from by repealing Obamacare. It then focuses on reducing health care costs and increasing access by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines. Furthermore, common-sense medical malpractice reform is put in place that would limit lawsuit abuse in the health industry and help lower costs associated with doctor and hospital visits.\nOur plan would protect individuals with pre-existing conditions by bolstering state-based high-risk pools and extending existing guaranteed availability protections under HIPAA. We expand access to health savings accounts and level the playing field for families and individuals by giving them the same tax deductions for health care costs that businesses and employers enjoy.\nObamacare is failing to live up to even its most basic expectations and is creating havoc on our health care system and exposing Tennesseans and Americans across the country to dropped coverage, reduced access and dramatic premium increases. This cannot sustain itself and must be stopped. The time has come for President Obama to stop with the politics and work with Congress to protect Americans from this disastrous law.\n###\nCongressman Diane Black represents Tennessee\u2019s 6th Congressional District. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=2f3da5d7-fcbd-4f49-b651-3ad75f6ea40f", "Alexander: \u201cThe Most Dangerous and Consequential Change in the Rules of the Senate Since Thomas Jefferson Wrote Those Rules\u201d", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says \u201cnuclear option\u201d is \u201cObamacare II\u2026 another example of the use of raw partisan political power\u201d\r\n***\r\n\u201cThe American people, millions of them, are filling out their insurance forms, they\u2019re trying to make the web site work, they're terrified by the fact they may not have insurance by January 1. That\u2019s totally the result of a partisan political power grab in the middle of the night three years ago that put Obamacare into place. This is another example of that. The only cure for that is a referendum next November.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 21 \u2013 U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today said that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, with the support of Senate Democrats, has \u201cwritten the end of the United States Senate\u201d by using the \u201cnuclear option\u201d to get rid of the filibuster on presidential nominations.\r\nAlexander said the decision to break Senate rules so that it takes only a simple majority \u2013 instead of 60 votes under a filibuster \u2013 for an up-or-down vote on nominations is \u201cObamacare II.\u201d He noted that Obamacare was passed on a strictly partisan vote, and that the American people are unhappy with it today.\r\n\u201cThis is very simply another partisan political power grab to permit the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cThe American people, millions of them, are filling out their insurance forms, they\u2019re trying to make the web site work, they're terrified by the fact they may not have insurance by January 1. That\u2019s totally the result of a partisan political power grab in the middle of the night three years ago that put Obamacare into place. This is another example of that.\u201d\r\nAlexander continued, \u201cThe only cure for that is a referendum next November. I deeply regret the action the Democratic majority took today. It is the most dangerous and the most consequential change in the rules of the United States Senate since Thomas Jefferson wrote those rules at the founding of our country.\u201d\r\nAlexander said Democratic Leader Harry Reid has previously warned against getting rid of the filibuster for presidential nominations, because it would lead to getting rid of it for legislation and be \u201cthe end of the United States Senate.\u201d The Senate, Alexander said, is supposed to guard against the \u201ctyranny of the majority,\u201d as Alexis de Tocqueville put it, by forcing the majority in the Senate and the president to work with the minority toward a consensus.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f7c7ab9d-ee42-4901-bb02-8bdc58255068", "Alexander: Democrats Breaking Senate Rules Is \u201cObamacare II,\u201d Another \u201cRaw Exercise of Partisan Political Power\u201d", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says \u201cnuclear option\u201d would make the Senate a place where \u201cthe home team can cheat to win the game\u201d\r\n***\r\n\u201cThe president said during the government shutdown that he wasn\u2019t going to negotiate with a gun to his head \u2013 neither will I. The Democrats have had their finger on the nuclear button for two years. I hope they will reconsider.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 21 \u2013 In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the Senate Democratic majority\u2019s plan to get rid of the filibuster for presidential nominations \u2013 which the Senate majority accomplished today, by a vote of 52-48 \u2013 would be another \u201craw exercise of partisan political power\u201d equivalent to the partisan passage of Obamacare. He also said he will no longer negotiate over such threats, and noted that Democrats have taken the Republican position both on the D.C. Circuit and the filibuster in the past. (Click HERE to see video of Alexander\u2019s speech.)\r\n\u201cThis is my third opportunity to respond to these nuclear threats, and I\u2019m not going to do it again. The president said during the government shutdown that he wasn't going to negotiate with a gun to his head \u2013 neither will I. The Democrats have had their finger on the nuclear button for two years. I hope they will reconsider,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cIf the Democrats proceed to use the nuclear option in this way, it will be Obamacare II: It will be another raw exercise of partisan political power to say we can do whatever we want to do.\u201d\r\nIf Senate Democrats break the Senate\u2019s rules so that they only need a simple majority \u2013 as opposed to 60 votes under a filibuster \u2013 on presidential nominations, Alexander said, it would prove what Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., recently said in quoting his Michigan predecessor, former Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Vandenberg said, \u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\u201d\r\nAlexander continued: \u201cLet\u2019s say Vanderbilt\u2019s football team gets on the one-yard line of Tennessee, and Tennessee then says \u2018Well, we\u2019re the home team, let\u2019s add 20 yards or whatever it takes to win the game.\u2019 Or let\u2019s say in the World Series recently, the Red Sox were behind St. Louis in the ninth inning and the Red Sox said, \u2018Well, we\u2019re the home team, let\u2019s add a couple of innings or whatever it takes to win the game. Everyone would say \u2018You\u2019re destroying the game\u2019 of football or baseball. \u2026 I hope we will resist turning the Senate into an institution where the home team can cheat to win the game to get whatever result it wants at any time it wants.\u201d\r\nAlexander gave these additional reasons he hopes the Democrats will reconsider:\r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\n\u00a0\u00a0 Democrats previously supported reducing the number of judgeships on the D.C. Circuit: In 2006, Senate Democrats, including Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined in calling for a reduction in the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit, Alexander said. Ultimately the Senate and President George W. Bush opted to lessen the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit by one seat, moving it to the Ninth Circuit.\u00a0\r\n \r\nAlexander said it would be premature to have an up or down vote on the presidents\u2019 nominees to the D.C. Circuit until the Senate considers a proposal he has cosponsored with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to remove one judgeship and move two others to the Second and Eleventh Circuits. Alexander has said, \u201cI\u2019ll not vote to end the debate on the president\u2019s nominees until the Senate does in 2013 what Democratic senators suggested and the Senate did in 2007: move judges from where they are not needed to where they are needed most.\u201d\r\n\r\n \r\nPresident Obama\u2019s nominees have received the same or better treatment than his predecessors: According to the Senate historian, Alexander said, President Obama\u2019s cabinet nominees so far in his second term have been confirmed at about the same pace as President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. Senate Democrats in the majority also control whether nominees are reported to the floor of the Senate, Alexander said, and there is no backlog.\r\n \r\n\r\nRepublicans are also following a precedent Democrats set, Alexander said, when they filibustered circuit court judges under President Bush. In the history of the Senate, no nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district court or the president\u2019s cabinet have been denied their seat by filibuster.\u00a0\r\nAlexander said Democratic Leader Harry Reid has previously warned against getting rid of the filibuster for presidential nominations, because it would lead to getting rid of it for legislation and be \u201cthe end of the United States Senate.\u201d The Senate, Alexander said, is supposed to guard against the \u201ctyranny of the majority,\u201d as historian Alexis de Tocqueville put it, by forcing the majority in the Senate and the president to work with the minority toward a consensus.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SpeechesFloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=09e34943-2470-4b18-96f6-534f7c79759f", "Floor Speech: Nuclear Option", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "As Senator Byrd used to say: The purpose of the Senate is to have a place where there can be an opportunity for unlimited discussion, unlimited debates, and unlimited amendments.\u00a0 That is why we are here.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Senator Byrd used to say so eloquently that the Senate was a unique body because it provided the necessary fence against the abuses of the executive.\u00a0 That is what Senator Byrd said in his last speech to the Senate when he spoke before the Rules Committee.\u00a0 He said the Senate is the necessary fence against abuses of the executive -- remembering how this country was founded in opposition to the king and the popular excesses.\u00a0 That was what the Senate was supposed to be.\u00a0 I am afraid that ended today.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This action by the Democratic majority is the most important and most dangerous restructuring of the rules of the Senate since Thomas Jefferson wrote the rules at the founding of our country.\u00a0 It creates the perpetual opportunity -- as Alexis de Tocqueville described -- that is most dangerous for our country.\u00a0 He said that when he came to our country to visit in the 1830s.\u00a0 The young Frenchman said:\u00a0 I see two great dangers for this new American democracy.\u00a0 One was Russia and the other was the tyranny of the majority.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The action that was taken today creates a perpetual opportunity for the tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this body to do whatever it wants to do anytime it wants to do it.\u00a0 This should be called ObamaCare II because it is another example of the use of raw partisan political power for the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In this case what it wants to do is implement the president's radical regulatory agenda through the District of Columbia court.\u00a0 That's what this is.\u00a0 It is not about an abuse of the filibuster.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There is a big football weekend coming up in Tennessee.\u00a0 Vanderbilt University plays the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let's imagine this:\u00a0 The Vanderbilt-Tennessee game, which is being played in Knoxville, home of the University of Tennessee, and Vanderbilt gets on the 1-yard line.\r\nThe University of Tennessee says:\u00a0 Well, we are the home team, so we will just add 20 yards to the field or whatever it takes for us to win the game.\u00a0 Or the Boston Red Sox are playing at home.\u00a0 Let's say they are behind the Cardinals this year.\u00a0 They get to the ninth inning and they are behind and they say:\u00a0 Well, it is our home field.\u00a0 We will just add a few innings or whatever it takes so we can win the game.\u00a0 That is what the Democratic majority did today.\u00a0 They say:\u00a0 The rules don't allow us to do what we want to do, so we will just change the rules to do whatever it takes to get the result we want.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 That is what they did with Obamacare.\u00a0 We remember that.\u00a0 I was standing right here at the desk.\u00a0 It was snowing.\u00a0 It was the middle of the winter.\u00a0 Senators were coming in, in the middle of the night, and what happened?\u00a0 Among the things the American people like the least about Obamacare is that it was crammed down the throat of the American people by the raw exercise of partisan political power with not one single Republican vote.\u00a0 That is not the way the civil rights bill was passed.\u00a0 That is not the way Social Security and other great bills were passed.\u00a0 They were passed by a bipartisan majority so we could gain the support of the American people.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 Our Democratic majority must have liked that Obamacare night.\u00a0 The American people aren't liking it so much because apparently nobody read the bill very closely.\u00a0 There are millions of Americans who have had their policies canceled.\u00a0 There are going to be millions more when employers start looking at the cost of Obamacare.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 This is Obamacare 2; I say to my colleagues: This is another exercise of raw partisan political power for the Democratic majority to get the result it wants.\u00a0 There is only one cure for it, and that is an election.\u00a0 An election is coming up in about a year.\u00a0 The American people can speak.\u00a0 In the meantime, this has been the most dangerous, most important restructuring of the Senate since Thomas Jefferson wrote the rules.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 It is, according to the Senator from Nevada, who is the majority leader -- it is, according to his book in 2008, the end of the Senate.\u00a0 That is what he said this would be, and now he has done it.\u00a0 He has written the end of the Senate by his actions today.\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, said to all of us when we were discussing this earlier this year -- he reminded us of the great Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, who was the author of the idea of a bipartisan foreign policy.\u00a0 Senator Vandenberg said shortly after World War II that a U.S. Senate in which a majority can change the rules anytime the majority wants is a U.S. Senate without any rules.\u00a0 Let me say that again.\u00a0 A U.S. Senate in which the majority can change the rules anytime the majority wants is a U.S. Senate without any rules.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 So this is not about the filibuster.\u00a0 This is another raw partisan political power grab so the Democratic majority can do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it.\u00a0 It is Obamacare II, and the American people will see it that way when they can take time away from the websites trying to fill out their new insurance policies to be able to pay enough attention to it.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 What is the excuse for this extraordinarily disturbing action today?\u00a0 They are the flimsiest of excuses, and I will take a few minutes to outline what those are.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 The first allegation is that the Republican minority was using the filibuster to keep President Obama's appointees from gaining their seats.\u00a0 Well, let's look at the history from the Congressional Research Service.\u00a0 How many Supreme Court nominees have ever not been seated because of a failed cloture vote?\u00a0 That is a filibuster.\u00a0 The answer is zero in the history of the Senate -- not just President Obama but the history of the Senate.\u00a0 Someone might point to the Abe Fortas case when President Johnson -- I guess it was in the late 1960s -- engineered a 45-to-43 cloture vote so, in Johnson's words, Abe Fortas could hold his head up, but, in fact, the filibuster has never been used to deny a Supreme Court Justice his or her seat.\u00a0 How many Cabinet Members of President Obama have been denied their seat by a filibuster?\u00a0 Zero.\u00a0 This is the Congressional Research Service.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 The majority leader said:\u00a0 Well, what about Secretary Hagel, the distinguished Defense Secretary?\u00a0 He had to wait 34 days to be confirmed.\u00a0 Why shouldn't he wait 34 days to be confirmed?\u00a0 He was confirmed shortly after his name was reported.\u00a0 We had a perfectly adequate Secretary of Defense sitting in the office at the time -- Secretary Panetta.\u00a0 I remember the Senator from Nevada standing over there and asking:\u00a0 What if we are attacked and Secretary Hagel is not there?\u00a0 Well, Secretary Panetta was there.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 The number is zero.\r\n\u00a0\r\nMy point is that the charge is that Republicans had been denying President Obama his nominations by filibuster.\u00a0 Not on the Supreme Court, not to his cabinet, and no district judges, I say to my colleagues.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How many in the history of the country have ever been denied their seats by a failed cloture vote, including President Obama?\u00a0 The answer is zero.\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0That is very interesting.\u00a0 So what is the reason for this?\u00a0 Well, let's go on.\u00a0 Maybe it was some other nomination that caused such a problem that would justify this dangerous restructuring of the Senate rules.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Let's go to the subcabinet category.\u00a0 These are all the executive appointments below the cabinet level.\u00a0 How many of those have been denied?\u00a0 Under President Clinton, the Senate rejected two nominees of his by a cloture vote.\u00a0 Under George W. Bush, it was three.\u00a0 Under President Obama, it has been two.\u00a0 So in the history of the Senate, the cloture vote has been used to deny seven Presidential nominees their seat, including two for President Obama.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let's go to the one area where there has been a little bit more; that is, the circuit judges. Remember, on the Supreme Court, never; district judges, never; cabinet member, never; but circuit judges, yes.\u00a0 There have been 10 instances where Presidential nominees for the federal circuit courts of appeals have been denied their seats because of a failed cloture vote -- that is a filibuster -- five Democrats, five Republicans.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How did this happen?\u00a0 If in all of these other areas it never happens, why did it happen here?\u00a0 Because, as the Republican Leader explained this morning, Democrats got together in 2003 -- the year I came to the Senate -- and said, for the first time in the history of the U.S. Senate, we are going to use the filibuster to deny President George W. Bush 10 nominations to the circuit court because they are too conservative, not because they are not qualified.\u00a0 One was Miguel Estrada, one of the most highly qualified nominees ever presented.\u00a0 One was Judge Pickering.\u00a0 One was Judge Pryor, who used to be a law clerk to Judge Wisdom, as I once was.\u00a0 I know the high respect Judge Wisdom had for him.\u00a0 The end result was that we had this Gang of 14, and the Democrats ended up only stopping five of President Bush's judges, but that was the first time in the history of the Senate.\u00a0 To date, including the judges we are discussing now, the three on the DC Circuit Court, the total is five.\u00a0 So that is it.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0How can anyone say President Obama has not been treated fairly when, in fact, the answer is zero on the Supreme Court, zero on district judges, zero on cabinet and two on sub-Cabinet, and the same on circuit courts that President Bush had?\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 I asked the Senate Historian if President Obama's second term cabinet nominees had been moved through the Senate more swiftly or slower than those of his two predecessors, Bush and Clinton.\u00a0 The Senate Historian told me it was about the same.\u00a0 So on that question, that is a fake crisis.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 The second allegation is that it takes too long for President Obama's nominees to come through the Senate.\u00a0 Well, we have something on our desks called the Executive Calendar.\u00a0 Every Senator has this. There are 44 Senators in their first term, and maybe some haven't had a chance to read it very carefully, but it has on it all of the names of everyone who could possibly be confirmed.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 The way Senate procedure works is a nominee comes out of a committee to the Executive Calendar.\u00a0 Let me state the obvious:\u00a0 All of the committees are controlled by the Democrats.\u00a0 So if we want to report someone for the National Labor Relations Board, it has to be approved by a majority of senators on the committee on which I serve. Democrats have a majority of the seats on the committee; so a nominee gets on this calendar by a majority of Democratic votes.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 So how long have the people on the calendar been waiting?\u00a0 Well, 54 of them have been waiting only three weeks; in other words, they just got there.\u00a0 Most of them aren't controversial.\u00a0 Usually they are approved on a day such as this when we are wrapping up before we go home for a week or two, so half of them would probably be gone today.\u00a0 There are 16 who have been on the calendar for up to nine weeks.\u00a0 That is a very short period of time in the U.S. Senate for people to have a chance to do their other business and get to know the nominees.\u00a0 There are eight who have been on the calendar more than nine weeks.\u00a0 Of the eight, two are being held up by Democrats, and two more are Congressman Watt and Ms. Millett.\u00a0 That leaves four, and one of those is a newscaster who has been nominated to be a member of the board of the Morris K. Udall Foundation and who is being moved along with other people to that foundation board.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 In other words, it is not true that there are people being held up for a long period of time because the only way a nominee can be confirmed in the U.S. Senate is if the majority takes someone from this Executive Calendar, moves their nomination -- it doesn't have to go through any sort of other motion; he can do it on his own -- and then we move to consider that person.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Well, one might say:\u00a0 But someone can hold each up one of those.\u00a0 Yes, we can, under the cloture procedure.\u00a0 But let's take an example.\u00a0 Let's say Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, were to come, under the old rules, to the floor and say:\u00a0 I believe Republicans are holding up 10 of our lower-level nominees in an obstructionist way.\u00a0 So let's say he arrives on Monday and he files cloture.\u00a0 He moves to confirm all 10 of those.\u00a0 He takes them off this calendar, he moves them to be confirmed, and he files cloture on each of the 10 on Monday.\u00a0 Tuesday is what we call an intervening day.\u00a0 He can get the rest of them confirmed, by bankers' hours, by Friday if he wants to because after he has that intervening day, there could only be, because we changed the rules earlier this year, eight hours of debate, and his side can yield back their four hours, and then we go to the next one and then the next one.\u00a0 So we have 40 or 45 hours, and we have them all.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The majority leader, if he wished to, could confirm all of these people very easily unless 41 Republicans said no.\u00a0 But what we have already seen is that almost never happens.\u00a0 In the history of the country, it has happened twice to President Obama on his subcabinet members, never on a Cabinet member; and never on district judges.\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 So the majority leader had plenty of opportunity to have everybody confirmed if he wanted to.\u00a0 This is why Senator Byrd, who was majority leader and minority leader, in his last speech to the Senate said:\u00a0 There is no need to change the rules -- and I am paraphrasing.\u00a0 I was at the Rules Committee hearing when he spoke.\u00a0 He said:\u00a0 A majority leader can use the rules that we have -- that is, until today -- to do whatever he wants to get done.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0 Then there is the last charge about the District of Columbia Circuit.\u00a0 That was the other pretext for this.\u00a0\r\nSomehow Republicans were doing something wrong by saying it is too soon to cut off debate on the President's three nominees for the District of Columbia Circuit.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Republicans were doing -- to the letter -- exactly what Democrats did in 2006 and 2007.\u00a0 They were saying that court is underworked, that other courts are overworked, and we ought to move judges from where they are needed least to where they are needed most before we put anymore judges on the court.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is the letter sent on July 27, 2006, by all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Senators Leahy, Schumer, Feingold, Kohl, Biden, Feinstein, Ted Kennedy.\u00a0 They said \"under no circumstances\" should President Bush's Republican nominee be considered, much less confirmed, by this committee before we address the very need for the judges on the committee.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 All we in the Republican Party were saying is -- Senator Grassley has had his bill in since 2003; the Democrats said in 2006 we should not put anymore judges on the court until we look at where the judges are needed -- we are saying:\u00a0 Consider Senator Grassley's bill before you confirm the judges.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So that is the excuse -- the flimsiest of excuses.\u00a0 The idea that President Obama is not being treated at least as well as previous Presidents with his nominees is just not true.\u00a0 The filibuster has not been used to deny him nominees, except in two cases for subcabinet members; and in the case of circuit judges, no more than with President Bush.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The majority leader has not used the rules he had before him to easily confirm the people on the Executive Calendar.\u00a0 Those on the Executive Calendar for the most part have only been there for a few weeks.\u00a0 So why then did the majority feel the need to take this extraordinary action?\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That takes us back to where we started.\u00a0 This is, very simply, another partisan political power grab to permit the majority to do whatever it wants to any time it wants to do it.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The American people -- millions of them -- are filling out their insurance forms.\u00a0 They are trying to make the Web site work.\u00a0 They are terrified by the fact that they may not have insurance by January 1.\u00a0 That is totally the result of a partisan political power grab in the middle of the night three years ago that put Obamacare into place.\u00a0 This is another example of that.\u00a0 The only cure for that is a referendum next November.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I deeply regret the action the Democratic majority took today.\u00a0 It is the most dangerous and the most consequential change in the rules of the Senate since Thomas Jefferson wrote those rules at the founding of our country.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Madam President, I would refer my colleagues to the letter I had included in the record yesterday, the letter from the Senate Democrats in 2006 arguing that the DC Circuit should have no more judges until we consider the proper number and also a one-page list of the total number of subcabinet members who have ever been denied their seat by a failed cloture vote -- and that number is seventeen in the history of the Senate; two under Clinton, three under Bush, and two under President Obama -- plus five Bush judges and five Obama judges.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsletterArchive&ContentRecord_id=3d7f3a29-b9e5-4896-b93e-627833e7c2cc", "Fall Newsletter", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "I\u2019d like to share with you some of what I\u2019ve been working on in Washington and Tennessee this fall:\r\nStanding up for Tennessee\u2019s three ROTC programs\r\nOn Nov. 6, I announced that the U.S. Army agreed not to close three Reserve Officers\u2019 Training Corps (ROTC) programs in Tennessee as it had previously announced, and instead will give them two years to improve to meet the Army\u2019s current needs. We\u2019re proud of these programs \u2014 they\u2019ve produced some of our nation\u2019s outstanding military leaders. That makes the Army\u2019s announcement a major victory for East Tennessee State University, Tennessee Technology University and University of Tennessee Martin, and I applaud Congressmen Roe, Black and Fincher and Senator Corker for their leadership on this issue as well. On Nov. 8 I was in Johnson City, where I was glad to visit with students from the ROTC department at ETSU.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nClick here to read more about the Army\u2019s announcement.\r\nPresident Obama\u2019s HHS Secretary should resign\r\nOn Oct. 29 I went to the floor of the U.S. Senate and called on President Obama to relieve his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, of her duties because of the disastrous rollout of Obamacare. Taxpayers have spent more than $400 million to create exchanges that after three-and-a-half years still don\u2019t work, and this is on top of Obamacare\u2019s rising costs and fewer choices. Secretary Sebelius is refusing to answer our questions on the exchanges and tell us what went wrong. No private sector executive would escape this kind of accountability after such a poor performance.\r\nClick here to see video of my speech calling for Sebelius\u2019s resignation, and here to read more about the disastrous rollout of Obamacare.\r\nHolding the president accountable for his \u201cif you like your plan\u201d promise\r\nOn Nov. 5, I called on the Obama administration to put into law the president\u2019s promise that \u201cif you like your plan, you can keep it.\u201d During a hearing of the Senate health committee \u2013 of which I am the lead Republican \u2013 I asked Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, about that promise. Today, the White House\u2019s website still says: \u201cIf you like your plan you can keep it and you don\u2019t have to change a thing due to the health care law,\u201d even though at least 5 million Americans are losing their policies starting Jan. 1, because many plans are outlawed under Obamacare. On Oct. 28, I introduced the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the administration to provide weekly reports to Congress, the states and the public on the Obamacare exchanges.\r\nClick here to see video from the Nov. 5 health committee hearing, and here to read more about my legislation requiring weekly reports on Obamacare.\r\nPassing legislation to help prevent another meningitis outbreak\r\nOn Nov. 18, the U.S. Senate passed my legislation to help prevent another meningitis outbreak like the one that killed 16 Tennesseans and sickened so many others. The House passed the legislation on Sept. 28, and it will soon become law. This legislation will fix the uncertainty over who is in charge of the sort of compounding facilities that were tied to the meningitis outbreak. We need to make it clear exactly who is on the flagpole for preventing another one.\r\nClick here to read more about the Senate\u2019s vote and to watch a video of me discussing my legislation.\r\nFixing our $17.1 trillion federal debt\r\nWe need to redouble our efforts to fix the country\u2019s $17.1 trillion federal debt. We could start by passing the plan I\u2019ve introduced with Senator Corker, the Fiscal Sustainability Act, which would reduce the growth of out-of-control entitlement spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The entitlement programs driving the federal debt are unsustainable. If Congress and President Obama don\u2019t make tough decisions now to address out-of-control spending, young Americans will be forever known as the debt-paying generation. We will have watched America pass from the hands of the \u201cgreatest generation\u201d to the \u201cdebt-paying generation,\u201d with nothing to show for it but the bill.\r\nTo read more about my proposal to cut $1 trillion from the growth in entitlement spending over the next 10 years, click here.\r\nDiscussing jobs and workforce needs with the Northeast Tennessee Workforce Investment Board\r\n\r\nOn Nov. 8, I gathered with dozens of business, education and community leaders and members of the Northeast Tennessee Workforce Investment Board to talk about jobs and workforce needs. I heard from many different people about what this part of the state needs to build on its success.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nFighting to help protect Tennesseans from IRS abuses\r\nI\u2019m working with U.S. Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) to pass the IRS Abuse Protection Act to require the federal government to tell taxpayers whenever the Internal Revenue Service has accessed their tax returns or other tax information. The IRS violated the First Amendment rights of the American people when it created what amounted to an enemies list of conservatives, including Tennessee Tea Party groups, to keep people quiet. This legislation, which I introduced in the U.S. Senate on Sept. 10, would require the U.S. Treasury to notify taxpayers, in writing, each time the IRS accesses their tax accounts, tax returns or other tax return information \u2013 and tell them why and how it was used. This legislation would help give taxpayers better protection to stop the IRS from violating their First Amendment constitutional rights to speak up and speak out.\r\nClick here to read more about my bill to help protect against IRS abuses.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI also thought you might be interested in the following articles:\r\nThe Tennessean: Sen. Alexander to push for weekly health exchange updates\r\nThe Hill: Alexander vows to fight Obama\u2019s policies that are \u2018hurting\u2019 US workers\r\n\r\nOp-ed by Sen. Alexander and Rep. Fincher: Act protects groups from IRS abuses", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=13662524-e80b-4eca-b235-27ccdf126eab", "Alexander, Risch, Rubio, McConnell Introduce Bill to Protect Health Insurance Plans of Millions of Americans", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Bill would preserve the ability of small and mid-sized businesses to self-insure, prevent the administration from forcing their employees into exchanges\u00a0\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 20 \u2013 Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today introduced a bill that would protect the right of employers to provide insurance to employees through self-insurance plans. Today, 100 million Americans receive health insurance through employers or labor unions that self-insure, meaning they pay employee health costs directly.\r\nMany companies that self-insure as a means of providing insurance also purchase \u201cstop-loss insurance,\u201d which protects them against an outsized medical claim that would cause financial damage. In an effort to force these businesses to stop self-insuring and push more Americans into the Obamacare exchanges, the Obama administration has signaled interest in ending stop-loss insurance as it exists now.\r\nAlexander, the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, said: \u201cAny effort by the Obama administration to change the rules on companies that self-insure will break the president\u2019s promise to millions more hardworking Americans. No matter if they like their employer\u2019s health care plans, many won\u2019t be able to keep them.\u201d\r\n\u201cPresident Obama promised the American people time and time again that if they liked their current health insurance plan they could keep it,\u201d said Risch.\u00a0 \u201cThat promise was false; the proposal greatly changes millions of middle class Americans\u2019 plans. This legislation preserves small employers\u2019 and individuals\u2019 ability to make their own insurance choices, allowing them to keep their important stop loss coverage.\u201d\r\n\u201cFor millions of employees in small and mid-sized businesses, keeping the health insurance they\u2019re happy with means keeping their self-insurance health plans.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the President could end up breaking his promise to these employees by ending these self-insurance plans and forcing these employees to find new ones,\u201d said Rubio.\u00a0 \u201cSmall and mid-sized employers should have the freedom to continue offering their employees the self-insurance health plans they are happy with.\u00a0 That\u2019s all this bill does.\u201d\r\nMcConnell said: \u201cMillions of Americans are living with the consequences of the President\u2019s broken promises on Obamacare. In their zeal to defend their failing bureaucracy, the Obama administration must not break its promises to the millions of Americans who work at businesses that self-insure by preventing them from keeping the coverage they have and like.\u201d\r\nThe Self-Insurance Protection Act (SIPA) ensures that employers are able to continue to provide quality health benefits to their employees through self-insured group health plans.\r\nThe bill is cosponsored by Senators John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.).\r\nEmployers offering health insurance to their employees are increasingly choosing to self-insure, meaning they directly pay their employees\u2019 healthcare costs. This is true for all types of employers, including corporations, municipalities, and non-profit organizations. Sixty one percent of the commercial health insurance market is self-insured\u2014a figure that has been growing steadily over three decades.\r\nSelf-insurance provides employers with the flexibility to customize their employee health benefits to best meet the specific needs of their workforce. Self-insurance also helps control costs because employers can more directly manage benefits such as wellness programs that save money and make people healthier.\u00a0\r\nStop-loss insurance is a form of financial reinsurance that protects employers who pay health care costs directly from large claims that would cause financial hardship. The Obama administration has signaled interest in reclassifying this as health insurance, requiring it to meet all the requirements of health insurance policies under federal law, a move that could eliminate this as a tool for mitigating employers\u2019 risk.\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=42c954f4-2250-498d-8468-bc32bf148bb9", "Alexander: Democrats Breaking Senate Rules Is \u201cObamacare II,\u201d Another \u201cRaw Exercise of Partisan Political Power\u201d", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Says \u201cnuclear option\u201d would make the Senate a place where \u201cthe home team can cheat to win the game\u201d\r\n***\r\n\u201cThe president said during the government shutdown that he wasn\u2019t going to negotiate with a gun to his head \u2013 neither will I. The Democrats have had their finger on the nuclear button for two years. I hope they will reconsider.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 20 \u2013 In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate today, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the Senate Democratic majority\u2019s plans to get rid of the filibuster for presidential nominations would be another \u201craw exercise of partisan political power\u201d equivalent to the partisan passage of Obamacare. He also said he will no longer negotiate over such threats, and noted that Democrats have taken the Republican position both on the D.C. Circuit and the filibuster in the past. (Click HERE to see video of Alexander\u2019s speech.)\r\n\u201cThis is my third opportunity to respond to these nuclear threats, and I\u2019m not going to do it again. The president said during the government shutdown that he wasn't going to negotiate with a gun to his head \u2013 neither will I. The Democrats have had their finger on the nuclear button for two years. I hope they will reconsider,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cIf the Democrats proceed to use the nuclear option in this way, it will be Obamacare II: It will be another raw exercise of partisan political power to say we can do whatever we want to do.\u201d\r\nIf Senate Democrats break the Senate\u2019s rules so that they only need a simple majority \u2013 as opposed to 60 votes under a filibuster \u2013 on presidential nominations, Alexander said, it would prove what Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., recently said in quoting his Michigan predecessor, former Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Vandenberg said, \u201cIf a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.\u201d\r\nAlexander continued: \u201cLet\u2019s say Vanderbilt\u2019s football team gets on the one-yard line of Tennessee, and Tennessee then says \u2018Well, we\u2019re the home team, let\u2019s add 20 yards or whatever it takes to win the game.\u2019 Or let\u2019s say in the World Series recently, the Red Sox were behind St. Louis in the ninth inning and the Red Sox said, \u2018Well, we\u2019re the home team, let\u2019s add a couple of innings or whatever it takes to win the game. Everyone would say \u2018You\u2019re destroying the game\u2019 of football or baseball. \u2026 I hope we will resist turning the Senate into an institution where the home team can cheat to win the game to get whatever result it wants at any time it wants.\u201d\r\nAlexander gave these additional reasons he hopes the Democrats will reconsider:\r\n \r\n\u00a0\u00a0 Democrats previously supported reducing the number of judgeships on the D.C. Circuit: In 2006, Senate Democrats, including Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined in calling for a reduction in the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit, Alexander said. Ultimately the Senate and President George W. Bush opted to lessen the number of judges on the D.C. Circuit by one seat, moving it to the Ninth Circuit.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\nAlexander said it would be premature to have an up or down vote on the presidents\u2019 nominees to the D.C. Circuit until the Senate considers a proposal he has cosponsored with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to remove one judgeship and move two others to the Second and Eleventh Circuits. Alexander has said, \u201cI\u2019ll not vote to end the debate on the president\u2019s nominees until the Senate does in 2013 what Democratic senators suggested and the Senate did in 2007: move judges from where they are not needed to where they are needed most.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\nPresident Obama\u2019s nominees have received the same or better treatment than his predecessors: According to the Senate historian, Alexander said, President Obama\u2019s cabinet nominees so far in his second term have been confirmed at about the same pace as President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. Senate Democrats in the majority also control whether nominees are reported to the floor of the Senate, Alexander said, and there is no backlog.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\nRepublicans are also following a precedent Democrats set, Alexander said, when they filibustered circuit court judges under President Bush. In the history of the Senate, no nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district court or the president\u2019s cabinet have been denied their seat by filibuster.\u00a0\r\nAlexander said Democratic Leader Harry Reid has previously warned against getting rid of the filibuster for presidential nominations, because it would lead to getting rid of it for legislation and be \u201cthe end of the United States Senate.\u201d The Senate, Alexander said, is supposed to guard against the \u201ctyranny of the majority,\u201d as historian Alexis de Tocqueville put it, by forcing the majority in the Senate and the president to work with the minority toward a consensus.\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SpeechesFloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=55e28961-0ce1-4f8f-bc0b-3f08cb2f0301", "Floor speech: Breaking the rules of the Senate would be Obamacare II", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "This weekend, Vanderbilt plays Tennessee in a football game in Knoxville.\u00a0 Let's say Vanderbilt gets on the one-yard line of Tennessee, and Tennessee then says:\u00a0 \u2018Well, we are the home team.\u00a0 Let's add 20 yards or whatever it takes to win the game.\u2019\u00a0 Or let's say in the World Series recently the Red Sox were behind St. Louis in the ninth inning and the Red Sox said:\u00a0 \u2018Well, we are the home team.\u00a0 Let's add a couple of innings or whatever it takes to win the game.\u2019\u00a0 Everyone, I think, would say that is cheating.\u00a0 Everyone would say:\u00a0 \u2018You are destroying the game\u2019 of football or baseball.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If a home team could change the rules at any time during the game or whatever it takes to win the game, what kind of game is it?\u00a0 That is what Senator Vandenberg said after World War II and Senator Levin repeated to all of us -- that a Senate in which a majority can change the rules any time the majority wants to change the rules is a Senate without any rules.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Yet we hear that is what the Democratic majority may be seeking to do this week.\u00a0 They are unhappy, they say, that Republicans have said it is premature to vote up or down on three circuit judges nominated by President Obama -- even though that was exactly the position of the Democratic senators in 2006 and 2007 when they argued that the D.C. Circuit Court is underworked and that we should transfer judges from where they are needed the least to where they are needed the most.\u00a0 So they are going to change the rules of the game during the game or whatever it takes to get the results they want.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We have a lot of new senators on both sides of the aisle.\u00a0 Nearly half the Senate, 44 members, are in their first term.\u00a0 It is important for them to remember that in Senator Reid's book he said that to do this would be the end of the U.S. Senate, that Senator Robert Byrd -- probably the most distinguished Senate historian in its history -- said in his last speech to us that the filibuster is the necessary fence against the excesses of the majority and of the executive.\u00a0 It is the fence against what de Tocqueville called in the early 1830s the greatest danger to our country that he saw, which was \u201cthe tyranny of the majority.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 You may ask, how could this possibly happen?\u00a0 Here is how I am afraid it is happening.\u00a0 Sometimes we get off in our rooms by ourselves -- and Republicans do it as well as Democrats -- and we give ourselves our own version of the facts.\u00a0 The last time this came up, we tried to address this in the Old Senate Chamber.\u00a0 I think all of us thought it was a pretty good session.\u00a0 But this is my third opportunity to respond to these nuclear threats, and I am not going to do it again.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The president said during the government shutdown that he was not going to negotiate with a gun to his head -- neither will I.\u00a0 Democrats have had their finger on the nuclear button for two years.\u00a0 I hope they will reconsider.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No. 1, I hope they will read Senator Leahy's letter, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.\u00a0 It was signed in 2006 by all the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee:\u00a0 Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, and Senator Kohl.\u00a0 These Senate Democrats said under no circumstances should we consider confirming a judge to the D.C. Circuit when it is so underworked.\u00a0 So the Republican president and the Democratic Senate agreed with that and reduced the court\u2019s size by one judge -- just the same argument being made today.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No. 2, any suggestion that the president's nominations are being held up is completely wrong.\u00a0 I invited the Congressional Research Service into my office.\u00a0 I asked that question.\u00a0 They have said:\u00a0 No.\u00a0 President Obama's cabinet nominations in his second term are being considered at about the rate of those of President Clinton and President George W. Bush.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On every senator's desk is an Executive Calendar.\u00a0 Every person who could be confirmed by the Senate is on this calendar.\u00a0 There are about 11 pages.\u00a0 The one who has been on there the longest goes back to February and six were reported in the summer.\u00a0 But all the rest of them go back just to September 12 -- just a few weeks.\u00a0 Most of them have been there just three or four weeks.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So people are not being held up.\u00a0 The only way a nominee can be reported to the Senate floor is by a Democratic committee.\u00a0 The only person who can bring them from the calendar to be confirmed is the Democratic leader.\u00a0 Why doesn't he bring them to the floor and let them be confirmed?\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the history of the Senate -- and this is from the Congressional Research Service -- there have only been 17 executive nominees in its history who have failed to be seated because of a filibuster vote, a failed cloture vote.\u00a0 There have been two under the Clinton administration, three in the Bush administration, two in the Obama administration.\u00a0 There have been five Bush circuit judges and five Obama circuit judges.\u00a0 Never a Supreme Court Justice -- there was a little exception with Abe Fortas, which was different -- never a district court judge, and never a Cabinet member denied a seat by a filibuster \u2013 a failed cloture vote.\u00a0 So where is the crisis?\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In conclusion, I would make this suggestion:\u00a0 I think what makes Americans angry about Obamacare is it is taking us in the wrong direction, it is the 3,000-page bill, but as much as anything else it is the raw exercise of political power in the middle of the night during a snowstorm to pass a bill by a partisan vote, without any bipartisan support.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If the Democrats proceed to use the nuclear option in this way, it will be Obamacare II: It will be another raw exercise of partisan political power to say we can do whatever we want to do.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grantland Rice, a famous sportswriter, once said:\u00a0 \"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.\"\u00a0 In this case, it is not so much what the rule is, it is how you change the rule.\u00a0 There have always been a few senators on either side of the aisle who care enough about our institution and enough about our Constitution of checks and balances to stop a stampede that we will later regret.\u00a0 I hope that will be true again.\u00a0 I hope we will resist turning the Senate into an institution where the home team can cheat to win the game, to get whatever result it wants at any time it wants.\u00a0 Because as Senator Vandenberg said, and Senator Levin has repeated:\u00a0 A Senate where a majority can change the rules any time it wants is a Senate without any rules at all.\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://roe.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=362135", "Roe Congratulates Mountain Home VA Medical Center", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Phil Roe", "R000582", "roe.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Mountain Home Named Leader in Veterans\u2019 Care\u00a0\r\nWASHINGTON D.C. \u2013 Rep. Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) released the following statement congratulating Mountain Home VA Medical Center on being recognized as a \u201ctop performer\u201d by The Joint Commission, an independent panel that accredits health care organizations: \u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u201cI am proud to see Mountain Home recognized for their efforts to provide first-class health care to veterans in East Tennessee and around the region,\u201d said Roe. \u201cThe staff at Mountain Home works tirelessly on behalf of our veterans and I can\u2019t think of another group of people more deserving of this tremendous honor. Each time I visit the hospital I am impressed by the professionalism of the staff and the quality of care they provide, and I am glad to see their efforts recognized nationally.\u201d\r\nBackground:\r\nThe VA Medical Center in Mountain Home was recognized by The Joint Commission, a non-profit that ensures the quality of U.S. health care by evaluating more than 20,000 health care organizations.\r\nOut of 151 VA medical facilities nationwide, 32 were named \u201ctop performers,\u201d including Mountain Home, based The Joint Commission\u2019s annual review of evidence-based care that is closely linked to positive patient outcomes.\r\nThis program recognizes Joint Commission-accredited hospitals for a significant achievement in accountability and performance measures. All VA facilities are accredited by The Joint Commission.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131210002920/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=23c252df-b2c8-4075-af1a-ca0b8f6033fc", "Corker: PEPFAR Bill Passes Senate, Reinforces Success of U.S. Program Combating HIV/AIDS", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said legislation unanimously passed by the Senate today will reinforce PEPFAR\u2019s (the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) success in combating HIV and AIDS globally. PEPFAR was initiated by President George W. Bush. \u00a0\n\u201cPEPFAR has saved millions of lives in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, and this legislation will help reinforce those gains as the program transitions from an emergency U.S.-led effort to one in which recipient countries increasingly sustain the program themselves,\u201d said Corker.\nThe PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act, coauthored by Corker, extends certain program authorities and strengthens oversight to ensure prevention and treatment services remain available to those in need.\u00a0 The legislation is expected to be considered in the House of Representatives this week.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3773af5f-c54b-4ecf-b41f-89c5f240d8ba", "Senate Education Committee Members Announce Task Force to Review Higher Ed Regulations and Reporting Requirements", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Task force of higher ed officials and experts will identify ways to reduce and streamline confusing or costly regulations\u00a0\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 18 \u2013 Senate education committee Ranking Member Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and members Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) today announced the formation of a task force to examine burdens on institutions of higher education.\r\nThe Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education will conduct a comprehensive review of federal regulations and reporting requirements affecting colleges and universities and make recommendations to reduce and streamline regulations, while protecting students, institutions and taxpayers.\r\nAlexander said: \u201cLet\u2019s face it: the federal government has become one of the greatest obstacles to innovation in higher education. The stack of federal regulations on colleges and universities today is not the result of evil doers, it is simply the piling up of well-intentioned laws and regulations without anyone spending an equal amount of time weeding the garden first. This task force will help Congress weed the garden.\u201d\r\nMikulski said: \u201cIn order for America to out-build and out-innovate the rest of the world, we must first out-educate.\u00a0 And part of out-educating is making sure that we are supporting our institutions of higher education - helping them be them as they work to educate our next generation. Over the years, I have heard concerns from these institutions regarding federal requirements that, while well-intentioned, often end up being duplicative and burdensome.\u00a0I have committed to seeing what can be done. We need to regulate, not strangulate. As this Task Force works on a path forward, it will be well-served through the leadership of the University System of Maryland\u2019s own Dr. William \u2018Brit\u2019 Kirwan, bringing with him a wealth of knowledge and experience.\u201d\u00a0\r\nBurr said: \u201cThe tidal wave of regulations and reporting requirements faced by colleges and universities today is stifling innovation and, worse, raising college tuition price tags as schools pass on these compliance costs to students.\u00a0 This task force will assemble experts and stakeholders to help streamline regulations and reduce the unnecessary burdens on institutions of higher education.\u201d\r\nBennet said: \u201cWe must create an environment where our colleges and universities are focused on doing what they do best, and that\u2019s educating students to succeed in the 21st century economy. To do that, we must to take a step back and consider how the current requirements are helping or affecting that goal. This task force offers the opportunity to take a broad look at federal regulations and requirements in order to inform our reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. What we need is a system that makes sense for students and for colleges and universities.\u201d\r\nThe task force is co-chaired by Nicholas Zeppos, chancellor of Vanderbilt University, and William Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. It will comprise 14 college and university presidents and higher education experts. The American Council on Education will provide organizational assistance.\u00a0\r\nIn letters to request participation in the task force, the senators wrote: \u201cOur higher education system remains the best in the world and is often credited for its breadth of choice and commitment to institutional autonomy. Over the past decade, however, Congress and the U.S. Department of Education have \u00a0added more mandates, reporting requirements and regulations with which institutions must comply. This Task Force creates an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of federal regulations and reporting requirements affecting colleges and universities and make recommendations to Congress and the Administration to streamline and reduce federal regulations, while at the same time maintaining student and taxpayer protections.\u201d\r\nSenator Alexander earlier this year discussed the creation of the task force with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin as a means to provide the HELP Committee and Chairman Harkin with information and recommendations as part of the ongoing hearings and discussions about the 10th reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3dd00858-5d7f-4459-b185-0df04bced7c9", "Senate Education Committee Members Announce Task Force to Review Higher Ed Regulations and Reporting Requirements", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Task force of higher ed officials and experts will identify ways to reduce and streamline confusing or costly regulations\u00a0\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 18 \u2013 Senate education committee Ranking Member Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and members Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) today announced the formation of a task force to examine burdens on institutions of higher education.\r\nThe Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education will conduct a comprehensive review of federal regulations and reporting requirements affecting colleges and universities and make recommendations to reduce and streamline regulations, while protecting students, institutions and taxpayers.\r\nAlexander said: \u201cLet\u2019s face it: the federal government has become one of the greatest obstacles to innovation in higher education. The stack of federal regulations on colleges and universities today is not the result of evil doers, it is simply the piling up of well-intentioned laws and regulations without anyone spending an equal amount of time weeding the garden first. This task force will help Congress weed the garden.\u201d\r\nMikulski said: \u201cIn order for America to out-build and out-innovate the rest of the world, we must first out-educate.\u00a0 And part of out-educating is making sure that we are supporting our institutions of higher education - helping them be them as they work to educate our next generation. Over the years, I have heard concerns from these institutions regarding federal requirements that, while well-intentioned, often end up being duplicative and burdensome.\u00a0I have committed to seeing what can be done. We need to regulate, not strangulate. As this Task Force works on a path forward, it will be well-served through the leadership of the University System of Maryland\u2019s own Dr. William \u2018Brit\u2019 Kirwan, bringing with him a wealth of knowledge and experience.\u201d\u00a0\r\nBurr said: \u201cThe tidal wave of regulations and reporting requirements faced by colleges and universities today is stifling innovation and, worse, raising college tuition price tags as schools pass on these compliance costs to students.\u00a0 This task force will assemble experts and stakeholders to help streamline regulations and reduce the unnecessary burdens on institutions of higher education.\u201d\r\nBennet said: \u201cWe must create an environment where our colleges and universities are focused on doing what they do best, and that\u2019s educating students to succeed in the 21st century economy. To do that, we must to take a step back and consider how the current requirements are helping or affecting that goal. This task force offers the opportunity to take a broad look at federal regulations and requirements in order to inform our reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. What we need is a system that makes sense for students and for colleges and universities.\u201d\r\nThe task force is co-chaired by Nicholas Zeppos, chancellor of Vanderbilt University, and William Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. It will comprise 14 college and university presidents and higher education experts. The American Council on Education will provide organizational assistance.\u00a0\r\nIn letters to request participation in the task force, the senators wrote: \u201cOur higher education system remains the best in the world and is often credited for its breadth of choice and commitment to institutional autonomy. Over the past decade, however, Congress and the U.S. Department of Education have \u00a0added more mandates, reporting requirements and regulations with which institutions must comply. This Task Force creates an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of federal regulations and reporting requirements affecting colleges and universities and make recommendations to Congress and the Administration to streamline and reduce federal regulations, while at the same time maintaining student and taxpayer protections.\u201d\r\nSenator Alexander earlier this year discussed the creation of the task force with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin as a means to provide the HELP Committee and Chairman Harkin with information and recommendations as part of the ongoing hearings and discussions about the 10th reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=fbe874e8-3523-45b1-81ce-9b361eeb5864", "GOP Senators Introduce Bill to Prevent Special Union Exemption From ObamaCare Reinsurance Tax", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C.\u2014Following media reports that the Obama administration is once again trying to find a way to exempt unions from ObamaCare\u2019s numerous taxes and mandates, U.S. Senators John Thune (R-S.D.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and eight of their Republican colleagues today introduced the Union Tax Fairness Act (S. 1724), a bill to prevent union health care plans, known as Taft-Hartley plans, from being exempted from the ObamaCare reinsurance tax. \u00a0\r\n\u201cUnions should not be granted a special exemption from ObamaCare\u2019s reinsurance tax just because the president fears further union backlash on his signature law,\u201d said Thune. \u201cThese unions agreed to pay this tax when they endorsed ObamaCare, but now that they are finding out what the law means for them and their plans, they want out. Rather than granting special backroom deals to political allies, the administration should support fairness for all by permanently delaying the law for every American.\u201d\r\n\u00a0Alexander said, \u201cThe Obama Administration should not reward its labor union friends and allies who helped pass the health care law by giving them a carveout from the law\u2019s worst provisions.\u00a0This hefty reinsurance fee is one of the many job-killing taxes that helped pay for the passage of the law\u2014the administration should be embarrassed that it would consider exempting their union cronies without providing similar relief to our nation\u2019s employers and faith-based and charitable organizations.\u201d\r\n\u201cThe Obama Administration can't just circumvent Congress whenever it wants to curry favor with its political allies,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cSince the overwhelming majority of self-administered health insurance plans are run by unions, let's call this what it is: a political payback by the Administration to its union friends for backing this disastrous law. But the fact is, the White House doesn\u2019t have the authority to change the law on its own and, as this bill makes clear, any attempt at a Big Labor carveout from ObamaCare must be approved by Congress.\u201d\r\nThe ObamaCare reinsurance tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and requires all self-insured plans to pay a tax for each person covered under a health plan. The tax was designed to provide funds to health care plans in the ObamaCare exchanges to help absorb the cost of care for people with pre-existing conditions. Thune\u2019s bill would prevent the White House from providing a special fix for unions that would exempt them from the reinsurance tax.\r\nIn addition to Alexander and Hatch, Thune\u2019s bill is co-sponsored by Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). \u00a0\u00a0\r\nLast week, Thune, Alexander, and Hatch also led 18 of their Republican Senate colleagues in sending a letter that urged the Obama administration not to move forward with a proposed regulation that would exempt unions from the reinsurance tax.\r\n\u00a0\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/representative-desjarlais-original-cosponsor-of-legislation-impeaching", "Representative DesJarlais Original Cosponsor of Legislation Impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Scott DesJarlais", "D000616", "desjarlais.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Congressman Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04) has sponsored legislation calling for the House to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors.\r\nCongressman DesJarlais released the following statement:\r\n\u201cIt is unfortunate we have gotten to this point, but Attorney General Holder has left us with no other option. Despite being held in contempt of Congress, Mr. Holder has continued to show an utter disregard for the very laws he swore to uphold.\r\n\u201cWe have seen the attorney general refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena and perjure himself before the House Judiciary Committee. It seems Mr. Holder has confused his job to enforce the law with a permission to disobey it. The conduct displayed by the attorney general would lead to criminal charges being filed against any other American. Mr. Holder should not receive special consideration solely based on his title.\r\n\u201cPresident Obama has shown time and time again that he is unwilling to hold anyone in his administration responsible for their actions. This sends the troubling message that he is either complicit in these wrongdoings or feels his administration is unaccountable to the American people \u2013 both of which are unacceptable.\r\n\u201cAs our nation\u2019s top law enforcement officer the attorney general is supposed to set an example. Instead his actions have provided a blueprint to those who seek to thwart justice. We must not stand for this. While my decision to impeach the attorney general was not reached lightly, I firmly believe it is the correct one.\u201d\r\nThe articles of impeachment lay out four charges against Mr. Holder:\r\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, seeking information and documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious. This is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192.\r\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Failure to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to \"well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office\" of Attorney General.\r\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Refusal to prosecute the IRS officials involved in the targeting and disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to \"well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office\" of Attorney General.\r\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 False testimony under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, about the Justice Department investigation of journalist James Rosen. This is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center?ID=73EB013B-82C5-4E3E-9901-DE891F8475B3", "Representative DesJarlais Original Cosponsor of Legislation Impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Scott DesJarlais", "D000616", "desjarlais.house.gov", "desjarlais", "https://desjarlais.house.gov/media-center", "scraper", "Congressman Scott DesJarlais, M.D. (TN-04) has sponsored legislation calling for the House to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors.\n\nCongressman DesJarlais released the following statement:\n\n\u201cIt is unfortunate we have gotten to this point, but Attorney General Holder has left us with no other option. Despite being held in contempt of Congress, Mr. Holder has continued to show an utter disregard for the very laws he swore to uphold.\n\n\u201cWe have seen the attorney general refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena and perjure himself before the House Judiciary Committee. It seems Mr. Holder has confused his job to enforce the law with a permission to disobey it. The conduct displayed by the attorney general would lead to criminal charges being filed against any other American. Mr. Holder should not receive special consideration solely based on his title.\n\n\u201cPresident Obama has shown time and time again that he is unwilling to hold anyone in his administration responsible for their actions. This sends the troubling message that he is either complicit in these wrongdoings or feels his administration is unaccountable to the American people \u2013 both of which are unacceptable.\n\n\u201cAs our nation\u2019s top law enforcement officer the attorney general is supposed to set an example. Instead his actions have provided a blueprint to those who seek to thwart justice. We must not stand for this. While my decision to impeach the attorney general was not reached lightly, I firmly believe it is the correct one.\u201d\n\nThe articles of impeachment lay out four charges against Mr. Holder:\n\n1. Refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, seeking information and documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious. This is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192.\n\n2. Failure to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to \"well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office\" of Attorney General.\n\n3. Refusal to prosecute the IRS officials involved in the targeting and disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to \"well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office\" of Attorney General.\n\n4. False testimony under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, about the Justice Department investigation of journalist James Rosen. This is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621.", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:39:47Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131211004823/http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=e54c8c85-149f-455b-8f68-65edc1310e86", "Corker Urges President to Quickly Approve Legislation to Make Injections of Compounded Sterile Drugs Safer", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Bob Corker", "C001071", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., made the following statement today after the Senate passed legislation to make injections of compounded sterile drugs safer. The House passed the bill on Sept. 29.\n\u201cThe improved oversight included in this legislation will help prevent another deadly meningitis outbreak that infected hundreds of Americans and killed 16 Tennesseans in 2012.\u00a0 I thank Senator Alexander for his leadership on this issue and hope the president will quickly sign these reforms into law,\u201d said Corker.\nIn 2012, in response to the deadly, nationwide outbreak of fungal meningitis linked to steroid injections distributed by the Massachusetts-based New England Compounding Center (NECC), Corker and Alexander sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg asking for clarity regarding existing laws governing oversight of compounding pharmacies like NECC and information about any inspections of NECC and actions taken since the FDA warned the center in December 2006.\u00a0 A copy of the letter can be found here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=76620630-94e4-4837-901e-3032ad5b23f1", "To Help Avoid Repeat of Deadly Meningitis Outbreak, Senate Sends Alexander Compounding Legislation to President", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Agreement reached by House and Senate will make sterile compounded drugs safer by clarifying oversight of compounding pharmacies\r\n***\r\n\u201cI worked with other\u00a0members of Congress\u00a0for a year to find a solution that would help prevent a repeat of the tragic meningitis outbreak that has killed 16 Tennesseans and made so many others so sick. Those Tennesseans deserve this bill, which will make it clear exactly who is in charge of overseeing each compounding facility, so there will be no questions about who\u2019s on the flagpole.\u201d \u2013 Lamar Alexander\u00a0\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON, Nov. 18\u2013 Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, today announced that the\u00a0Senate has passed and sent to the president\u2019s desk a legislative agreement he helped reach between House and Senate health committees to make injections of compounded sterile drugs safer.\r\nAlexander said: \u201cI worked with others\u00a0members\u00a0of Congress for a year to find a solution that would help prevent a repeat of the tragic meningitis outbreak that has killed 16 Tennesseans and made so many others so sick. Those Tennesseans deserve this bill, which will make it clear exactly who is in charge of overseeing each compounding facility, so there will be no questions about who\u2019s on the flagpole.\u201d\r\nHe added: \u201cFDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told us last year that if Congress failed to act, a crisis like the meningitis outbreak was \u2018a matter of when, not if.\u2019\u201d\r\nAlexander said the Senate was at the same time sending legislation to the president to track and trace the more than 4 billion prescriptions that are written in America every year to help ensure their safety. \u201cCongress has been working on this for more than a decade,\u201d Alexander said. \u201cThis is a vitally important piece of legislation that affects almost every American.\u201d\r\nToday\u2019s bill represented an agreement announced by Alexander and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and passed by the House on Sept. 28. The bill clarifies current federal law regarding pharmacy compounding and resolves the patchwork of current federal regulation by applying a uniform standard nationwide.\r\nThe legislation is supported by the Tennessee Pharmacists\u2019 Association, who have said: \"We believe this compromise proposal offers an effective approach to address complex issues surrounding compounded medications by having the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focus on entities that are compounding outside the scope of traditional pharmacy compounding while leaving traditional pharmacy compounding under the oversight of state boards of pharmacy.\"\r\nLast November, when the Senate HELP Committee held its first hearing on the deadly meningitis outbreak, Alexander called for a new model of oversight of sterile compounding pharmacies.\r\nOne year ago, the meningitis outbreak caused by contaminated compounded drugs from the New England Compounding Center alerted the nation that providers and patients need sources of safe compounded drugs.\u00a0 Following the outbreak, a bipartisan group of HELP Committee senators\u2014 led by Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)\u2014developed legislation to help ensure that quality compounded drugs are available to patients who need them. The legislation passed by the Senate today distinguishes compounders engaged in traditional pharmacy practice from those making large volumes of compounded drugs without individual prescriptions. Compounders who wish to practice outside the scope of traditional pharmacy practice can register with the Food and Drug Administration as \u201coutsourcing facilities,\u201d subject to FDA oversight in much the same way as traditional manufacturers. Those who choose to remain traditional pharmacies will continue to be primarily regulated by State Boards of Pharmacy as they are in current law.\r\nIt also offers providers and patients better information about compounded drugs, by directing FDA to make a list of FDA-regulated outsourcing facilities available on FDA\u2019s website, requiring detailed labeling on compounded drugs, and prohibiting false and misleading advertising.\r\nThe bill also includes legislation passed unanimously by the Senate health committee that would replace today\u2019s patchwork of state prescription-drug tracing laws by creating a new uniform framework for tracking drugs from the manufacturer to the pharmacy. There is currently no system for tracking the drugs that make up some 4 billion prescriptions per year in the United States, which means consumers can receive\u00a0drugs that are stolen, counterfeit, or ineffective.\r\nThis legislation requires the entire drug supply chain\u2014including manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers\u2014to pass along transaction information, history, and statements, as applicable, when there is a change of ownership. The last comprehensive effort to establish safeguards for the drug distribution supply chain was 25 years ago with the passage of The Prescription Drug Marketing Act.\r\n\u00a0\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=SpeechesFloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=5c4fa8bc-469f-4492-b655-1cf3dac46b53", "Floor speech: Passing legislation to help prevent another meningitis outbreak", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "This afternoon the Senate passed and sent to the president legislation that Tennesseans and Americans will welcome because it deals with the terrifying fungal meningitis outbreak that occurred more than a year ago that killed 16 Tennesseans and made many others sick.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The problem at that time was sterile compounded drugs that turned out not to be sterile.\u00a0 So when they were injected into patients for back pain or neck pain, those tainted drugs caused fungal meningitis and caused a number of Tennesseans to die and many others to become sick.\u00a0 Had it not been for the heroic efforts of the Tennessee State Department of Public Health, many others across the country may have been injected with that tainted medicine and become sick.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is a very important piece of legislation which senators and House members have been working on for a year.\u00a0 I am glad it passed.\u00a0 I am sure the president will sign it.\u00a0 In our state, we know how personal this was.\u00a0 There is the story of Diana Reed from Brentwood, TN, who was the caregiver for her husband, who has Lou Gehrig's disease.\u00a0 She had neck pain -- maybe because of helping him in and out of a wheelchair -- went to the doctor, and got an injection for her neck pain.\u00a0 The next thing she knew, she had fungal meningitis and she died.\u00a0 Still, her husband with Lou Gehrig's disease lives on.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That story has been told in many states.\u00a0 We have been told by the sommissioner of the Food and Drug Administration that if we do not act, it will happen again.\u00a0 If we do not act, Commissioner Hamburg said, the question is not if but when there will be another tragedy.\u00a0 We have acted.\u00a0 No one should believe we can guarantee such a tragedy will never happen again, but for two reasons, it is much less likely we will have another tragedy like fungal meningitis as the result of contaminated drugs.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No. 1, we have cleared up the question of accountability.\u00a0 After this happened, and it was discovered that the tainted drugs came from the Massachusetts compounding pharmacy, there was a lot of finger pointing back and forth between the FDA and the state board about who should have been regulating this pharmacy, because there were other trouble signs.\u00a0 This never should have happened and would not have happened if they had been either properly regulated either by the state or the federal agency, the FDA.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That often happens when there is not accountability, when it is not clear who is on the flagpole, as I like to say -- when it is not clear who is in charge.\u00a0 We have used the example of Admiral Hyman Rickover, who was a Navy officer.\u00a0 In the 1950s, when he was assigned the job of the nuclear Navy, he told his captains two things:\u00a0 No. 1, you are in charge of the ship; and, No. 2, you are in charge of the reactor.\u00a0 If anything goes wrong with the nuclear reactor, your career is over.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As a result of that level of clear accountability, since the 1950s there has never been a death as a result of a reactor accident on one of our nuclear ships.\u00a0 This legislation creates that kind of accountability for compounded drugs.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It preserves the traditional role of states to regulate drugstores.\u00a0 Compounding is something almost every drugstore does.\u00a0 We have 60,000 of those, and that is an important job to the states.\u00a0 Most states do an excellent job.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It preserves the role of the Food and Drug Administration for manufacturers, those who manufacture large amounts of drugs which are prepared without an individual prescription.\u00a0 But it creates a new sort of facility which we call outsourcing facility.\u00a0 This facility is regulated by the FDA.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Two things have happened.\u00a0 One is either the FDA or the state is in charge of a compounding pharmacy.\u00a0 It will be one or the other. \u00a0\u00a0 The second is there is a new outsourcing facility.\u00a0 A doctor or a hospital in Virginia or Tennessee may choose to buy all of its sterile drugs, for example, from a compounding pharmacy that is regulated by the FDA.\u00a0 It doesn't have to, but it may choose to do that.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We believe many will choose to do that, particularly with the sterile drugs that are sent across state lines without a prescription.\u00a0 This legislation affects the health and safety of millions of Americans.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There was a second part this legislation that was passed this afternoon that is equally as important and in some ways more far-reaching.\u00a0 We call it track and trace.\u00a0 That is the shorthand name for it.\u00a0 4 billion prescriptions are written every year.\u00a0 What this legislation does is attach a serial number to each drug that is manufactured and follows it all the way from the drug manufacturer to the individual pharmacy.\u00a0 Why is that important?\u00a0 It is important so that one will know, if given a prescribed drug, that it works, is not counterfeit, and that it is safe.\u00a0 It will take several years to implement this, but the drugs that make the 4 billion prescriptions will now be able to be tracked and traced from the manufacturer to the pharmacy.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Many of our disputes are well advertised around the Senate.\u00a0 In fact, one could argue that is what we are for -- the resolution of disputes.\u00a0 If there weren't a dispute, we probably wouldn't be here.\u00a0\u00a0 We would work everything out at the city council, the governor's office or somewhere else.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The big issues of the day stand here.\u00a0 Some of those are hard to resolve.\u00a0 Obamacare is hard to resolve, fixing the debt is hard to resolve.\u00a0 We have very different points of view.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On this issue, which was difficult to do, we worked for more than one year on the compounding pharmacy bill and more than two years on the track-and-trace bill.\u00a0 It was very difficult to do.\u00a0 We were able to do it.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I commend Senator Harkin, who is chairman of our committee, Senator Franken, Senator Roberts, Senator Burr, Senator Bennet, and many other members of the committee.\u00a0 We were able to involve many people in it and come out with the unanimous recommendation of our committee, and it was unanimous today.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Just because it was unanimous, I don't want anyone to think it was easy.\u00a0 It was hard work.\u00a0 Because it was unanimous, I don't want anyone to think it is not important.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is important in Tennessee to those 16 families who had a family member die.\u00a0 It is important to the dozens of families with a member of their family who is sick because of those injections.\u00a0 It is important to those families who may still become sick in our state and other states.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No. 1, it is important to know after this who is on the flagpole.\u00a0 It is either the FDA or the state agencies, and there will be no more finger pointing.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No. 2, any doctor or hospital that chooses to buy its sterile compounded drugs that are shipped interstate in large amounts without prescription from an FDA-related facility may do that.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is a day of results in the Senate, which I am pleased to see.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=be15b5ec-206c-4121-bcb5-8dd498cb870c", "Alexander, McCain Visit Fort Campbell, McCain Presents Purple Heart to Soldier", "2013-11-17", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "TN", "Lamar Alexander", "A000360", "www.alexander.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senators discuss military needs with brigadier general, tour military base\u00a0\r\n\r\nCLARKSVILLE, Nov. 17 \u2013 U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) today visited Fort Campbell in advance of the Senate\u2019s consideration next week of the National Defense Authorization Act. While there, McCain and Alexander participated in a military ceremony at which McCain presented a Purple Heart to a soldier wounded in Afghanistan.\u00a0\r\nAlexander said: \u201cThe National Defense Authorization Act is the most important legislation affecting the military, and this visit gives Senator McCain and me firsthand information about Fort Campbell\u2019s most pressing needs. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have worn the uniform of our Armed Services that we couldn\u2019t possibly repay, and it was an honor to be reminded of the bravery and the sacrifice of our soldiers.\u201d\r\nMcCain said: \u201cThe men and women serving at Fort Campbell demonstrate every day the unwavering dedication and professionalism of our armed forces. As consideration of the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act begins next week, this was an important opportunity for Senator Alexander and me to visit with our troops and discuss many of the vital issues facing our military today. I was deeply impressed and inspired to spend time with our men and women in uniform, who represent our nation\u2019s finest.\u201d \u00a0\r\nThe senators\u2019 tour and briefing with Brig. Gen. Mark Stammer was in advance of the Senate taking up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014. The legislation authorizes funding for military pay and benefits, as well as weapons programs.\r\nMcCain presented the Purple Heart to Captain Perry S. Cloud, who was wounded during a tour of duty in Afghanistan. The Purple Heart is awarded, on behalf of the president of the United States, to military personnel who are wounded in the line of duty.\r\n\r\n# # #", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 737, "expanded_columns": [], "expandable_columns": [], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "units": {}, "query": {"sql": "select url, title, date, year, month, party, chamber, state, member_name, bioguide_id, domain, scraper, source, date_source, text, has_text, collected_at, updated_at from releases where \"party\" = :p0 and \"state\" = :p1 and \"year\" = :p2 order by date desc limit 101", "params": {"p0": "Republican", "p1": "TN", "p2": "2013"}}, "facet_results": {"party": {"name": "party", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "Republican", "label": "Republican", "count": 737, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?state=TN&year=2013", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "chamber": {"name": "chamber", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "House", "label": "House", "count": 737, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN&year=2013&chamber=House", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "state": {"name": "state", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "TN", "label": "TN", "count": 737, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&year=2013", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "year": {"name": "year", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "2013", "label": "2013", "count": 737, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}}, "suggested_facets": [], "next": "2013-11-17,https~3A~2F~2Fwww~2Ealexander~2Esenate~2Egov~2Fpublic~2Findex~2Ecfm~3Fp~3DPressReleases~26ContentRecord_id~3Dbe15b5ec-206c-4121-bcb5-8dd498cb870c", "next_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=TN&year=2013&_next=2013-11-17%2Chttps~3A~2F~2Fwww~2Ealexander~2Esenate~2Egov~2Fpublic~2Findex~2Ecfm~3Fp~3DPressReleases~26ContentRecord_id~3Dbe15b5ec-206c-4121-bcb5-8dd498cb870c&_sort_desc=date", "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 218.91553327441216, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}