Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of regulatory reform legislation. A study released this past fall by the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. Federal Government regulations imposed over $2…

What would suffice as a strong enough standard that we would all feel comfortable preempting the 50 odd state laws that we would be looking at?

I think we all recognize we do not want to be inundating consumers and others with notification of breaches if they are not significant enough, and it would become meaningless.

I respect the California law and some other statutes are pretty good marks to make.

I do not want to create a scenario where I am getting e-mails two or three times a week and I do not know what to panic about and what to ignore.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass a clean Homeland Security funding bill for fiscal year 2015. This is an issue of national security, and we cannot allow politics to divert attention from our responsibility as…

I have heard that we have said that currency should not be part of TPP, and that would be, I think, a really wrong move.

I cannot support trade agreements like that anymore.

I want to applaud the good work you and the President and all your crew have done on the budget.

We have not been very successful against China. I totally disagree with you. We need much more.

I think the decline of middle-class incomes is the greatest problem America faces, bar none.

Madam President, it is good to follow my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, on which I am ranking member. I don't agree with him, but he is a fine man. Now, I rise to dispel attempts by the other side…

Historically, if an employer violated the legal rights of its workers through, say, an illegal firing, the employer was on the hook for damages.

the standard as it was described in the Supreme Court in 1968, which was an 'all the relevant facts' standard?

The NLRB has been unduly restrictive in this area.

I just wanted to establish what I thought was a pretty straightforward rule of law that I think everyone agrees with.

The question that bothers me is, okay, if we decide it's been in the National interest to close it, there still are some people there that are very dangerous.

if we're going to decide to close the facility and--or if, collectively, the United States Government's going to decide to close the facility based upon that, we'd better know that it's real, and not just a perceived threat.