the presiding officer: stls no time allocation. mr. inhofe: oh, fine. i like that better. after the first budget i can recall going over to afghanistan, knowing that this president would be disarming america in his first budget because he is not -- i think he will go down in history as the president -- the most anti-defense president we have ever had. i remember going over there and with the tanks going back and forth in the background i would be able to respond and get attention of the american people. i remember that first budget, he did away with our only fifth generation fighter, the f-22, did away with our lift capability, the c-17, did away with future combat system which would have been the first ground transition in 60 years, and then the thing i'm going to talk about in another portion of my presentation this afternoon did away with the ground-based interceptor in poland. that was the first budget.

since that time it's been deteriorating even more so our national defense has been doing everything they can to try to stay afloat, support our troops over in harm's way and becoming more and more difficult. if you project what this president has done and would be doing over the next ten years, it would be cutting the military by a half a trillion dollars. now, that's bad enough. but what's worse is what would happen under sequestration. under sequestration what his engineered sequestration, the cuts would take place as was pointed out very effectively by the senator from alabama, senator sessions, the amount of cuts that would come with sequestration would be coming almost entirely from the military. so not only is he projecting a cut of a half a trillion dollars in our military as it is today, but if his obama sequestration goes into effect it's going to be another half trillion dollars. so we know what this is going to do to jobs. we know what it's going to do to

our ability in terms of putting our troops in harm's way. i would only say in my state of oklahoma, an article came out, it was by marion blakely with the president and c.e.o. of the aerospace industries association, rereleased a report, covered by chris cass teen teal in the oklahoman in this morning's paper and they talked about showing oklahoma could lose 16,000 jobs. that is bad enough but the figure actually is much higher than that when you throw in the uniformed presence that we have and the jobs we would lose. in my state of oklahoma we have five major military installations, tinker arab which does a -- air force base which does repairs on the heavy stuff, we have vance, primary training, excellent job, we have our depot and ammunition depot in mcallister, we have the altus air force base that

trains people flying the heavy stuff and we have fort sill in lawton, oklahoma. i have to say this, this is a great compliment to my state of oklahoma. because we have had since 1987 five rounds of bracc rounds, called base realignment and closure commission rounds. when they go through and make evaluations as to which of these military establishments are perhaps not making the contribution to our nation's defense that they should, they go through readjustment and realigning and so forth. now, i'm proud to say in my state of oklahoma the five military establishments i just now mentioned all have benefited from each of the rounds in terms of number of missions, and number of people. i have to say there's a reason for that. it's not political influence as a lot of people might guess. it's community support. i have people saying, well, every community, every state has that. no, it's not really true. when there's a problem, a

need, we pass bond issues such as the very large bond issue in oklahoma city to allow us to get the g.m. plant, and consequently we have new missions going in. i'm saying that in a complimentary way. on the other hand, with the sequestration that will be the obama sequestration that would take place starting on january 2 of this coming year, we would have huge losses in oklahoma. the estimate is probably closer to 22,000 jobs in the first year that we would be suffering in my state of oklahoma. now, it's bad enough that what that will do to the economy in my state of oklahoma but what's even worse with is what it does to our national defense. we have no way of knowing right now where that money is going to be coming out of. i had the conversation, the first in a long time yesterday with dick cheney. he, of course, we all recall he was not just his vice-presidential relationship but he used to be secretary of defense. he's one of them trying to make loot of the cuts and did he make

a lot of the cuts but he was talking about if they do this and have this across the board, the cuts, it would be not just devastating, we all understand it would be devastating, that word was actually used by secretary of defense panetta who is under the obama administration, saying the obama executive session would be devastating to our military, but dick cheney was kind of pointing out some of the areas of interest. one of my background things, i still do it today, i've been a flight instructor for some 50 years, i'm sensitive to the need that we have for pilots and how to train them. if we were to take across-the-board cuts, that would mean that our pilots in the air force, the navy and the marines would not be subjected to the training that i believe in my opinion would be -- would keep them as -- as -- the crack pilots they are today. the problem, the thing they would probably do, we'll use

simulators. that doesn't do it. everybody knows that doesn't do it. the cuts that the obama sequestration would make would be devastating to the whole country, devastating to my state of oklahoma but more so it would be -- it would be -- would affect the lives of our troops. you know, there's this kind of a myth out there and the american people believe that the united states has the best of everything. when we send our kids into battle that they have the best equipment. that just isn't true. there are a lot of areas where we don't have the best. for example, the cannon, there are five countries including south africa that don't have -- better equipment than we do. so as we look down the road and we see these cuts that are taking place, and then coming back as i just did from the air show and seeing the other countries, france and all the today the other countries and their propulsion systems that they're developing vehicles that

are actually in some cases better than what we're doing over here. now, the problem we're having is the deep cuts that have taken place in the defense. i would only say -- i would have to say one thing that i'm concerned about and this is kind of a warning shot for manufacturers, defense contractors around the country. that it's my opinion that the president -- and i've heard this from several of the defense contractors saying the administration is leaning on them not to send pink slips out on firing these people as a result of the obama sequestration until after the november 7 election. well, i think they're overlooking that there is a law that was passed back in 1988 called the warn law. it is the worker adjustment and retraining notification law. what it says is, if we go with through something like this, we have to send out pink slips or the -- the contractors have to

send out pink slips to those who are going to lose their jobs 60 days prior to the time that that's going to take place. well, if sequestration takes place on january 2, that would mean november 2, only five days before the election. i want to make sure everybody knows the law says they must do it by 60 days. but they can do it tomorrow if they want to and i think the people of this country who are going to lose their jobs due to the obama sequestration should be entitled to know what -- that they're going to get their pink slips before the election so that could certainly affect what they're going to be doing in the election. that's not what i came down to talk about because we already talked about that before. but i would like to mention something that is -- is just something that occurred in the last couple days that has put us in a more dangerous position but nobody's talking about it. back in december of 2002, president bush issued a national

security presidential directive, directive number 23. announcing the plan to begin deploying a set of missile defense capabilities that would include ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, land, sea, and space, kind of a triad system. this is a system people didn't object to at that time because they remember back when people used to give president reagan a hard time, talk about star wars, there will be a time that people have missiles aimed at the united stes and they said the idea that we could shoot down a missile with a missile or shoot down a bullet with a bullet is inconceivable. they didn't believe it would happen but it's happening. it's happening today and we all know it. we know the missile capabilities of the countries that would like to kill all of us. it's a very serious threat right now. by the end of 2008, the bush -- president bush had succeeded in fielding a missile defense system capable of defending all 50 states and had

security agreements with the shek complub plub and poland on the construction of a third site in the czech republic. i remember talking to one of my favorite people, the president of the czech republic, vaclav klaus about it. this took a lot of courage for president bush to say -- let me get into the record, i want to make sure people understand this. we have great ground based interceptors in alaska and california. i'm confident any missile coming in that from that direction we can kill, knock down. the problem is if it came from the other direction such as iran, don't want have that capability. sure, we might get one lucky shot from the west coast knocking down something coming into the east coast. with 20 kids and grandkids that i have that doesn't give me a lot of comfort. instead in his wisdom and the wisdom of the administration under the bush administration, we started building a

ground-based interceptor in poland with the radar located in the czech republic. now, russia didn't like that. they don't like the idea we're defending ourselves and you have to use your own judgment to decide why they've come to that conclusion. but it took courage for the -- for the -- for the poles and the czechs to come up and build this thing and they agreed to do it. i remember talk to vaclav klaus, if we make this commitment and we anger russia that you're not going to pull the rug out from under us and i gave them the assurance that wasn't going to happen. well, unfortunately, that did happen. when president obama's -- was elected he cut the budget for missile defense by $1.4 billion and he killed the -- the ground-based interceptor in poland. now, at that time our intelligence -- this is very significant. our intelligence had said that

we -- that iran will have the capability of sending a nuclear weapon over a delivery system by 2015. well, the obama administration, they cut that program and said no, they're not going to have that capability until 2020. guess what happened just two or three days ago, two or three days ago secretary panetta said on "60 minutes" he believes we would be able to pro -- that iran wieb able to procedure a newark -- procure a nuclear well e.p.w. in a year or two years and then another years and that would be 2015. now we know we were right in the bush administration, we know the danger that the obama administration has put us in and i think the people are going to have to understand that this is true. for us to use the system that president obama wants to use, we would have to have capability, it's called -- it's a system called sm-32-b.

that system would not be developed and to be able to used until after 2020. so this is something that is probably one of the most serious things that we're deal dealing with right now and remember very well when president obama was meeting with the russian president medvedev on monday, march 26 of this year, president obama said this is when the mike was on and nobody knew he could be heard. he said and this is a quote, "on all these issues but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him, talking about the russian incoming president vladimir putin, important for him to give me space. these are his words. this is my last election. after my election i have more flexibility. what does that tell you? it tells you not only is it bad enough what he's already done in taking out our ability to defend ourselves against an incoming

missile from anywhere, specifically from iran, that is -- that is a crisis that we're dealing with that's got to be dealt with. i want mention one last thing because it's new you new -- it's not new, it's something they've been trying to do a long time. i quite often criticized, i criticized the united nations, many times they do not have our interests at heart. i'm very concerned about the -- i was very glad we got the 34th signature on a letter we're prepared to send saying that don't bring the law of the sea treaty into the -- for ratification vote of the senate because we'll vote against it. 34 senators signed that letter which means they can't do it. they're still having the hearings and all that because they like to talk about it, i guess, but we're not going to cede our jurisdiction over 70% of the earth's surface to the united nations and nor are we going to give the united nations

the power for the first time to tax the united states of america and that's what you would find in this -- this treaty. so anyhow, i only mention that because these treaties that come along, they somehow they try to bring us in, i don't know what it is, but there's something about the internationalists and a lot of them serve in this body, they don't think any idea is a good idea unless it comes from the united nations. makes you wonder where is sovereignty anymore? here's another one, the u.n. arms trade treaty they're trying to get through, for the past 15 years the idea of creating a global arms trade treaty has been debated at the united nations. during the bush administration the united states stood in opposition. it should come as no surprise that soon after the entering the white house the obama administration reversed this position and went to work crafting and negotiating a united nations arms trade

treaty. we all hear about gun control. we all hear about what we're going to do with our ability to keep and bear arms. we hear about the second amendment to the constitution, thousand means very little to a lot -- how it means very little to a lot of people. but it should first be noted that the treaty is currently being negotiated so we can't speak with certainty about the details. however, in march the president of the conference that is negotiating the treaty released a chairman's draft. through the draft, we know that the treaty may seek to taeb certain cry tear -- establish certain criteria that must be met. here's what we're talking about. i remember, and this is back during the clinton administration, they were saying we've got to do something about restricting arms here in the united states. and after all, look at all the things that are happening with the drug cartels in mexico, in central america. where are they getting their weapons?

from the united states of america. that was the justification for having gun treaty at that time. well, this isn't all that bad. we don't know the details of this yet, but we know that the draft, the treaty make seek to establish certain criteria to be met before we can sell it to other countries. we have a lot of friendly countries out there that we would like to sell to. although we all agree that a committed effort must be made to prevent terrorists and criminals from acquiring weapons, the treaty could undermine our foreign policy and national security strategy and infringe americans' second amendment rights. i know i'm not the only one who hears from people. maybe in oklahoma people are a little more sensitive to their second amendment rights. whatever the case is, i seem to be hearing from them, and they're dead right. the heart of the problem with this treaty is the notion that bad actors in the international community will continue to be bad actors. we've seen this time and time

again. law-abiding nations will constrain themselves to the terms of a treaty. rogue nations in corrupt states will contravene the explicit text of the treaty that only months ago they were endorsing. i remember gun control in the united states. gun control assumes people out there are going to obey the laws. but those are not the problem people. the problem people are the people who are not going to obey the laws. why would they single out a law on gun control that would preclude them from having guns if they are criminals to start with? it doesn't make sense. internationally the same thing is taking place. this treaty is rife with opportunities for such behavior. in fact, the draft requires that provisions -- and this is a quote -- "shall be implemented in a manner that would avoid hampering the right of self-defense of any state party." one need only look further than

the current conflict in syria to see how ridiculous this requirement is. the arms that russia is currently supplying syria obviously have a dual purpose for its national defense against a foreign aggressor but also to be used in the oppression of its own people. we know that's happening. we know that's happening. just yesterday we watched this take place. russia would of course claim the former, that they're just doing it for their own defense. how can we expect an arms treaty, an arms trade treaty which would not have stringent enforcement mechanism to have any impact whatsoever? the answer is against bad actors and rogue nations it will not. but against nations such as the united states, the arms trade treaty may have a considerable impact. take, for example, the requirement in the draft that arms should not be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace or security or provoke prolonged or aggressive internal, regional or

subregional or international instability. does anyone deny that each and every time we supply weapons to some of our greatest allies, like israel and taiwan and south korea, that we are in fact prolonging regional and international stability? the answer is no. but this is instability that is necessary for international order, and the prevalence of democracy in regions where it might not otherwise exist. yet, the terms of the draft treaty could be read to prohibit such weapons sales. we can all agree that it's at great understatement to say that we don't want american gun companies selling weapons internationally when they might be used to commit violations of human rights. but as everyone knows, we already have laws on the books that prohibit this. the export of firearms is already subject to very strict and complex regime. the u.s. international trade -- that's why i call this the foot

in the door. this is a first step. the u.s. international trade and arms regulations which have been promulgated pursuant to the arms export control act already strictly limit the transfer or sale of firearms. this regulatory regime has been in place since the 1950's. the united states has been doing this for a very long time. other nations, our allies primarily, have mirrored our export control regime because it is so comprehensive. this goes back to my earlier point. the united states has been very responsible in the area of exporting firearms, but other nations will not be. even as signatories to this treaty. it gets back to the ones, the nation that are the bad guys, they're not going to pay any attention to this treaty even though they sign the treaty. final point, this treaty results this month in a finalized version, is going to collect dust here in the senate. we have 58 members this have body who have already signed a letter in opposition and i feel

strongly this will meet the same fate as the law of the sea treaty and so many other u.n.-sponsored treaties. so, you know, the administration is in constant negotiations with international groups such as the united nations. and we have to go around and get people as we did on the law of the sea treaty. we have 35 actually senators saying that they will vote and they will vote not to ratify it. that means you're wasting your time. why are we even talking about it if it can't be ratified because it takes two-thirds for ratification? the same thing is true here except we have a lot more. 58 members. let's just keep in mind. the collectivists who are opposed to the private ownership of firearms, opposed to second amendment rights are the ones who are very busy here. they failed to have gun control in this country to their standards but they're trying to do it internationally. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. s quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be hreufrted. the presiding officer: without objection, it is lifted. mr. wicker: to me, mr. president, it's been a tough day, a tough week. we could use a little bipartisanship in this chamber and in this congress. i don't understand it. we heard the democratic leadershipship of -- democratic leadership of the super committee come right out and say it was preferable to her that the fiscal cliff be encountered and that we actually bring our nation over the fiscal cliff rather than working together in a bipartisan way to avoid it before the end of the year. and then i was mystified today

to learn that the majority leader of this great body proposes next year, if his party remains in power, to forever change the nature of this senate in terms of being a great deliberative body and to go to the majority rule 51-vote process that they have in the house. it works okay in the house, but we've never done that here in the senate. and so i'm concerned with some of the things that i've been hearing. and, frankly, i hope we can come back from the precipice of some of these disturbing proposals that i've heard from some of my friends. one way to do that would be to address in a bipartisan way this issue of sequestration. so i rise this afternoon to point out to my colleagues that we're now less than six months away from seeing sequestration

go into effect. this is a grim reality that was never supposed to happen, and it's a reality that doesn't have to happen. but it will happen unless we act and unless the president signs legislation. budget sequestration means defense and non-defense spending will be cut automatically and across the board without regard to priorities, without regard to the importance of programs. we need to avoid this. how did we get here? almost a year ago congress voted for the budget control act as a first step towards seriously addressing the national debt. we authorized in good faith the supercommittee to produce a blueprint that would reduce the national deficit by $1.5 trillion or more. our hope was and our expectation was that both political parties

would come to a reasoned long-term solution to america's debt crisis. of course that hope faded quickly with the announcement of an impasse by the super committee. with the national debt nearing an unprecedented $16 trillion, reining in federal spending is imperative to our national and economic security. admiral mike mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, put it simply: our debt is our number-one national security threat. and yet, severe across-the-board cuts to the department of defense are not the way to address the security threat and they are not the way to achieve long-term fiscal responsibility. federal debt is a national security threat, to be sure, but so would be unilaterally cutting key funding to americans -- to

america's men and women in uniform. realistically confronting the debt problem means addressing soaring entitlement costs which are growing at three times the rate of inflation, growing at three times the rate of our economic growth. we can't sustain that. realistically confronting the debt does not mean gambling with the resources our military needs to protect this nation and the skilled jobs necessary to supply today's advanced force. unless we act and act soon, $492 billion will be cut from defense spending beginning january 3, 2013. according to defense secretary leon panetta, the effect would be devastating, a meat ax. our secretary of defense, a member of the obama administration, said it would hollow out the force. unfortunately, secretary panetta and the white house so far have

failed to identify the specific impact of these cuts. clarity is needed as to how these automatic cuts would limit our capabilities. as of this moment, sequestration is the law of the land unless congress passes and the president signs a bill to stop it. the administration needs to get specific about the results of this meat axe. our military faces a diverse set of challenges and emerging threats. a nuclear north korea, a volatile iran that wants to be nuclear. our commitment to a democratic taiwan and the competition for mineral resources in the south china sea. all of these and more require the ability to project american power abroad. this year we celebrate the bicentennial of the war of 1812,

and the lessons of that conflict should be remembered. during that war, it was our navy that reaffirmed america's sovereignty. the u.s. saw that even the border of an expansive ocean would not fully protect our nation. the influence of sea power on national security and commerce was clear then and it remains clear today. as ranking member of the armed services subcommittee on sea power, i can attest that the navy department is the armed forces' most capital intensive branch and the navy will be particularly hit hard by indiscriminate sequestration cuts. according to civilian and uniformed navy leaders, our capacity to deter threats, defend our priorities, and project sea power could be gravely compromised. sequestration would hurt readiness, fleet size, strategic

investment and the strength of america's work force. the projected numbers are striking. the marine corps would endure an additional 10% cut in troop strength, leaving our marines without sufficient manpower to meet even one major contingency operation. the navy fleet would drop to 230 ships, well below the navy's 3 313-ship requirement. it would drop to 230 from 313. hindering the ability of our combatant commanders to execute their missions abroad. even now the navy can satisfy only half of combatant commander requests for naval support. sequestration could affect the quality of future investments and the long-term vitality of america's shipbuilding work force. experience has shown that stable

shipbuilding rates have a direct impact on the acquisition and operational costs of amphibious ships, aircraft carriers and submarines. cuts would prevent the navy from ensuring new ships are delivered on time and on budget. the average age of today's shipyard worker is 45 and only 24% of our naval shipbuilding work force is under 35 years of age. sequestration would drive a generation of skilled shipbuilders from the work force and would have a prolonged negative impact on american high-tech manufacturing. i am proud to be from a state with a highly killed manufacturing base. mississippi workers produce ships, aircraft and equipment that our troops depend upon throughout the world. sharp cuts to defense will have

a direct and detrimental impact on mississippi's families and local communities. the stakes are high for milita military -- for the military and america's economy. these looming cuts are real, they are drastic and they're just around the corner. sequestration is real and not a hypothetical threat. it is the law unless we change it. our national security is on the line and it is in our interest either to priest sequestration or prap for it. indeed -- or prepare for it. indeed, some defense manufacturers have already begun the process of issuing legally required layoff warning notices to shareholders and employees. according to multiple forecasts, up to 1 million american jobs are at risk. the current unemployment rate

already stands at 8.2% and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke projected unemployment rates will remain high, as he testified before the congress yesterday and today. mr. president, there are some faint and hopeful signs that this catastrophe can be avoided. indeed, in the congress, there's always been bipartisan cooperation to ensure our military remains the best trained, best equipped and most professional fighting force in the world. we argue about a lot of things but bipartisanship has prevailed when it comes to the defense budget. the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill is a hopeful example. the bill recently passed by the armed services committee, of which i am a member, contains many provisions reflecting congress' support of the defense

department's top strategic priorities. it also reflects the challenges we may encounter while outlining ways to reduce spending. and we must reduce military spending, no question about it. but sequestration is not the way. also, with regard to the defense authorization bill, i should mention this is the 51st such -- this is the 51st consecutive year that congress has passed such a bill. and, again, testimony to bipartisanship with regard to d.o.d. reauthorization. that's the good news. the bad news is that the failure to address our past spending has compounded the situation we now face. further delays only make the problem worse. we know that tough decisions will have to be made to fix our country's debt program. all federal agencies, including

d.o.d., will have to do more with less in today's era of fiscal austerity. but the bottom line is this. we have an overriding constitutional obligation to provide for the common dense. to ensure that our country is safe and that our men and women in uniform are well equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan fashion toward a solution that achieves the fiscal discipline we need without compromising the ability of our military to protect and defend america. addressing sequestration should be our number-one priority. this week. mr. president, we should ask before the august break, after labor day, after the political

conventions which campaigns are in full swing and we have only two months to go before these devastating cuts go into effect? do we really believe that the atmosphere here will be conducive to solving sequestration? i don't think so. is it really in our nation's best national security interest to address this during the lame-duck session? i don't think. -- i don't think so. we should not leave town for an august break if we have not answered the situation issue. the hour is upon us. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

amr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i've come down to the floor today to talk about colorado. this summer, most people have been thinking about the wildfires that we've had out there. these fires were widespread throughout the state. it's still just the beginning of fire season and we've already seen a lot of damage, including the destruction of hundreds of homes and, most sadly, the loss of life. and i want to say in this chamber to all of my colleagues how much i appreciate people's kindness and -- and the knowledge that all of you have been thinking about people at home has been very comforting to the people that i represent. thanks to the heroic work of the firefighters and with a lot of help also from mother nature, the fires are under control.

and i want to remind people, as i have been doing now for mont months, that colorado is the best place to visit during the summer. it's the best place to bring your family. in fact, last week -- or during the recess, susan and i loaded up the minivan and drove across the state with our kids and it takes all the game -- the fun out of playing the license plate game when you're driving in colorado because in about two hours, the kids saw half the license plates representing half the states in the united states just two hours from denver, colorado. so i would say, as i've said time and time again and over the coming months, if you have plans to come to our state, please do. and today i wanted to focus on one area that illustrates just how special our state of colorado is. the hermosa creek watershed, which is pictured here, is a beautiful parcel of land just up the road from durango in the

southwest corner of our state. over four years ago, an incredibly diverse group of local citizens -- mountain bikers and fishermen, outfitters, local elected officials and others -- got to together to talk about the future of this striking land. everybody involved liked to visit the area for recreation or to do business there. there discussion was about thousand put together a plan from the local level up to manage the area so everyone could enjoy it and benefit. and so that we could protect it for the next generations of coloradans and the next generation of americans. a little over a year ago, the group invited me and my family to take a hike through the watershed and join the discussion. during a tour over last memorial day weekend, we unloaded at the hermosa creek trailhead, tied up our boots and my youngest

daughter anne made a hiking stick out of a nearby branch and we started up the trail. as we climbed higher and here, -- higher and higher, mr. president, we were all overcome by the beauty. i stopped talking large by because i was out of breath, but the people i was with i think, was you were awestruck, as i wa. there were forested valleys, there are crystal-clear streams and you spoiled views. the group pulled off the forest trail and as anne and carol made themselves and their father and mother dandelion necklaces.

the mountainbiker comes to enjoy singletrack riding on trails known throughout the united states of america and actually in other countries as well. the local water districts love hermosa because it provides drinking water for the great city of durango and workers in the timber an mining industries stress that some of the activity could contribute to activity in the future. mining has long been an economic factor that that region of our statement this is a photo of the group that hiked that day, and the upshot of the discussion we had in that meadow it was an agreement to work together to on a bill, a balanced bill that managed the watershed so it would contribute to the local economy long into the future. and after nearly 14 months of discussions and negotiations since that hike, i introduced that bill earlier today.

the hermosa creek watershed protection act governs the entire 108,000-acre watershed and includes provisions to allow for multiple uses like timber harvesting for forest health, access and trails for off-trail vehicles and more mountainbikers. the bill -- it just keeps getting better, mr. president -- the bill also adds nearly 40,000 acres to the national wilderness preservation system, lands that provide unique and important opportunities for solitude and reflection, lands that will remain undeveloped forever, so they'll always have clear streams to fish and lush forests for a outoutfitter to take clients into the wilderness on horseback. the bill has the unanimous bipartisan backing of the two county commissions involved, the san juan county commission and the la plata county commission.

i would like to submit both of those for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: it has the support of the hermosa county wilderness group. i am pleased to carry this bill on behalf of the people of colorado and especially proud because this was a community-driven process at its very finest, through and through, from beginning to end. colorado wrote this bill. this bill wasn't written in washington, d.c. the bill has grown from the grass roots up. republicans, democrats, and independents working together to cement a long-term plan for the community's future. i also want to thank my senior senator, senator udall, for joining me ras a cosponsor of the bill and to thank senator bingaman and murkowski for their past help moving colorado land bills through their committee. i am confident that as we work on this bill together we will find similar consensus.

mr. president, to bring this back to the beginning, i don't have to convince most people that colorado is a special place. many have visited our state over their lifetimes to ski our mountains, run our rivers or climb. the hermosa watershed has some of the best colorado has to offer. it deserves to be protected for our outdoor recreation economy and for future generations. i want to thank all of the people who have spent countless hours working together to make sure that they could overcome their differences and reach a consensus on this bill, as i have told all of them, it makes my work so much easier when people work in such a constructive way together. and for that they have my deep appreciation. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: ask unanimous scoantd the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to

speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1627. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1627, an act to amend title 38, united states code, to provide for certain requirements for the placement of monuments in arlington national cemetary and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the murray substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, as amended, be read three times and the statutory paygo statement be read. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the paygo statement. the clerk: this is the statement of budgetary effects of paygo legislation for h.r h.r. 1627, s amended. total budgetary effects of h.r. 1627 for the five-year statutory paygo scorecard, net reduction of $401 million.

total budgetary effects of 1627 for the ten-year statutory paygo scorecard, net reduction in the deficit of $215 million. also submitted for the record as part of this statement is a table provided by the congressional budget office which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this act. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill as amended be passed, the murray amendment which is the title amendment which is at the desk be agreed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. 3401 is now due for a first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3401, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to temporarily extend tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003 to provide for temporary alternative minimum tax relief and so forth. mr. reid: i now ask for a second

reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection being heard, the bill be receive the second reading on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, july 19. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that then i be recognized and the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. further, that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bring jobs home act be at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow, thursday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the first vote then will be at 2:15 tomorrow, mr. president, on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bringing jobs home act. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask the senate be adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will be adjourned until 9:30 a.m. thursday, july 19. bi.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: madam president, if you own a business in america today, your goal should be to make a profit. there's nothing wrong with that. that's good. millions of hardworking americans, entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy. and if your company boosts profits by sending jobs overseas, that's your right as a business owner but american taxpayers shouldn't subsidize your business decisions to outsource jobs especially when

there are millions of people in this country looking for work. over the last ten years, two and a half million jobs in call centers and factories were shipped overseas. and american taxpayers helped foot that bill. for sending those jobs overseas. every time u.s. companies ship jobs or facilities overseas, american taxpayers help cover the moving costs. the bring jobs home act would end these disgraceful subsidies for outsourcing and comblif give a 20% tax credit for moving back to the united states. but republicans are filibustering this commonsense legislation. it's no surprise republicans are on the side of corporations. corporations making big bucks sending american jobs to china and india and other places. after all, their presidential nominee, mitt romney made a fortune outsourcing jobs also. so republicans are putting breaks for corporations and multimillionaires ahead of the

needs of ordinary americans and what most americans need is a good job, a job here at home and the assurance that taxes won't go up. democrats, republicans and independents across the country agree with our plan. it's only republicans in congress who disagree. yet republicans here in congress in the senate are filibustering the legislation to bring jobs back to america. and they've twice blocked a vote on legislation to keep taxes low for 98% of american families. it was republicans who asked for a vote on the plan to raise taxes for 25 million families and a vote on our plan to keep taxes low for 135 million american taxpayers. so we offered them what they wanted. we offered them up-or-down votes on both proposals. no procedural hoops, no delay tactics, simple majority votes on our plan and theirs and they refused. so maybe republicans refused our offer because they don't have the votes for their plan to raise taxes on 25 million american families.

or maybe they refused it because the majority of americans support our plan to keep taxes low for 98% of families while asking the top 2% to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit. even a majority of republicans support our plan across the country. yet still republicans here in the senate are holding hostage tax cuts for nearly every american family to extort more budget-busting giveaways to millionaires and billionaires. for years, the deficit was all they were talking about. they were willing to end medicare as we know it, cut nursing homes for seniors and raise taxes on the middle class all in the name of deficit reduction. but now the democrats have a plan to reduce the deficit by almost a trillion dollars, simply by ending wasteful tax breaks republicans have given up fiscal responsibility. i say to to to my republican friends. you can't have it both ways. you can't call yourself a deficit hawk and fight for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires while the deficit

continues to increase. and you can't call yourself a fiscal conservative and fight to protect tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs to india or to china. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i indicated to the majority leader before the senate convened today i wanted to have a discussion, the two of us on several items. number one, understand my friend the majority leader last night on msnbc said it was his intention at the beginning of the next congress if the democrats were in the majority to change the rules of the senate by a simple majority. i wanted to begin by asking my friend the majority leader if his comments at the beginning of this congress on january 27, 2011, are no longer operative. at that time my friend the majority leader said i agree that the proper way to change national senate rules is through the procedures established in

those rules and i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next -- or the next -- to change the senate's rules other than through the regular order. so my first question of my friend the majority leader is, is that statement no longer operative? mr. reid: madam president, through the chair, to my friend, the republican leader, as i've said here on the floor, i believe that what took place at the beginning of this congress was something -- was very important for this body. led by senator udall from new mexico and senator merkley from oregon. they had been here a while and they thought that the senate was dysfunctional. well, they hadn't been here a long time and i was willing to go along with the traditional

view, let's not rock the vote here. that was under the hope and i thought the assurance of my republican colleagues that they would not have these continue wal con sensical motions to proceed, filibuster, taking -- through that finally on a piece of legislation and i said in the senate a few months ago that i was wrong. it's hard to acknowledge that you're wrong. it's difficult for any of us to do. especially in front of so many people. but i said that i think they were right and i was wrong. and i stick by that. i think what has happened the last few years of changing the basic rules of this senate where we have not 50 votes to pass something but takes 60 on everything, i think that's wrong. i think that where -- where we waste weeks and weeks on motions to proceed and i had a

conversation with a real traditionalist last evening, carl levin, senator from michigan, where we talked about this at some length. he acknowledges that the motion to proceed is a real problem here. he disagrees with me and someone i have to talk with him personally but that's the way i understood him but i am convinced unless there is an agreement to change honor howe owe wee focus on the motion to proceed and i'll try to end this quickly because i think the leader deserves a full explanation. the filibuster was originally devised, it's not in the constitution, it was devised to help legislation get passed. that's the reason they changed the rules here to do that. now it's being used to stop legislation from passing and we have to change things because this place is becoming inoperative. mcconnell: madam president, i hear my friend the majority leader that his commitment at the beginning of this congress that we would not follow the regular order to change the

rules of the senate is no longer operative. so let me turn to a second area. we both agree that the advantage of being in the majority, the principal advantage is you get to schedule legislation. and of course there are a number of things that can be done with a simple majority of 51. and i would ask my friend the majority leader why it's his view that republicans have somehow prevented the senate from passing a budget which could have been done with a mere 51 votes any time during the last three years. mr. reid: madam president, that's an easy question to answer. we already have a budget. we passed in august of last year a budget that took effect for the last fiscal year and this fiscal year. it set numbers through -- 302-b numbers in effect. we already had a budget. so the hue and cry of my

republican fleendz we need a budget is just a lot of talk. we already have a budget. mcconnell: i say --. mr. mcconnell: , i know the parliamentarian disagrees with his few but let's assume we do have a budget and by judge ask the majority leader why we haven't passed a single appropriation bill. mr. reid: that also is an easy question to answer. the republicans in the house, this is a bicameral legislature, why have reneged on the law passed last august that set numbers. their appropriation bills have artificially lowered the numbers and in effect violated the law that's in effect here in this congress. as a result of that, senator inouye has marked up his subcommittee bills and we can't -- and i would also say, madam president, the house was not serious about what they do. energy and water which used to be one of the most important subcommittees, most popular, i should say in addition to being

important, subcommittees in this body, i was fortunate to serve on that subcommittee for more than a quarter of a century under a great -- under great leaders, domenici, bennett johnson, domenici and i switched back and forth. but the house sent us over here an appropriation bill that has more than 30 riders directed toward e.p.a. type functions alone. i mean they're not serious about doing sage. they're serious about satisfying their tea party and the ridiculous messages they're trying to send. so -- and i would also say one of the problems problems we have we have to fight to get to anything, any legislation. we have to fight to get that done. as you know, we've wasted -- i said weeks earlier. months. trying to get legislation on the

floor. so appropriation bills, i wanted to get these done, i'm an appropriator but it's been with the actions of the house unrealistic. mr. mcconnell: what we just heard, madam president, it's not the senate's house, it's the house's fault that the senate won't schedule appropriation bills that have been marked up in the senate appropriation committee. my concern here is that nobody's taking responsibility for the senate itself. we're not responsible for what the house is doing. typically these differences in what we call 302-b's, that is what each subcommittee is going to spend, are worked out in conference. we can't have a conference on any of the bills because we haven't passed any of the bills across the senate floor. so the majority leader doesn't want to do the budget. he doesn't want to schedule votes on appropriations bills. then i would ask my friend why don't we do the d.o.d. authorization bill?

mr. reid: the answer is pretty simple there too. we have spent the last many weeks working through procedural matters on bills that the republicans have held up. i've spoken to senator levin last night about that. he's the chairman of that committee. i've spoken to john mccain several times on this matter. i know how important they feel this legislation is. and i think it's important also. and we can only do what we have to do. one of the things i think i have an obligation for our country to get to is cybersecurity. i was asked to visit with general petraeus. i did that a day or two ago. and i think that you don't have to have a briefing by general petraeus to understand how important it is to do something about cybersecurity. there are people out there

making threats on this country every day, and we've been fortunate being able to stop a number of them. so we're going to have to get to cybersecurity before we get to the defense authorization bill because the on the relative merits, cybersecurity is more important, one i believe is more important than the other. mr. mcconnell: madam president, it's pretty obvious here the reason the senate is so inactive is because the majority leader doesn't want to take up any serious bills that are important to the future of the country. he mentioned cybersecurity. why isn't it on the floor? defense authorization, why isn't it on the floor? appropriations bills, why don't we call them up? these are not partisan bills. they're widely supported. they are the basic work of government, including the budget. and i understand his view is that the parliamentarian is wrong, that we really did pass a budget. but the budget could be done with a simple majority. the appropriations bills are not

partisan in nature. if there are differences in the 302-b's, they would be worked out in conference, which is the way we did it for years. we have followed the regular order occasionally, and when we have, senators have been involved. they were relevant in the process. i'll give you five examples. the export-import bank reauthorization, trade adjustment assistance, patent reform, f.a.a. reauthorization, the highway bill, and the farm bill were all examples of when senators were made relevant by the fact that we took up bills that actually came out of committees that were worked on by members of both parties, that were brought up on the floor, amendments were offered and in the end bills passed. the core problem here is my good friend, the majority leader, as a practical matter is running the whole senate because

everything is centralized in his office which diminishes the opportunity for senators of both parties to represent their constituents. we all were sent here by different americans who expected us to have a voice, to have an opportunity to effect legislation. i would say to my good friend, the majority leader, we don't have a rules problem. we have an attitude problem. when is the senate going to get back to normal? i can recall my friends on the other side saying repeatedly the difference between the house and senate is you get to vote. it's not a top-down organization like the house is. it's really kind of a level playing field in which the majority leader has a little more advantage than any of the rest of us and the right of first recognition. but really once a bill is called up, it's a jump ball. and what my friend, the majority leader, is saying is it's inconvenient, it's hard to work with all these senators who have

different point of view and want to do different things. well, heck, that's the way legislation is passed. it's not supposed to be easy. and senators are supposed to have an opportunity to participate. and i would argue in the examples that i just cited where senators did participate both in the committee and on the floor, the senate functioned like it used to. and all this talk about rules change is just an effort to try to find somebody else to blame for the fact that the senate has been ruled essentially dysfunctional by 62 efforts by my good friend, the majority leader, to fill up the tree, in effect, deny senators, both democrats and republicans, the opportunity to offer any amendments that he doesn't select. that's the reason we're having this problem. so it doesn't require a rules change. it requires an attitude change. and i sense on both sides of the aisle -- this is not just a republican complaint, i would say to my friend the majority leader. i've talked to a lot of

democrats about this too. they'd like to be relevant again. and the way senators are relevant is for their committee work to be respected and to be important and to become a part of a bill coming out of committee. or if they didn't, an opportunity to offer an amendment, to effect it on the floor. and, sure, we have no rules of germaneness. we generally are able to work that out. when he we were in the majority, we got nongermane amendments from the democratic side, and i used to tell my members the price of being in a majority is you have to cast votes you don't want to cast because that's the way you get a bill across the floor and get it to completion. so i would say to my good friend, the majority leader, quit blaming everybody else. it's not the house. it's not the senate. it's not the motion to proceed. why don't we operate like we used to under leaders of both

parties, and understood that amendments we don't like are just part of the process, because everybody here doesn't agree on everything. that would be my thought about how to move the senate forward. but, at the beginning of this discussion the majority leader made it clear that what he said at the beginning of the congress is no longer operative. it is now his view that the senate ought to operate like the house. ought to operate like the house. a simple majority. i think that's a mistake. i think that would be a mistake if i were the majority leader and he were the minority leader, which could be the case by the end of the year. and now i'll probably have to argue to many of my members why we shouldn't do what the majority leader was just recommending about six months before. let's assume we have a new president and i'm the majority leader next time and we're operating at 51. i wonder how comforting that is

to my friends on the other side. how does it make you feel about the security of obamacare, for example? that i think's worth thinking about. the senate has functioned for quite a number of decades without a simple majority threshold for everything we do. it has a good effect because it brings people together. you have to get -- to do anything in the senate, you have to have some bipartisanship. my colleagues do. we really want the senate to become the house. is that really in the best interest of our country? do we want a simple majority of 51 to ramrod the minority on every issue? i think it's worth thinking about over the next few months as the american people decide who is going to be in the majority in the senate and who is going to be the president of

the united states. mr. reid: madam president, the republican leader has asked a few questions, so i'll proceed to answer them. i can remember reading with great interest george orwell's 1984 book where it came out that up was down and down was up. the republican leader is living in a fantasy world if he believes what he said, and i assume he does. that's why two scholars a couple of months ago wrote a book. they have been watching washington for three or four decades. they said they have over the years been like a lot of people who are writers. the democrats did this, republicans did this. but their conclusion was what's

happened in recent years is the republicans have stopped this body from working. they said that. by all of their shenanigans on these motions to proceed, creating 60 votes when it never existed before. robert karo who is writing the definitive work on lyndon johnson, one of my predecessors, said i had a very difficult job based on how the senate has changed, with what the republicans are doing. now, madam president, we have tried mightily. we've gotten a few things done. whenever there is a decision made that they want help, a bill get passed, we get it done. but that's rare. for example, the highway bill. that bill took so long to get done. we had one major piece of legislation that we waited four weeks before they could get out of their system that instead of doing highways, we should be

doing birth control, determining what birth control women should be entitled to. all of these extraneous issues. important legislation held up for one of the republicans over here decided they are a better secretary of state than hillary clinton. holding up major pieces of legislation. so i can take the criticism that the republican leader has issued. i assume that is constructive criticism, and i accept that. but i would just suggest to my friend that if a democratic senator, as the presiding officer knows, has a problem about anything going on here, they talk to me. and i don't think there is any reason for them to talk to the republican leader. but if they do, that's more power to them. madam president, there have been volumes of pieces of legislation that have been brought to a standstill here. whoever -- why did we have now a

rule that every basic piece of legislation has 60 votes? i had a meeting with senator feinstein, senator tester, senator lautenberg. and in the course of the conversation, senator feinstein looked back and said, you know, i had really a controversial amendment dealing with what should happen to assault weapons. she said, you know, that passed with a simple majority vote. no one suggested filibustering that thing to death. that's only new. that's new. legislation being used as an excuse to stop things. now, i want the record to be very clear, and i've made it all very clear in all of my public statements about the need to get rid of the motion to proceed. madam president, i'm not for getting rid of the filibuster

rule. in 1984 i suggested i think the house and senate should be the same. i do believe when the filibuster came into being was to help get legislation passed. i repeat: it's now to stop legislation from passing, and that's not appropriate. so i'm convinced the best thing to do with the filibuster is have filibusters. i've been involved in a couple of them. i'm sure i i irritated people on both of them. but i did that. one of them lasted a long time. the other one didn't last too long. the first one lasted 11 or 12 hours. that's what filibusters are supposed to be. not throwing monkey wrenches into decision we're trying to make and then walk off the floor. the rules have to change, i acknowledge that and don't apologize it for one second. as far as how i attempt to run the senate, i do the best i can under very difficult circumstances, as indicated by the two writers, mann and

orenstein. mr. mcconnell: most people think a filibuster is to stop a bill from passing. cloture is to end debate. what we've had here on at least 62 occasions while the majority leader was running the senate, for example, the time when senators were not allowed to talk, not allowed to offer amendments, not allowed to participate in the process. cloture is frequently used in order to advance a measure. but as you can imagine, when senators have no opportunity to have any input, it tends to create the opposite reaction. but what is all of this really about? it's about making an excuse for a completely unproductive senate, much of which could have been done with a simple 51 votes -- passing a budget -- and not even bringing up bills that we all want to act on. all the appropriations bills, the defense authorization bill.

and on the rare occasions when the majority leader has turned to a measure that senators have been involved in developing, we've come to the floor, we've had amendments, we've had votes, and the bills have passed.s that's the way the senate used to operate. this isn't a rules problem. this is a making excuse argument. of the senate i sense on a bipartisan pwaeusdz would like to be -- basis would like to be more productive which would involve the use of senators' talents, speaking ability, voting and debating on the floor of the senate. since when did that go out of fashion? we have a big difference of

opinion here about the way this place is being run. and it's not a rules problem. it's an attitude problem. it's a looking for somebody else to blame game. my friend, the majority leader, i think what we need to do is get busy with serious business confronting the american people. where is the defense authorization bill? where are the appropriations bills? don't blame it on the house. don't blame it on us senate republicans. we want to go to these bills. all of our members have been involved in developing this legislation in the armed services committee, in the appropriations subcommittee, senate republicans are involved in that legislation. we'd like to see it brought up on the floor, debated and considered. what is more important than funding the government? what is more important than the defense authorization bill? why is it on the floor? that's my question of the majority leader. we can have the rules debate later.

and apparently we will. but why aren't we doing anything now? that is my question for my friend the majority leader. mr. reid: this can best are answered in not my responding directly but quoting. this is from an op-ed that appeared around the country by thomas e mann and norman j. ornstein. let's just say it is the headline. the republicans are the problem. representative -- i'm quoting. representative allen west, a florida republican was recently captured on video saying there are 78 to 81 democrats in congress who are members of the communist party. of course it's not unusual for a regular agaid member to say something outrageous. what has made west so striking is that there was a complete lack of condemnation from republican congressional leaders or party figures including presidential candidates,

republican presidential candidates. it's not that the g.o.p. leadership agrees with west, it's that such stream remarks and views are taken for granted. i go on. we've been studying washington application in congress -- politics in congress more than 40 years and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. in our past writings we've criticized both parties when we believes it was warranted. today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the republican party. madam president, understand ornstein works for the american enterprise institute, a conservative think tank. they go on to say the g.o.p. has become an insurgent outlier in american politics. it is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by facts, evidence and science and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

madam president, i am a legislator, been doing it for 30 years here and for quite a few years in nevada prior to getting here and i've enjoyed being a legislator. this last few years because of what we hear from ornstein and mann has made it very, very unpleasant and for my -- for the republican leader with a straight face to come here and say why aren't we doing the defense authorization bill, why aren't we doing appropriation bills, everyone knows why we're not doing them. they haven't let us get to even virtually anything. and to be dismissive of me because i say the republican leader in the house has been dismissive of the law we have guiding this country, i think says it all. we, madam president -- i recognize we're a bicameral legislature. we have our own things to do. but we have to take this as a whole, and look at the record. major pieces of legislation, we

can't get to. for example, we can't get to something dealing with outsourcing of jobs. we're here flubling a motion to proceed to that. a motion to proceed to it. not the substance of the legislation. a motion to proceed to it. so, madam president, the record speaks for itself. the record speaks for itself. we've been studying washington politics and congress more than 40 years and we have never seen them this dysfunctional. today we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the republican party. the grand old party, the republican party, has become an insurgent outlier in american politics, it'sed yoa lodgey cli extreme, unproved by facts, evidence and science and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. mr. mcconnell: the reason i'm having a hard time restraining my laughter, i know norm or steern and thomas mann.

they're ultraliberals. their problem with the senate is the deputies don't have 60 votes anymore. their problem is the republicans control the house. their views about dysfunctionallity of the senate carry no weight certainly with me. i know this have an ideological agenda, always have and usually admit it although it's cloaked in this particular instance. but the best way to wrap it up this is nobody else is keeping the majority leader from calling up the appropriation bills, from calling up the defense authorization bill, from calling up a budget. that's his responsibility. he has a unique role in this institution. he has the opportunity to set the agenda. and just because all 100 senators don't immediately fall into line and it may be a little bit difficult to go forward is no excuse for not doing the important and basic work that the american people sent us here to do.

it's time to bring up serious legislation that affects the future of the country, that the american people expect us to act on. and not expect a hundred senators to all agree on every piece of legislation from the outset. passing bills is inevitably difficult. but not impossible. and that's been demonstrated on at least five occasions when the majority leader allowed the committees to function, allowed the senate floor to function, allowed members to have amendments, and we got a result. mr. reid: madam president, in one committee, the energy and water committee led by senator bingaman, that committee alone has had hundreds of piece of legislation held up, can't get out of the committee. what -- you know, i'm sorry

that it's an usual thing to have ornstein and mann referred to as liberals but whatever they are, working for the conservative american enterprise institute, one of them at least, it's very clear that they view this body as being in deep trouble because the republicans being dysfunctional themselves. and i think it's very clear that we have a situation here, i understand there's a presidential election going on. i clearly understand that. and i know there are efforts to protect their nominee and we do what we can to protect the president of the united states but that should not prevent us from legislating. and for my friend, who has been on the appropriations committee as long as i have, to talk about not -- why aren't we doing the appropriation bills, it's obvious. 12 or 13 appropriation bills, we have simply not been able to get to the appropriation bills because --.

mr. mcconnell: have you tried calling any of them up? mr. reid: mr. president, i don't think it calls for my being interrupted here. i've listened patiently to his name calling and i don't intend to do that but i will say this, i've tried to call up lots of things, by consent or by filing motions and virtually everything habs stopped. for him to boast about passing five pieces of legislation in an entire congress isn't anything any of us should be happy about. shouldn't be happy about that at all. we should be passing scores of pieces of legislation, like we did in the last congress. but no, a decision was made at the beginning of this congress to do -- i may not be a direct quote but certainly substantively accurate that my friend the republican leader has said his number one goal is to stop obama from being reelected and that's what the legislation we've tried to get forward has

had -- is barrel we've tried to get around continue wally. we're going to go ahead, we'll have cloture tomorrow on another -- one of our scores of times we've tried to break cloture this congress, and move on to something else. we've had 13 cloture votes on motions to proceed in the second session of the congress lien. 13. others just went away because you ran out of time to do those kinds of things. so now as indicated by the republican leader we've passed five things, that's about one-third of the petitions i've had to file motions to invoke cloture on motion to proceed. not on legislation. mr. mcconnell: the reason it's difficult, we didn't get an agreement with the majority leader to have amendments once we do get on the bill. so the reaction on this side is if the majority leader is not going to let us have amendments, if the only result

of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed is he fills up the tree and doesn't offer us any amendments, why would we want to do that? all of this is much more easily avoided than you think. the majority leader is basically trying to convince the american people that it's somebody else's fault that the senate is not doing the basic work of government. and, you know, regardless of the blame game, the results are apparent. no budget, no appropriation bills, no defense authorization. we're not doing the basic work of government here. and that really ought to stop. and it's within the purview of the majority leader to determine what bill we try to turn to. and just because it may be occasionally difficult to get on a bill particularly when the majority leader won't say you can have amendments is no good excuse for not trying.

we spend days sitting around here when we could be processing amendments and working on bills. all we need is an indication from the majority leader that these bills are going to be open for amendments. we've tried that a few times. it's worked quite well. it's amazing how the senate can function when members are allowed to participate, offer amendments, get votes and move forward. i recommend we try that more often. mr. reid: madam president, we are where we are. i think it's very clear from outside sources -- take, for example, i repeat what caro said writing the definitive work on lyndon johnson about the difficult job i've had is because of how the senate has changed because of what has taken place in the last couple years.

we have had bills that we have been able to work things out with republicans and that's pleasant. i'm glad we've been able to do. but most of the time we can't do that. we have one republican senator in tense negotiations with pakistan on a lot of very sensitive issues that wants to do something that's outside the scope of rational thinking which holds legislation up. so we've had -- we've tried very hard all different ways to move legislation in this body but for the first time in the history of the country the number-one issue in the senate of the united states has been a procedural thing, how do we get on a bill, a motion to proceed to something. that has taken over the senate and it needs to go away. we shouldn't have to do that anymore. mr. mcconnell: the final thing i would say is just last week the chairman of the appropriations committee, senator inouye, said his committee's been working hard to have the bills ready to go.

to date, the panel has cleared nine of 12 annual bills. senator inouye has is quoted as saying on july 10, just last week, after putting us all to work like this i expect some of these bills to pass. i would recommend that my good friend the majority leader heed the advice of the chairman of the appropriations committee of his party. let's pass some appropriation bills. mr. reid: madam president, i don't have a better friend in this body than the chairman of the appropriations committee. i've been one of his big fans, he's been one of my big fans. he of course is a national hero, medal of honor winner and great chairman of the appropriations committee. we work hand in glove. everything that i have said about the appropriation process will be underscored and has been by senator inouye. he supports what we are unable to do. he realizes that. he realizes his counterpart in the house has fumbled with the numbers and makes it extremely difficult to get things done. we understand that.

but the main thing, madam president, the main thing, we can't get legislation on the floor because the number-one thing that we talk talk about here in the senate this entire congress is how to get on a bill and that's why the motion to proceed must go away. mr. mcconnell: madam president, a good example of the problem is the bill we're on right now, the stabenow bill bypassed the committee entirely, introduced a week ago, a week ago, placed on the calendar. this is not the way legislation is normally done. it's crafted in somebody's office, rule 14. brought up by the majority leader. i expect it has something to do with the campaign. we spent a week on it when we could be doing the d.o.d. bill. that's my point. what are we doing here? is the senate a messaging machine or are we doing the basic work of government? we're certainly not doing the basic work of government, but it could change. there are a vast majority of

senators of both parties who would like to become relevant, who would like to participate in the legislative process, who would like to do the basic work of government. mr. reid: madam president, one of the most important issues facing america today is jobs being shipped overseas, whether it's olympic uniforms being made in china when they could be made by hickey freeman in new york, made here in america. outsourcing is an important piece of america that we now have to deal with. and of course we have the additional problem that governor romney has made a fortune shipping jobs overseas. the american people care about this issue. we can sit here and point fingers at, boy, that's terrible, we're now going to have to deal with outsourcing. we should deal with outsourcing.

we should have done it before. but we've had a little problem getting the legislation on the floor. i don't want to apologize to anyone for having a debate on outsourcing. senator stabenow has done a wonderful job on that, and we couldn't have a better senator to deal with outsourcing than her. because what we did in the stimulus bill, the american recovery act, is direct jobs back to michigan, detroit, other places, with what we did with batteries, billions of dollars there. instead of importing batteries, now we're making most of them here in america. what we did with governor romney, we should have let the general motors and chrysler go bankrupt. we didn't do that and as a result created almost 200,000 jobs just in the auto industry alone. outsourcing is important and it's a debate we're going to have. let me remind the republican leader that it wasn't democrats that threatened to shut down the government last year and took most all the time we had.

first it was the debt ceiling and after we got through the debt ceiling, they weren't going to allow us to do anything, getting funding to take us through the end of the fiscal year. it was the republican party last year that threatened to default the debts that we have as a country. now they're holding up tax cuts for 98% of the american people. 98%, in an effort to satisfy this mysterious man who i never met, but he must be a dandy, who has gotten every republican with rare, rare exception to sign a pledge that they're not going to deal with the 98% because they've got to protect the 2%. we're here dealing with outsourcing because that's what we should be