and we're hopeful that we can consider all of them and give them the kind of attention they deserve. ms. stabenow: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: sheri polster chappell florida to be united states district judge, michael j. mcshane of oregon to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from connecticut.

mr. murphy: i ask that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. it has now been almost six months since the horrible shooting in my state of connecticut in sandy hook, connecticut, where 20 6- and 7 olds lost their lives and another six adults protecting them perished as well. we all believed that we were going to do something about it on the floor of the senate. we thought we were going to come to our senses and finally realize the laws of this nation that allow for this kind of senseless killing whether it be in mass numbers in places like sandy hook or aurora or tucson, or in your state, madam president,, the sikh temple or in the everyday average gun violence that has become background noise to this nation. it is not just about bad people

doing bad things. it is also about the laws of this nation that have allowed for this to happen because we don't have background checks on every gun purchase so the criminals do get guns. we still allow for dangerous military-style weapons like the ar-15 and hundred-round drums of ammunition to be carried on the streets of this country. we don't even have a federal law saying that it's illegal to traffic in guns, taking them out of gun shows and gun stores and then going out and selling them on the streets as straw purchasers to people who shouldn't have bought them in the first place. we had 55 votes in the senate to do that but we didn't have 60 votes which is these days the law of the land here. and so, madam president, i've promised every week to come down here and do something rather simple which is to tell the stories of the dozens of people, every single day, who are killed by gunses.

because it's really their stories that will eventually move this place to action. i know that this place has enough empathy, enough compassion to not be so callous months month after month to do nothing about today, the 4,243 people who have died in this country since newtown at the hands of gun violence. let me tell you that number again. since the massacre at sandy hook when 28 people died, including the gunman and his mother, 4,243 people have died due to gun violence. so i want to spend the next couple minutes before we get back to debate on knees nominations telling the stories of a few of these people. on may 150 --, 15, 2013, just about a week ago, five

different people were shot in detroit. halfway through may there have been 73 shootings in detroit, michigan. teb ten people have been killed, eight of the shooting victims were 17 years old or younger. on that day, may 15, five people were shot. after a 24-year-old man opened fire after a pretty simple verbal altercation on the street. what happened apparently was that one parent of one child told the other kids to go home for some reason, something had happened at their house. that youth returned to the house with some of his family members including the 24-year-old man who got so upset over this simple altercation about a mom asking some kids to leave her house that he opened fire, killing almanor walls and

wounding the others. it was a pretty bloody 24-hour period in detroit where 12 people were shot on that day from 6:00 a.m. on wednesday until 6:00 a.m. on thursday. 73 shootings, halfway through may in one city alone. on may 15 as well, newark police said that an 18-year-old high school student, a senior at ouiqahic high school in newark, new jersey was killed. he signed himself out of school after he wasn't feeling well, he was shot. councilman raz baraka, the principal of another school, said we are outgunned and outmanned on the streets here, there are so many guns on the streets of newark that principles and -- principals

and law enforcement feel outgunned and outmanned. of the young student killed, his friends said we used to play pool and video games around here. in bridgeport, connecticut, just before sunrise on mother's day police found 22-year-old robert rivera dead in his car from perhaps a dozen bullet wounds. he was one in a million, a friend said, no one will ever be like him. chino, his nickname was, he was a good kid. his friend said the good die young here. 22 years old. killed in a spray of tbhults his car in bridgeport, connecticut. these are the ones that we don't hear that much about because they're in the local papers. but we know that there are also these mass killings as well. and, madam president, i just want to tell you before i give back the floor the stories of a

handful of victims in your state. who were killed at a sikh temple when someone walks in in august, 2012 and opened up fire because people should know who these victims are as well. it's the victims of everyday gun violence but we have had a string of mass shootings in this country which is not going to end until we do something about it. paramji cower spent 11 hours a day, six days a week at production at a medical devices firm. she was praying inside the temple when she learned of the active shooter outside the temple and instead of being afraid, she showed great courage, bowed down and prayed one last time before she was shot. satwan singe was the president and -- sij singe.

he acquired eight gas stations by tend of his career. his attempts to thwart the gunman with a small, dull knife gave a group of women including his mother the chance to escape. suveg-sinhgekatra came to the united states for a better life. he was a humble and loving manman who was a constant presence at that temple. he would wake up every morning at 4:30, watch the news in a live broadcast from india and engage in readings from the holy book. he died at age 84. prekash singhe stayed in the police quarters in the temple and was excited he was about to get an apartment outside of the temple. they were due to move into their new home at tend of august just a few weeks after he was killed.

and then the two brothers, ranji and sita singhe were sikh priests who moved to oak creek for a better life. ranji was the more outgoing of the two. his responsibility was to take care of the visitors who came through the doors but his younger brother sita was just as fun lochg and would wake up every morning at 5:00 a.m. to read the sikh holy book. his special i ty was making sure everybody who walked into that temple had enough to eat. all perished at a sikh temple. there is going to be another mass profit atrocity. if we don't do something about it on this floor. i know would have important business whether it be the farm bill this week or our hopeful attempt at passing immigration reform but as soon as that is done hopefully we will get back to come back to this issue of gun violence because if we

don't, these everyday urban stories will mount and there will be another mass shooting somewhere across this country. thank you, madam president. i yield back the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i would say to my colleague from connecticut, amen. and i would say to my colleague from oregon, thank you for his courtesy in letting me go ahead in light of the fact that we have a federal judge coming up for a vote at 5:30, and i am very, very grateful to the judiciary committee, to both the democrats and the republicans that are allowing us to vote and i urgently implore

to confirm judge sheri polster chappell to the united states district court for the middle district of florida. but while i rise to speak in favor of judge chappell, i want to express my concern for the growing partisanship that is dragging down our efforts to fill these judicial vacancies across the nation. in the past, we've had qualified consensus judicial nominees, they'd be confirmed in weeks if not in days. and, unfortunately, even the judicial nominees of the support of both senators from the

state, and sometimes in the case of florida, the republican senator, senator rubio, and me, the democratic senators, we're still finding that the judges are being held up. we're experiencing waiting months for an up-or-down vote only then to be confirmed overwhelmingly. mr. leahy: will the senator yield? mr. nelson: of course i yield 0 to the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee. mr. leahy: i say to my dear friend, the senior senator from florida, i share his frustration. we put these judges through the senate judiciary committee, often with the unanimous vote, and then they wait here months and months, waiting to get a vote on the floor. and as the distinguished senator from florida voted then that vote is virtually unanimous.

i am very afraid if this continues, this effort that if somebody is nominated by president obama we must block them even if it's somebody we support, that view is one, totally unfair to the president, it's completely unfair to the country, but it's devastating to the judiciary because good men and women are not going to be willing to take nominations or appointments to be a federal judge if they think they're going to wait month after month after month or even a year before they go on the bench. so i appreciate the distinguished senior senator from florida making the statement he did, and i share his frustration. mr. nelson: i thank the chairman of the judiciary committee. and a good example, we passed -- this isn't even a federal

district judge. this is court of appeals. we passed the judge 94-5, when we finally got a vote. that was judge alberto jordan, the first cuban american-born judge from miami to serve on the u.s. court of appeals. the 11th circuit is one of the busiest circuits in the country. it encompasses the southeastern united states. he was unanimously reported out of the judiciary committee, but he was blocked by a filibuster of judicial nominees after four months of waiting on the executive calendar. now obviously, with a vote of 94-5, he was eminently qualified. he was not controversial. he had senator rubio's and my support; unanimous vote in

judiciary. and yet, his nomination was filibustered. so in addition, highly qualified district court judge nominees are facing the same partisan delays. obviously these nominees ought to get confirmed without the needless obstacles facing potential cloture motions just to receive an up-or-down vote. and i'm told that the majority leader has had to file cloture on as many as 20 of the federal district court nominees since 2009. it's an indication that we're clearly going in the wrong direction in this senate. i'll give you one other example. the judge that we are about to confirm -- and before the chairman came in, i thanked

profusely him and the republicans on the judiciary committee for bringing judge chappell up for a vote today. there's no controversy on judge chappell. she has the support of senator rubio and me. she was voted out of the judiciary committee twice unanimously, and it is a judicial vacancy emergency declared in the middle district of florida. well, she has waited, and today is the 329th day. i will put into the record all of her qualifications. i refer to her as judge chappell because she was a county court judge and she serves now as a magistrate.

she's coming in at a needed time in a judicial emergency. but, madam president, there are 34 judicial emergency vacancies across this nation right now. there are two in the middle of florida and two in the southern district of florida. in total, there are 84 judicial vacancies waiting to be filled and 28 nominees stuck in the pipeline waiting for confirmation. and so, the courts obviously are overburdened, which means that our citizens are seeing their day in court delayed, and the public is concerned about this. and i just again want to thank the judiciary committee for bringing up judge chappell, but it can't keep going on like this. and i hope we're going to see some reform and movement quickly .

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i know even the "wall street journal" said the senate's inability to pull out of partisan ruts and get beyond the epidemic of filibusters is hurting. judge chappell, the judicial emergency vacancy, has been for 400 days. she was nominated almost a year ago in the committee. every single republican voted for her as well as every single democrat. a democrat and republican senator support her. so what i'm saying, when i say that president obama's qualified consensus nominees have faced unprecedented levels of delay and obstruction, this is precisely what i'm talking about. i say unprecedented. madam president, i've said in

this current senate, i've never seen such delays for sake of delay of judges like we're seeing now. and highly qualified judges. for some reason there seems to be this antipathy toward anything that this president does. and i think it's wrong. people can determine themselves what the motives are, but it's wrong. it is severely damaging to the independence of our federal judiciary. i'd ask my full statement on judge chappell and michael mcshane be placed in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and that a statement on the senate -- update of the senate judiciary committee's consideration of s. 7440, the immigration bill,

that be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i note that we're -- we are, i hope we'll finish that that week. we'll go very late tonight, very late tomorrow night, very late wednesday night. and we'll go all day thursday and all day friday if necessary. we'll get it finished. and i see -- i ask consent, madam president, that i be allowed to speak briefly as though in morning business about the farm bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: this farm bill represents two years of very hard work, and i compliment the distinguished chair, senator stabenow, who has done herculean duties here. this will save $23 billion over ten years. that's remarkable when you consider the fiscal restraints we already face. it passed out of the agriculture committee with a heavy

bipartisan vote of 15-5. many of the farm bill programs expired last year because the house of representatives refused to take up the senate agricultural bill, farm bill which passed here by an overwhelming bipartisan rity. i'm glad that in december we were able to prevent the dairy cliff which would have wreaked havoc in the marketplace and on our farms. but the short-term extension of the farm bill is no rational way to legislation. the last-minute extension left dozens of critical agriculture programs stranded without funding. all of these things would have gone as they should have with great savings to the it wants if the other body had just taken up and voted -- with great savings to the taxpayers if the other

body had voted on the bill we passed. in my state agriculture is a great part of our economy. very few nation's great power can say as part of their national security they can feed themselves. we have the ability to feed 320-plus million americans. that's part of our national security. every farm bill is important to america. every farm bill is important to the green mountain state of vermont. one of the many key components of the bill in terms of vermont and vermont's economy is a significant dairy reform proposal that offers the best hope in decades of helping producers and consumers step off the dangerous roller coaster of wild price swings. we have to protect our dairy farmers from the volatility of tush price swings.

we -- volatility of turbulent price swings. as the author of the organic foods production act, i'm extremely pleased the bill continues to make strong improvements for organic agriculture. similar changes are in the conservation title and unfair payment limits applied solely to organic farmers seeking to enroll in the environmental quality center for programs organic. naturally i am concerned greatly and disappointed by the $4 billion cuts in the snap program, predominantly going to come from northeastern states. i understand it's part of a larger compromise on behalf of the chairwoman who has been a strong supporter of these nutrition assistance programs.

but i compliment the chair and the ranking member for their work and their staffs in doing this. i ask my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i yield to my distinguished colleague. mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i rise to speak to the nomination of michael mcshane to serve on the u.s. district court of eugene. skwr-pblg mcshane -- judge mcshane will make a terrific addition to the bench in oregon. he has demonstrated commitment to the law, to public service and to our state. he came to oregon 30 years ago to serve communities through the

jesuit volunteer corps. the jesuit volunteer corps, known as j.v.c.. j.v.c., folks often graduating from college dedicate a year to direct service to the poor, simple living and spiritual community. and they work in locations like food banks, local church programs to work with at-risk youths and things of this nature. they work directly to help make the world a better place and do so in an exceptional manner. anyone who comes out of college and dedicates a year or two to such an effort certainly starts in a very sound place. since that time judge mcshane has remained deeply dedicated to oregon and to serving those in our society most in need. after graduating from wilson clark law school, judge mcshane went to work as a public defender in portland. for more than ten years he represented those who otherwise

would have no voice in our legal system. after his time as a public defender, he went to work on the circuit court, first as a judge pro tempore and then simply as a judge. in the approximately 15 years he served on the circuit court, judge mcshane developed an excellent reputation for fairness, thoroughness and accuracy. he also continued to serve in the community as a foster parent and adjunct law professor at lewis and clarke college. in one letter of support that i received, a member of the portland law community summed up his nomination by saying -- and i quote -- "what stands out to me is judge mcshane lives with the same integrity, honor, compassion and commitment that he displays as a judge. he will indeed make an excellent addition to the u.s. district court. and i urge my colleagues present tonight to join in support for his nomination. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor.

madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 90, the

yeas are zero, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question is on the mcshane nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business until 7:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask further unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of my remarks that

senator boxer be recognized for her remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. let me thank the distinguished senator from california for her courtesy in allowing me to move forward first. mr. president, before i begin, let me offer my thoughts and prayers to the people of oklahoma, who are in the middle of a devastating disaster. we in new jersey know what that kind of devastation can mean, and our hearts go out to the victims and their families who have lost everything. i rise today to reiterate my strong support for tom paris, a man eminently qualified to serve as the next secretary of labor. i'm pleased that the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee voted last thursday to favorably report mr. paris' nomination to the full senate but we must remember this came only after weeks of delay. this is the week we should have been on this floor debating and

voting on the confirmation of tom perez but we're not. instead, delaying tactics on this and other nominees have needlessly, pointlessly pushed this debate into the next month. let me state for the record the obstruction we have seen thus far in the confirmation process is completely unacceptable, and for the sake of the american people, for the sake of good governance, it must end. and it doesn't stop at the department of labor. republicans have refused to take up nominees at the national labor relations board, threatening the operation of this critical agency. it appears any agency that stands up for workers' rights is under attack. let's just do the job the american people sent us here to do. tom perez is a quintessential public servant but apparently that's not enough for my colleagues on the other side. he's a consensus builder, but that's not enough.

as secretary of labor in maryland he brought together the chamber of commerce and maryland labor unions to make sure workers received the level of wages and benefits they deserve. and business had the skilled work force that they needed. but that experience of bringing both sides together is not enough. it's not enough that he's the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division of the department of justice, where he increased prosecution of human trafficking by 40%, won $50 million for armed service members whose homes were improperly floashed on -- foreclosed on while they served and settled the three largest fair lending cases in the history of the fair housing act, recovering more money for victims in 2012 and this in the 201123 years combined. -- the previous 2023 years comb. none of those

accomplishments on human trafficking, service members, people abusing fair housing, that's not enough. it's not enough that he spent his entire career in 13ub pub service. not enough to be a brown university graduate or have a master's in in public policy from a kennedy school or doctorate from harvard law. no, my friends on the other side are looking to block his nomination because tom perez is not enough of a republican to pass muster. too much of an advocate for people with disabilities, achieving the largest-effort disability based housing discrimination settlement. too much of a civil rights champion. he obtained the first convictions under the matthew shepherd and james byrd hate crimes prevention act and he's been a strong support of ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. they seem to hate the civil rights division but who could deny the importance of their

work? tom perez is just too much for my friends on the other side who want to block this nominee and insist on obstructing, obfuscating and politicizing everything that comes before the congress. the fact is, mr. president, this isn't even about tom perez. it's about rendering government helpless and standing in the way of any effort to govern. tom perez is a good man. he is qualified, competent, a professional public servant nominated by the president and already confirmed by the senate to the post he holds today. i endorsed tom perez after meeting him couldn't to stand firmly by him as a nominee. but what i won't stand for is republics blocking his nomination for no valid reason without any real objection, only an ideological objection to allowing this president or this congress to govern or at least to select a cabinet that will

help us to do so and in this case particularly the department of labor that stands up for working men and women in this country. i said when the president nominated him that he was an outstanding nominee to be the secretary of labor. he's dedicated his career to the rights of championing all americans and i'm confident he will continue to do the same if he is confirmed. i also marvel, mr. president, that i listened to all the election post mortem about how the republican party had to reach out to hispanic americans in this country, how they had to do a better job of engaging them in selling their vision of america. well, this is the president's first nominee for this second term of an hispanic american who is eminently qualified. eminently qualified.

and to try to stop this nominee is reverting back to the same old failed political strategies that failed them during the last election. and it's really unfortunate that the president's first hispanic choice for his second-term cabinet comes under such attack. no valid attack. it does not have to be that way. mr. perez deserves an up-or-down vote and he deserves to be swiftly confirmed as the next secretary of labor. so to my friends on the other side, i would say to you that it's time to stop the obstructionism. i would say to you that the anti rhetoric and baseless objections to tom perez's nominations are not going to serve you well in the hispanic community, and you should allow, as i heard so many times, give us an up-or-down vote. well, tom perez deserves an up-or-down vote. working families in this country, those who depend upon

the labor department to have a sense of fairness and justice deserve an up-or-down vote. hispanic americans who want to see someone from that community represented in the president's cabinet, want to see an up-or-down vote. and that's what justice would be all about. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: before my friend from new jersey leaves the floor, i want to thank him for leading a letter regarding this important nomination. we need a secretary of labor. we had a wonderful secretary of labor, hilda solis. the reason it is so essential is we now see that the middle class is essentially collapse, even though we are coming out of the worst recession since the great depression because of the leadership of our president and those of us who have tried to help him. we need a head of the department of labor to make sure that

everybody gets a fair chance. and i want to thank my friend. he makes a really important point about republican obstructionism. after the election, they sat around, all of them, and said oh, my goodness, we have to do better with hispanics. we have to do better with women. so who are the two people they're holding up with all their might at this point? and i hope they end it. it's mr. perez. it's gina mccarthy, a woman who deserves a promotion, just like mr. perez deserves a promotion. so you can say all you want that you're reaching out to minorities and women, but then you're blocking promotions of people who are outstanding americans. i just want to say that before my friend left the floor. well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused on several issues which they call

scandals. and i'd like to address those today and then talk about issues that seem to be falling through the cracks while they focus on gotcha politics, they're going to get the president. i think we'll start with the i.r.s.. look, it is wrong to target any group for scrutiny, whether they're on the right or on the left. if it's a tea party group or a liberal church. and we have seen this with the i.r.s. over the years. as a matter of fact, i looked back to see how many of my republican friends stood up and talked about going after the i.r.s. and straightening them out when they went after the naacp or when they went after a liberal church in pasadena in congressman schiff's district. the fact is they got exorcised when they went after the tea party.

okay, i hear you. i'm with you. i'm with you. and what's important is so is the president. so if this president says i agree with you, they say, we didn't hear you. they don't -- they just want to fight. if somebody you're having an argument with -- i have this sometimes with friends where we're having a debate, and all of a sudden a bright light goes on and i will say, you know what? i think you're right. sometimes they just keep on arguing. the president said this is an outrage, and he has already made sure people are being fired, and we're going to make sure that we straighten things out at the i.r.s.. so let's focus on how to fix it, not focus on how to make it a

gotcha political issue. we also have the republican outrage over the justice department seeking phone records of the a.p.. i believe freedom of the press is one of the most important freedoms we have, and i don't like to see phone records of reporters subpoenaed in secret. and let me tell you, i was once a reporter. so i had a lot of confidential sources. i wrote for a very good weekly magazine called "the pacific sun." i did in-depth reports on all kinds of issues and i know people would not know i would give background. the thought of the government taking this without telling the press is bad. but guess what? the president agrees it's bad. the president says we need a law, a media shield law.

and guess what else, mr. president? we had a vote on this in 2008. it was 51-43, with all democrats supporting the media shield law and all republicans, save five, voting to filibuster. so the bill was killed. so how do you then say this is horrible when you yourself, republicans, blocked us from protecting the media? i believe this is an important issue we should be working on together but it shouldn't be made into a political gotcha. and we should fix it and move on. let's take up a media shield law again. this time the republicans shouldn't filibuster it since they're all over this question and let's get going. and then you look at benghazi. i'm on the foreign relations committee. i sit next to the chairman. i sat next to john kerry.

i sat through all the hearings where hillary clinton, the secretary of the, said this was a tragedy. these were my friends who got killed. i take full responsibility. she ordered an independent investigation. it came back. and guess what it said? we need to spend more defending our outposts. and guess who started cutting embassy security. who initiated it? the republicans in the house. so i think if they're looking to blame someone, why don't they look in the mirror, for starters. and now again, let's fix the problem. i am supporting a bill that will authorize funding for key items identified by the independent review board that secretary clinton put together, and it will deal with a number of piece that is they recommended.

it requires, among other things, detailed reports from the state department on how are they progressing toward implementing the recommendations and it requires the identification of the most high security threats. so, i understand why we would look at losing four brave americans as a tragedy. it's a tragedy. don't politicize it. and where were the republicans when we lost 4,000 americans in iraq, injured ten times as many? where were they? where was their indignation at that? based on false premises, that war was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. so you have all of this swirling around washington, and you look at the american people, and you say what is it that they really want us to do?

sure we should conduct oversight. i'm all for it. but let's solve those problems, but let's move to the issues that matter. now i'll tell what you matters most in california: jobs, jobs, jobs. the economy, the economy, the economy. we just moved off a double-digit unemployment rate for the first time we're below 10% in a long time. but it means that you've got to keep your eye on this economy. you have to make the investments here that matter. restore some of the mindless cuts that were made with the sequester while you see this deficit going down. and that's another point. all the howling from the republicans about how this president doesn't care about deficit reduction, we're witnessing deficit reduction. we're witnessing the housing market come back. we're witnessing a lot of good things. think of what we could witness if we came together, sat down with this president and inked a

whole new plan for this economy, for deficit reduction. and here on the floor we've got to do the farm bill. we just did the water resources bill. let the house get it done. we did the marketplace fairness act. let the house get it done. and the republicans, i say to them, they're not here, rhetorically, help us pass a budget. you're blocking the budget. you went around the country campaigning against democrats saying we didn't pass a budget. then we pass a budget, and now you won't finish the job, which means making sure we get conferees appointed and bring the two bills together -- the house and the senate -- compromise on that and get the budget done. there's no budget. they won't let us do it. but endlessly they bash the president. immigration reform. my colleagues are doing an incredible job in the judiciary committee.

very difficult. sensible gun laws, background checks, things that matter to people. we're working on that farm bill, and i really hope we get it done this week. last time it died in the house. so i mean i have a message for my house friends: please, do your oversight, but do something for the people that they're asking us to do. get a budget. get a farm bill. get a marketplace fairness act. work on restoring the mindless cuts so we can have more jobs. these are things that have to be done. background checks. we didn't get it here. it was very close. it would be great if they did something in the house. this week i believe we're voting on richard cordray to head the consumer financial protection bureau. we have to protect the middle class. today i read in the paper about some new instrument that's been thought of by wall street,

mr. president, that would go to people and say, give us the proceeds of your pension plan, and we'll give you a lump sum. now, maybe that's great, but it sure sounds risky to me. we need someone who's out there protecting the consumers, particularly in banking and housing. so i hope we get richard cordray done. and i thought that senator menendez was brilliant the way he explained why thomas perez deserves to be head of department of labor, but i want to spend a couple of minutes on gina mccarthy. she has a history of bipartisanship. she worked for not one, not two, not three, but four republican governors. republican governor of connecticut jodi rell. republican governor of massachusetts paul cellucci. republican governor of massachusetts jane swift. republican governor of

massachusetts mitt romney. she worked for four republican governors. she's not enough qualified for my friends on the other side. and she was confirmed here without a dissenting vote for her current position. what more do they want? what more do they want? the woman worked for four republicans and one democrat: barack obama. what more do they want? this is what christied to whitman said -- christie todd whitman said about the republican boycott. when they walked out of that meeting, they didn't come to the meeting. she said they looked like sore losers when they walked out. she said if you don't object to the person and what they've done in the past -- and they don't with gina -- you have even less ground to hold this nominee up. and jane swift, who is a former republican governor of

massachusetts, said it was disgraceful. i don't get it. the woman answered 1,000 of their questions. and then when i approached my friends on the other side and said you asked her 1,000 questions. their answer was, "we only cared about five." why did you ask her 1,000 questions and she had to sit there exhausted, answering every single question? and now senator vitter says i don't know what i'll do. i might let it go and not filibuster, but then i might filibuster, or i might wind up voting for her. well, you know, the time for all this contemplation has passed. the woman is qualified. the president deserves his cabinet. he deserves an e.p.a.

administrator. he made a bipartisan choice in gina. gina was brilliant when we had our hearing. enough already. please, it's time to have a vote up or down on gina mccarthy. now, we have a lot of things to do. i mentioned a few. how about the latest threat from the republicans? they're going to -- they decided they're not sure they're going to raise the debt ceiling, and so they now have a bill that they lay out who would get paid first when we default on our debt, and guess what, america, it's not you. it's china. before we pay america's business or american bondholders, we're going to pay china. i would yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would ask my friend

to yield for a unanimous consent request, and also with a request through the chair to my friend, when you finish your remarks, would you be willing to close the senate tonight? mrs. boxer: of course. mr. reid: great. mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that the record not appear that she has been interrupted by me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 4:00 p.m. on wednesday, may 22, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 43, s. res. 65, that there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form and on the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the resolution. if the resolution is agreed to, the preamble agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and all with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i express my appreciation to the senator from california for her usual courtesy. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: so when you look at wherehereoingeiling, the last ty

held it up, it cost us $19 billion, is that right? $19 billion over ten years, because they played games. even though when ronald reagan was president, he said don't even go there. i mean, i'm paraphrasing. he said because even the thought of not raising the debt ceiling and not paying your debts is dangerous for our nation. so now they have a bill that's -- we call pay china first. that's what it's about. and they would pay china and other foreign bondholders before we pay our troops, our disabled and retired veterans, doctors and hospitals that treat medicare patients before we pay american businesses who are contractors. and i understand they had a meeting to discuss this further, and they were so excited about it, what hostages could they hold. they talked about proposals that threaten a woman's right to choose, tax breaks to the wealthy. it's all repealing obamacare.

they have already tried it 37 times. cutting medicare. what are they thinking over there? pay your bills. don't let this country's debt be -- credit be downgraded again. i'll tell you something, if that's what they do, they don't deserve to get their salary, and i have a bill that would say if we default on our obligations by not raising the debt ceiling, we should give up our pay. so i'll tell you, i don't know what they're doing over there other than playing politics, and it is dangerous. you know, we know that they don't care for our president. but he's the president. show a little respect for the office. show a little respect for what he's got on his shoulders. show a little respect for what

he's already accomplished. and accept the fact that when there's trouble, he doesn't hide in a corner. he says you're right. i want to fix it. let's fix it together. so i've gone over just some of the issues we have to look at, but i'm going to close with one very, very big issue, that no one except a handful of senators seem to care about, and it's climate change. and i have to say it's shocking to me that as this planet enters a planetary emergency where we are as close as we can be to carbon concentrations of almost 400 parts per million, which is the danger zone, i still don't see anyone here saying to me as chairman of the environment

committee let's get a bill to the floor. oh, no. oh, no. so we're burning up, and i'm going to read a little bit from what i thought was a very well done piece in "politico," and i will read parts of it and ask unanimous consent to place it entirely in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: the amount of heat trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, scientists announced friday, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on the earth since long before human civilization began. let me say that again. is anybody listening to this? scientists say the amount of heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on the earth since long before human civilization began.

do you know who said that? noaa, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. co2 had finally hit 400 parts per million at a key measuring station in hawaii, and this is what they say. there are few signs that washington will emerge from its deep snooze on the issue. how right on. they're all sleeping except for a handful of us. wake up to this. congress remains unable to pass serious legislation to tackle climate change. and melanie fitzpatrick, climate scientist at the union of concerned scientists, said it's been three million to five million years since the planet has had such high carbon dioxide levels. we've never been here before,

certainly not while human beings were on the planet, she said. she goes on -- oh, no. this is john hoekstra of the wildlife fund. the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is like the thermostat in your house. every time you turn it up, we are essentially turning up the heat on the planet. it's unprecedented, said james butler, director of global monitoring of noaa's earth system research lab. hitting 400 is just like saying folks, we haven't addressed this yet. butler said the planet hasn't seen atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide levels this high since the plyocene era between 2.5 million and 5 million years ago. he said the global average temp will reach 400 parts per million in one or two years. scientists warn the continued increase could result in

catastrophe. just let's start off with the five million americans living in low-lying areas who could be affected by sea level rise. and it goes on and on. and hoekstra ends this -- his quote at the end with at what point do we as a society say this is more than we can put up with? i'll tell you why we're not doing anything. special interests, big oil, big coal, big polluters. they don't want to address this. for their short-term profit, they don't want to address this. and it is sad, the control that they have here. special interests have a lot of control, whether it's the n.r.a. stopping us from doing something

90% of the people wanted like background checks or it's the big polluters, big polluters who don't want us to do anything about this issue for their short-term benefit. and then when they're all gone and people are suffering in our country, our grandkids and great grandkids are going to say what was my great grandma thinking? what was my great grandpa doing? we see what's happening in the weather. it's happening -- just look out the window. we see it. and i'm going to put into the record, if i might, my speech that i won't deliver in its entirety, i'm happy to tell you, mr. president, on climate change and national security. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: but i'm going to

show you a few charts about what people are saying, and then i'll stop. the cost of inaction will be staggering, and this ran on what date? in march. the effects of climate change in the world's most vulnerable regions present a serious threat to american national security. countries least able to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of climate change will suffer the most, but the resulting crisis will quickly become a burden on u.s. priorities, both the department of defense and state department have identified climate change as a serious risk to american security and an agent of instability. and there is a very bipartisan group -- it's actually, i think, most republicans on this actually -- of people saying do something about this.

our national security is at stake. when there are refugees who are run out of their country, what's going to happen to the world? there already are climate refugees. and there is a movie called climate refugees. danger from climate change is real, urgent and severe. the change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources, new suffering from drought and famine, catastrophic natural disasters and the degradation of land across the globe. and that's tom donilon, national security advisor, 2013. this is a national security issue. and how could the polluters have so much power to overwhelm our national security people? but that's where it's at. that's where it's at.

climate change can hinder ability to combat terrorism. climate change effects, particularly those related to water and food and security, can create conditions terrorists and extremists seek to exploit. therefore, they are significant factors in combating terrorism. department of defense, october, 2011. department of defense. national security advisors. the c.i.a. has been telling us this for a long time. we have to act. we have to act. i have to say there are a number of my colleagues here, a small number, who feel the way i do. we're all pushing hard. senator sanders and i have a bill. it's the sanders-boxer bill. it would put a price on carbon. carbon could cost us the planet. the least we can do is put a little charge on it so people

move to clean energy. clean energy. and we take the issue of the keystone pipeline. it's a big controversy. well, people say let's just do it. well, you ought to see what will come out of that in terms of carbon pollution. it will undo all the good we did from fuel economy, and the oil won't stay here, and they have a waste disposal problem with it. but it's a little bit inconvenient. remember when vice president gore wrote the book "inconvenient truth." it's inconvenient for us. we don't want to know about it because it is hard to deal with, but we can do it. in california, we're beginning to see more and more solar rooftops, more and more clean power, and the jobs that are coming with it are extraordinary. we can do this. this is the greatest nation in

the world, but we're kind of held hostage to the big polluters. we can't -- we have to say that we have to act for the safety of the people. and we're hearing it. we're hearing it from our national defense department. we're hearing it from secretary of secretary of state george shultz who was the former secretary of state under president reagan. he says it's a national priority that shouldn't be ignored. cabinet officials from the nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush, 41 from clinton and 43 from bush wrote a letter to us. and navy admiral samuel lockier iii, chief of u.s. pacific forces, called climate our biggest worry. that's what he said. the significant upheaval from climate change is probably the most likely thing that will cripple the security environment. i