answered by mr. miller, i presume at your request, at the time was a deputy commissioner for services and enforcement. given the importance of this issue, why didn't you answer the letters yourself? ..

>> thank you very much. senator crapo. i'm sorry. >> but a presidential appoint ethere for the purpose of carrying out the law and when it becomes patently obvious that the law is being thwarted because the irs ability not to tax is being used by organizations to eke election ear, -- electioneer, the obligation of the leader

of the organization, political appoint eor not, it is the obligation of that leader to take responsibility that the law is not being obeyed. whereas senator hatch has pointed out from his standpoint that, this was government run amok, it also seems to me this was government that was impotent. and that did not act. mr. general inspector, should we be concerned that groups are undermining the intent of the law in gaining tax-exempt status even though electioneering is their purpose? >> we should be concerned if any organization is not

adhering to the law as it is, has been passed by congress and enacted by the president, there's no question about that. >> well, the law as it's written is written. so any attempt to come back and say that we have to change or clarify the law seems to me to be the wrong question. the question is, the administrative implementation of existing law when there is such obvious abuses. >> senator? >> yes, sir. >> one of our recommendations issued in this report that the irs seek clarification from the department of treasury and in turn the department of the treasury seek clarification from congress on this very issue. >> why do you need clarification from congress? the law is very clear. it says you can't involve yourself in electioneering if you want this kind of

tax-exempt status. i don't understand? is this just again passing the buck? isn't this a matter of administrative implementation of existing law? >> as you and others have indicated here the way the law has been interpreted by the irs over the course of a number of decades i don't, in all candor don't know whether that was done as a result of court decisions or just simply internal policies but further explanation is needed in this area, sir. >> as a matter of fact, here's an exact example of how things get all contorted from the original legislative intent. the lay was passed. along comes a reg. the reg says exactly what the law says, which is, you can't be engaging in election activities.

and then along comes a 1981 analysis of the reg and it says, under the present law certain exempt organizations, c-4s, may engage in political campaign activities. that on its face is exactly the opposite of what the law says. so again this is an administrative implementation and interpretations but that's 1981. we really didn't have a problem on this until what we saw in the last year or two and with it becoming so patently obvious in 2011, in 2012 what was happening under the name of c-4s for some public purpose. so i would hope that the administration would take

some responsibility, if that's the insurance, the irs commissioner, if that's the secretary of the treasury. if indeed that's the president. that we would see some implementation of the law. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator roberts, you're next. >> well, thank you very much and, mr. miller thank you so much, that i'm responsible. i that is the first time you said that. if that is incorrect i would apologize to you. comparing this to the military saying i'm responsible i do appreciate that because it is very candid. i think your advice to the next commissioner would be questioned by senator isakson was posed you have a perception problem. i would disagree with that very strongly and say we have a reality problem. we have an awful lot of people, people knock on the door, if you're the irs, that isn't like when you won

the lottery. you're not too happy to open up the door and i think there's been a tremendous loss and faith in the american government that isn't entirely on the irs's shoulders by any means. there are a lot of things happening. 50% of the people are apathetic. the other 50% are just mad. that is not good and not good for the country. mr. shulman, you, said you're not personally responsible but then i think you sort of backed off of that to some degree but, could you just sort of come along with mr. miller, and say yes, i was responsible? >> senator, i, -- >> it is easy. three words, i was responsible. >> i understand the words. it, what i'm telling you this happened on my watch and i accept that. >> okay. but you're not personally responsible. >> i'm deeply regretful this happened. >> never mind. never mind. let's move on. i am interested in all this business of the law and what

is the law. the statute came in 1913 with woodrow wilson and william b. macadoo get him to come before the committee under dwight d. eisenhower with robert anderson was the secretary. that is difference between exclusively and not primarily. then we had the change the senator from florida was talking about. and then in 1998, if i can find my notes here, we had, maybe this is one of the great strides that you made, sir. but we had the irs restructuring act. and, that, really refers to the 10 deadly since, mr. george, as you were talking about. i was going to ask you who moses was on the 10 deadly since, to figure out who can be the judge in this and turns out it is the irs commissioner. so it is mr. schuld man.

i've got them right here. i will not read them but sin number one, i will read three, maybe four. sin number one was to violate proper procedures to seize taxpayer assets. that perhaps happened. six, no retaliation, harassing of a taxpayer. that's it. that's one. these are civil penalties, by the way. seven a willful vie lalgs of taxpayer privacy. that of course happened. i would putnam per 11 down here with a bolo. i don't know what we're doing with bolos. that is law enforcement issue and that really offends me. my question is to former director shulman, did you ever activate these, dud hold anybody accountable to the 10 deadly sins? >> there is actually a procedure in place at the irs. it was there when i got there. i think it was put in

immediately after that law or sometime after that law was passed that the, the only thing, most people were actually held accountable before they ever got to the commissioner's level. so one of these things is violated, i think -- >> i'm not talking about you. i just, i'm not saying that you violated these. i just wondered if you ever did take action on a civil action against anybody that violated the 10 deadly sins, ever? >> i believe so that on my watch, people were dismissed, fired, disinmr. ed around the 10 deadly sins. >> mr. george, is that your experience? >> that is our understanding, sir. >> you said this was being bumped up to an executive position. what executive, or to the executive. what do we mean by that in terms of 10 deadly sins going over them and whether this is appropriate or not and for that matter the statute and the regs on the 501?

you said it was being bumped up to a executive level. who, what? >> i wanted to clarify that we would engage in a continued review of this matter. >> right. >> to determine if there were any violations of the 10 deadly sins for lack of a better -- >> would you agree, number, 1, 6, and 7 as i have stated them would be certainly applicable in these cases? >> they and, if i may, sir, and, please, i'm going to quote it directly, the from the report, it is a violation of restructuring reform act 98, section 1203-b-3. >> right. >> irs employees to falsify or destroy documents to conceal mistakes made by any employee with respect to a matter involving a taxpayer a taxpayer representative and a violation of our ra-98, section 1203-b-6 for irs employees to violate the internal revenue code, treasury regulations or policies of the irs for

purposes of retaliating against or harassing a taxpayer. >> what is the status of that with regard to this whole episode? >> we are still in the process of reviewing. >> okay. i had just one quick question here. sort of a mea culpa. last 25 years we've had the irs to move beyond this its core functions, mr. chairman. tax administration enforcement, oversee all matters of other functions. we are responsible for that. all of these laudable programs that have support from the congress. but i think we are at a tippingpoint with regards to this whole episode and that well may be the affordable health care act. i would like to ask all three gentlemen how confident are you that the irs has the proper oversight and management structures to implement the affordable care act in a manner that will give confidence to the taxpayers they are being treated in the fairest manner possible? that their personal health information is safeguarded, and that they will not be

penalized if they happen to hold views that are not in the mainstream or otherwise unpopular? >> if i -- >> where are we? >> if i may start, sir, the ra -- >> very breechl. -- briefly. >> requires a number about changes in the tax code. irs issued two audits indicated thus far the irs is making progress in instituting changes in their software and other procedures to effect that law. >> u saying you're confident? >> as of this stage we found no major problems in this area. >> senator? >> mr. miller, can he respond. >> very briefly. >> yes or no question. are you confident or not confident? >> confident. >> good. next question. >> when i left in november i was confident. >> thank you. >> senator. >> that is not a train wreck mr. chairman. >> mr. george? >> yes. >> in your investigation, in

your audit, what is the difference between an audit did and investigation? >> it has been interchangeable throughout this hearing. >> sir, to be precise, under the inspector general act we at tigta are given authority to conduct audits and investigations. audits are review of irs programs to identify systemic problems and identify corrective actions. directed focus on person or persons who, actions were undertaken in response to reports that we've, or complaints that we have received or misconduct that they engaged in. >> so this audit could lead to an investigation? >> yes, it could. >> okay. now your audit didn't look at leaked documents to "propublica" and it didn't look at leaked tax returns filed by the national

organization for marriage, and it didn't look at whether personnel within the eoh 4 individual donor list for individual donors, am i correct. >> senator, the internal revenue codes that strict confidentiality provisions in it and i'm not in a position to either confirm or deny anything as it relates to that question. >> can we conclude if you didn't look at the items or more that i just mentioned that would be, sort of the liberal groups, that one can't conclude then that there was not political motivation and in this targeting? >> senator, i'm not in a position to respond to that question, sir. >> okay. mr. miller, you stated that you thought the motivation was that the employees wanted to get greater efficiency, am i remembering that correctly? >> i think that's right, sir. >> did you mean that the use of key words to determine which applications for,

would be flagged for scrutiny and be reviewed to speed you the process? >> i think what, excuse me. the situation was, and i think it is outlined well in the report, that in 2010 we began to see some cases. someone asked someone take a look to see whether there were other cases of a similar type. a decision was made at that level to centralize cases. the question then became, how to centralize and that's when, it moved from e-mail traffic to -- >> how would you explain the fact none of the key words applied to any liberal groups or liberal applications? >> we would have to talk to the folks that did that. >> would you be suspect there was something political about the fact that only, only key words that applied to conservative organizations would have been flagged? >> i would agree that the perception is there. i would also say that once we took a look, our folks didn't find that necessarily to be the case.

>> when you looked, your folks, you did an investigation? >> we did less than an investigation. i -- >> did you ask the inspector general to look into this? >> i don't know whether i asked him but i knew they were in already looking at this. >> mr. shulman, you stated that you were briefed by mr. miller, am i correct? >> yes. >> what did you do with the information that mr. miller shared with you about the audit? >> so i was briefed and -- >> did you ask him any questions? >> at the time of the briefing, to the best of my memory i learned three things. i learned there was a list. i learned that tigta was planning an investigation. and i learned that the -- >> tigta was planning an investigation? >> i'm sorry. an audit. that tigta was aware of it. was in. actually had been to

cincinnati if my memory served me right and was in the process of opening an audit. >> you didn't ask mr. miller what the purpose of the investigation was? >> well, i think, i, you know, it was obvious to me, when i heard it that something didn't sound right about having a list. >> but you have testified you had no idea that this had anything to do with the practices that were going on in the, in cincinnati, didn't you? >> i testified, more i said earlier that, when i learned about it, i knew there was a list. i knew the word tea party was on the list, to the best of my recollection. >> so what did you do? >> i don't know if, i didn't know at that time what else was on the list. >> what did you do with the information you had? >> what did i -- >> you were the head of the

irs. what did you do with it. >> it was brought to the head of the irs with three facts. there was a list, that tigta is aware of it -- but you took no action? did you ask mr. miller -- >> mr. miller, to the best of my memory told me at that time that it had been stopped and tigta was looking into it. so for me, the -- >> you had knowledge of the bolo list at this time? >> what's that? >> you had knowledge of the existence of the bolo list at this time? >> it was brought to me at this time. >> it was brought to you. that was the first time you knew about it, when mr. miller brought it to you? >> that is my memory. i've been out for a long time. but i'm, put it this way. i believe it is and i certainly don't remember ever hearing about it before. >> mr. miller, was that the first time you discussed with then commissioner about a bolo list? >> i believe so. >> and did you have any

additional follow-up conversations about the scope of the audit? >> so, the scope of the audit would have been, would have been the inspector general coming to us and discussing that. >> what action did you take as the deputy once you learned of a bolo list and, potential practices that existed in cincinnati? >> so i think i outlined that for you, sir, earlier in my testimony. >> summarize it again. >> we, we made sure that our folks were trained. we had workshops to insure that they knew how to do the work they needed to do. we took a look at the cases very carefully to see which of those -- >> i get the gist because i remember you went through it. mr. george, last question. i appreciate the chair's patience. i asked you earlier if you briefed the deputy secretary

neil wolin in 2012 and you said, yes, i did. did you brief or regularly update the chief counsel william wilkins within the irs legal office? >> i did not, sir. >> you did not? >> someone on his staff was briefed but not the chief counsel himself. >> who was that person on his staff that was briefed? >> we do not have a name, sir. if we can supply -- >> would you supply it for the record. and could i ask you, to give us your best information about how many times that individual was briefed? >> we will do our level best. >> on the audit. >> we will endeavor to do so, sir. >> mr. shulman, i think you told me earlier, but i will give you one more chance at it, you told me you had no conversations with chief counsel about what went on in the eo and their

practices? >> i remember having conversations with chief counsel about general policy matters, not the kinds of matters we're talking about, inappropriate criteria, a bolo list, about this broader conversation the committee has been having. >> inspector general's audit? >> no, no. about the broader, around the broader conversations of, you know, c-4s and should there be guidance. because the chief counsel, the assistant secretary and the commissioner get involved in the guidance plan. i don't have memory of talking to the chief counsel. >> thank you, senator. thank you, senator very much. >> about the audit. >> senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the second round and a chance to follow-up on some of our earlier questions. just to go back to where we were, when i had to move on, we were talking about the fact that we sent a letter,

senator hatch, myself, other members joined us, on march 14th. that letter was in response to, again a lot of information we were getting from groups back home saying that they were being inappropriately asked questions that were irrelevant to what they thought should be relevant questions about their status, and that there were delays and very short time frames for producing significant amounts of information. so we, we wrote the letter, laying out these issues and in essence asking you guys whether you were targeting groups politically. that was march 14th. then on march 26th, march 23rd based on your testimony, mr. miller, having received our letter and knowing additional information from the media i assumed you asked nancy marks who was your senior technical advisor for tax-exempt

organizations to see what was going on and report back to you. you testified earlier for six weeks you don't recall having asked her what she learned. and therefore you responded to our letter by saying everything's fine. and you responded to our letter on april 26th. so march 14th we asked you these questions. and again, this is not about the members of this committee. i was not actually on the committee at the type. this is about the american people getting the information that was needed to be able to correct the situation. you now tell us today that you received a briefing one week after you september us a letter. now remember, your letter says everything's fine, no targeting. and we can believe or not believe the fact that during that five-week period you didn't bother to find out what they were finding out down in cincinnati, but a week after you send a letter back to us, you do get a briefing.

this is the may 3rd briefing. you have testified that you were outrage the -- outraged when you got that briefing on the 3rd of may, a week after you responded to us. is that correct, you were outraged by what you heard? >> i was troubled, sir. >> you used word outraged in testimony last week. if you were so outraged it seems to me odd you didn't try to correct the record because you had told us in the letter back that everything was fine. if you knew on april it 6th, when you responded to us with that letter, what you learned on may 3rd political criteria, tea party, patriot, we the people, was used would you have told us in the letter sent to us april 22nd? >> i don't remember the letter clearly. >> this is ther are you incident back to us based on our march 14th letter.

>> yes, sir fa. >> you don't know about the letter? >> i know about the letter. >> my question -- >> i did not know the list on the 26th. my recollection of the letter was about the donor letters that were going on which was a separate and distinct aspect of -- >> our letter asked specifically for assurance that these suspicious inquiries were unrelated to quote, politics. that they were consistent with the irs treatment of tax-exempt organization across the spectrum. that is a quote. it asked specifically what criteria and basis for applying extra scrutiny and follow-up information for 501(c)(4) applicants and you responded with a 10-page letter. >> to this day, sir, i don't believe there was political motivation as i have explained. >> okay. my question is, you responded with a 10-page letter saying, it was neutral. they were only individualized, legitimate criteria used not based on politics. there is no question that your letter was inaccurate and you learned on may 3rd that it was false. and yet you did nothing to correct the public record,

even though you were outraged based on your own testimony by your may 3rd briefing. so look, i, i think these are serious questions for us to ask and i think, you know, we deserve answers, not for us again, but for the american people and those who were subject to this inappropriate targeting. mr. george, let me ask you a question about the audit. first you have said that there's a difference between an audit an investigation. >> correct. >> can you briefly tell us what the difference is in terms of how deep you go. in other words did you use your full investigative powers to uncover wrongdoing? did you use your broader subpoena powers for instance on the audit? >> we did not, thus far, in the production of this audit, that we're discussing today, senator, but, there is no question that as a result of some of the findings we have uncovered, subsequent action will be taken by us. >> so on page 7 of your report you state that

mr. miller and employees quote, stated that the inappropriate criteria was not influenced by any individual or organization outside of the irs. that is on page 7 of your report and that has been used by the administration to say there was no influence. let me be clear. is that a finding of your report or is that simply restatement of what irs employees told you? >> it is a restatement of the information that we received from irs employees, senator. >> that would be consistent with an audit as compared to an investigation? >> that is correct, sir. >> given this is only an audit i take it you didn't ask anyone in the administration outside of irs if they ever weighed in with the irs on issue of monitoring and approval of 501(c)(4) organizations? >> that correct, sir. >> you haven't even asked the question of anybody outside? >> not at this stage, sir. >> i take it you didn't subpoena or review any relevant e-mails, call logs, schedules, notes from meetings to verify these statements from irs employees were accurate and complete because that is

beyond the scope of an audit, is that correct? >> actually, senator, we did review quite a few e-mails in the course of this. >> do you feel like it was all e-mails involved with, call logs, asked always, notes, so on to verify those statements? >> of the people we interviewed and people at the level we thought would be directly involved at that stage. >> is it, is it beyond the scope of an audit to ask people outside of the irs whether they influence the irs on monitoring approval of 501(c)-4s? >> an audit is on a case-by-case basis, senator. so in this instance again we did not have indications to the through the interviews that we conducted there was any reason to go beyond that. but that was at the time this audit was being produced which was over the course of a year. again events subsequent to this have now caused us to reassess how and what we're going to look at. >> well thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i think the bottom line is

that there is a need for a fuller investigation as you and senator hatch are undertaking. thank you. >> thank you, senator. thank you very much, all of you for your testimony here today. there are obviously many more questions not yet answered. and the committee will continue to look into this matter. but thank you very much. hearing' adjourned. >> the u.s. senate on this wednesday will continue working on the farm bill setting a culture, food stamp and nutrition programs for the next five years. a number about amendments are pending. work is expected to continue on the legislation beyond this week. at 4:00 p.m. in the senate lawmakers will turn to debate on a resolution dealing with iran sanctions over the country's nuclear program and expressing support for israel. a vote on that measure is planned for 5:00 eastern today. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. freedom and for the opportunities our senators have today to protect and defend our

liberties. forgive them when they miss the mark; give them strength when they are weak, as you provide them with vision for the tasks ahead. engender in them a renewed sense of gratitude for your call to serve their nation and your kingdom. lord, we again ask you to strengthen everyone affected by the oklahoma for may dough. bless the victims, the rescue workers, and their families in the days and weeks to come. we pray in your great name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, may 22, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m. cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: almost? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. republicans will control the first half.

the majority the second half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 954, the farm bill, managed by senator stabenow and senator cochran. we'll continue to work through amendments to the farm bill today. progress was made yesterday, and we need to continue working on the amendments. at 4:00 p.m. today, we'll proceed to the consideration of s. res. 65, regarding iran sanctions. the vote on that resolution will be at 5:00 p.m. today. mr. president, there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 1003, a about i will to amend the higher education act of 1965, to reset interest rates for new student loans. s. 1004, a bill to permit voluntary economic activities. h.r. 45, an act to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and so forth.

mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings to all three of these bills at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: mr. president, last night the senate judiciary committee, after some 24 hearings, several weeks of markup, advance add commonsense, bipartisan proposal to fix our broken immigration system. no one can dispute that it's broken. no one can dispute that it needs to be fixed. i commend the committee and i'm grateful to everyone who worked those long hours. i will bring a strong, bipartisan bill to -- i will bring this bill, which is a strong, bipartisan bill, to the floor in june, sometimes soon after we've returned from the memorial day work period. although neither republicans nor democrats will support each and every aspect of this legislation, it's gratifying to see the momentum behind these

reforms that will make our country safer and help 11 million undocumented immigrants get right with the law. i applaud significantly, mr. president, the efforts of the gang of eight, four democrats, four republicans, who showed bravery as they set aside bipartisanship to address this legislation for our nation. i am confident that every one of those gang of eight, democrats and republicans, there are parts of this bill that they don't like. but that's how we move legislation forward, for the greater good. compromise. so i admire their legislative skills and appreciate very much their ability to set aside these partisan differences and move this exextremely important bill -- extremely important bill to the floor. there was other courage on display on the senate floor yesterday when two republican senators bucked the majority of

their party for the good of the country. senators mccain and collins, two senators that i admire deeply, came to the moore to call on their own -- came to the floor to call on their own party to stop blocking the bipartisan budget negotiations. mr. president, john mccain and i came to congress together. in 1982 we were elected. we spent two terms in the house together, and we've been in the senate together since then. now, over those many years, more than three decades, john mccain and i have disagreed on several things. but i have never lost my admiration for this patriot eichmann. he is courageous in battle, not only in the fights that take place in a war but legislative battles. so i am so appreciative that he decided the right thing to do

was to move forward and see what we could do to get this bipartisan bill done -- bipartisan negotiations started is what i wanted to say. mr. president, susan collins -- we've served together a long time in this body; we've worked together on some extremely important measures. i don't need to run through all of these, but there are parts of the law of this country that would not be law but for her willingness fo to move across te aisle and get things done. we disagree on quite a few things but we agree on quite a few things. the people of arizona are fortunate to have john mccain as a senator, and the people of maine are for the fla fortunatee susan collins as a senator. it's now been two months since

the senate passed its common sense pro-growth budget. the question that everyone raises is, why are republicans standing in the way? and not only are democrats asking that question, republicans are asking that question now. we passed a budget. now, madam president, senators mccain and collins don't think our budget is the best. they think that they could do a better job. but they also understand the legislative process, and that is, you've got to work to just , just like the -- you've dot to work together, just like the gang of eight did. we need to work together to get a budget. the house has passed one. we passed one. let's go to conference and work out our differences. for 60 days republican leaders have objected to a conference with the house of representatives where we would work out ow differences between ow -- work out our differences it would be oudifference --wherr

differences. the house republicans and the house democrats need to come up with what they want and we'll come up what we want, working with the republicans here. that's what a conference is all about. in a conference it is not just democrats from the senate that are on the conference committee. republicans will be on it also. and just like in the house, it won't be all republicans. it will be democrats also. the only explanation republican leaders have given toker their endless objection is this -- they refuse to negotiate unless we agree in advance to let them have their way. yesterday the senior senator from arizona and the senator from maine, both republicans, contend that -- they said it was hypocrisy -- that's my word, not theirs, but they can define it think way they want. the point is that they have been calling for regular order here for several years, and now they have the chance for regular order and they're walking away from it. senator mccain called obstruction by his fellow democrats a little bizarre.

i've used that also. senator collins said it was ironic. the senior senator from maine went on to say, "we have called repeated lid foly for a call tor order in this body. well, regular order is going to conference. " we agree. we have a pro-growth bucket that we'll proudly defend. house republicans should be ready to do the same with theirs. i don't know why my republican colleagues in the senate are so praafraid for an open process. do my senate republican colleagues not trust their house republican colleagues to hold the line on their priorities? congress must set sound, long-term fiscal policy through the regular order of the budget process and through compromise. but democrats and republicans will never find common ground if we never get to the negotiating table. on another subject,

mr. president, congress has worked hard and compromised often over the last four years in order to he duce the deficit and visa -- in order to reduce the deficit and reverse the20's of the rising -- and reverse the trend of the rising debt. as our nation has succeeded in setting a course of financial responsibility, students across the country have struggled to do the same. the rising price of higher education puts college out of reach for many promising young people. and it saddles those who do get an agency with an unsustainable debt, debt that causes this emto delay buying their first -- causes them to delay buying their first home, delay having children or starting a business. today students have over $1 trillion in student loan debt. they have more student loan debt understand that credit card debt. the average student owes more

than $25,000 when they get out of school. college is already unaffordable for too many young people, but if congress fails to act soon, that cost will go up again. on july 1, interest rates on student loans are set to double from 3.4% to 6.%. -- to 6.8%, effectively socking 7 million students with $1,000 more per year in additional loan costs. we should be removing obstacles that keep young people from getting an education, not erecting more barriers. but raising interest rates would put higher education further out of the reach of many promising students. so last week senate democrats introduced a proposal to freeze student loan interest rates for two years without adding a penny to the deficit. this is paid for by closing wasteful tax loopholes.

legislation being pushed by house republicans will stick it to students instead of closing loopholes. rather investing in the next generation of american workers, the house bill would cost students as much as $6,500 in interest than the current rates. passing the house proposal would be worse than doing nothing at all. we'd be better off letting the rates go up to 6.8% than passing the house bill. we need to do what we suggest; that keep the interest rates where they are. -- that is, keep the interest rates where they are. under the house bill, students would pay up to $2,000 more if we allow rates to double in july. but democrats know an investment in education is an investment in oour economy. last year after months of obstruction, republicans eventually conceded and helped us achieve that goal.

after all, it was a great election-year politics for them. this is what mitt romney said: here's what he said about the effort to keep loan rates low -- quote -- "i fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans. even my friend, the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, said that there wasn't a soul in washington who thought student loan rates should go up." we agree. but unlike republicans want to n like republicans, we won't abandoning students. i hope they share our goal of keeping the american dream affordable. if they do, work with us to quickly pass our proposal to protect american students.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: recently we've seen troubling signs that there are some in the executive branch who would use the power of the federal government to intimidate political opponents. for instance, reports that the i.r.s. targeted conservative citizens groups for harassing and discriminatory treatment simply because they sought to exercise their first amendment rights of freedom of association and speech. or during the debate on obamacare when the department of human services attempted to issue a gag order. now there are published reports

that the same department is trying to shake down some of these same companies for money so they can try to convince americans to finally, finally like obamacare. and over at the f.c.c. the president's allies are trying to shut down or make it difficult for people who want to buy advertising to exercise their first amendment rights to criticize the administration. there are similar efforts over at the s.e.f.. it all points to a culture of political intimidation. but unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the culture of intimidation is simply confined to the executive branch. the administration's allies here in the senate are trying to intimidate their political opponents as well. what i'm talking about, mr. president, is the persistent threat by the majority to break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate. in other words, to use the nuclear option if they don't get

their way. for example, senate democrats were incensed that republicans had the temerity to exercise their advise and consent responsibility to block a grand total of one -- one, just one -- nominee to the d.c. circuit. what did our democratic colleagues do in response? consulted with the white house and pledged to pack the d.c. court with appointees -- quote -- "one way or another," meaning use the nuclear option. they're doing this because the d.c. circuit -- they're certainly not doing this because the d.c. circuit is burdened with cases. far from it. the d.c. circuit is one of the least busy courts in the country. no. they want to use the nuclear option to pack the d.c. circuit so it can rubber stamp the president's big government agenda, the same big government we've seen over at the i.r.s. and elsewhere. but that's not the limit of the

culture of intimidation right here in the senate. let's look at the nlrb situation. despite the story that the administration and senate democrats want to spend, senate republicans did not block the senate's nominees to the national labor relations board. rather it was the president who blocked the nominees to the republican slots on the nlrb so he could once again pack a powerful branch of government, in this case the nlrb. now the administration sat on one of the two democratic vacancies at the nlrb for four months. four months. and then it waited until the middle of december in 2011 to send up both nominees for the democratic seats on the nlrb while refusing to send up any of the nominees for the republican seats. in fact, the administration sat on the republican nominees to the nlrb for nine months.

nine months. then with no republican nominees to the nlrb before the senate, the president purported to recess appoint the two democratic nominees to the board when their nominations had been before the senate for less than three weeks. it was so fast the majority leader didn't even have time to schedule a hearing. our democratic colleagues did not defend the senate from the president's unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab. senate republicans had to do that. and now that the d.c. circuit has found these purported appointments to be unconstitutional -- and, by the waeurbgs that -- way, that was a unanimous three-judge court -- and other circuit courts are agreeing with its reasoning, what is the democratic majority threatening to do now? it's planning to double down and aid the administration with its power grab at the nlrb. specifically, as with their

effort to pack the d.c. circuit, the majority is threatening to use the nuclear option so they can push through unlawfully appointed board members over the principled objections of senate republicans. it doesn't seem that our democratic colleagues want to respect the rules of the senate or that they want to respect the rulings of our federal courts. it appears they just want to enable the president and organize labor to exercise power at a powerful federal agency without anyone getting in the way. so let's be clear. these threats to use the nuclear option because of obstruction are just pretext -- pretext -- for a power grab. what are the facts? the senate has confirmed 19 of the president's judicial nominees so far this year. 19. by this point in his second term, when my party controlled the senate, at this point in president bush's second term, when my party controlled the senate, president bush had a

grand total of four judicial nominees confirmed. 19 so far in the second term of president obama; democratic control of the senate. four second term with president bush, republican control of the senate. moreover, republicans on the judiciary committee just voted unanimously to support the president's current nomination to the d.c. circuit. and the senate republican conference agreed yesterday to hold an up-or-down vote on his nomination, which has only been on the calendar since monday of this week. that's monday of this week -- to occur after the memorial day recess. that way members who do not serve on the committee, which is the vast majority of the senate, could have at least one week to evaluate this important nomination. ned, -- instead the majority leader chose to jam the minority, rejected our offer

from an up-or-down vote ten days or so from now and filed cloture on the nomination one day after it appeared on the executive calendar. this is just another example of the majority manufacturing a crisis to justify heavy-handed behavior. as for the nlrb, kweupbdz are willing to -- republicans are willing to support nominees who are not unlawfully spourtd and not unlawfully exercising governmental power. regarding nominees generally, senate kweupbdz have been -- senate republicans have been willing to work to get his team in place. the secretary of interior was confirmed 87-11. the secretary of the treasury was confirmed 71-26. the director of the office of management and budget was confirmed 96-0. and the secretary of state was

confirmed 94-3 just seven days after the senate received his nomination. so these continued threats to use the nuclear option point to the majority's own culture of intimidation right here in the senate. their view is you had better confirm the people we want. confirm the people we want when we want them, or we'll break the rules of the senate to change the rules so you can't stop us. so much for respecting the rights of the minority. so much for a meaningful application of advise and consent. senate republicans will work with the administration and the democratic majority but we will not be intimidated. we will not be intimidated. we have principled objections to some of the president's nominees and constant threats to break the rules are not going to work. constant threats to break the rules are not going to work.

we want to work with you, but these tactics are not the way to go about getting our cooperation. the majority leader has twice -- twice -- committed on the senate floor not to use the nuclear option. the last time was just a few months ago. these were not conditional commitments. they were not commitments not to violate the rules of the senate unless it became convenient for political purposes violate the rules of the senate. the comments of the united states senators are supposed to matter. your word is supposed to mean something around here. the commitments of the senate majority leader need to matter. we simply cannot start breaking commitments around here, especially on something that goes to the very essence -- the essence of the senate. the majority leader needs to keep his commitments.

now i indicated to the majority leader i was going to ask consent -- and i assume he has a copy of it -- as i noted in the remarks i just concluded on the d.c. circuit court nomination that the majority leader filed a cloture motion on last night, we've already stated that we've agreed to a debate and a vote that came out of committee unanimously. we confirmed two judicial nominations just this monday, this week. and we have an additional two scheduled for later this week. i've already indicated the confirmations of judges this year are stunningly fair to the majority compared to a time when president bush was in his second term and my party controlled the senate. i again remind my colleagues, as i just said, we confirmed 19 judges this year. we'll have 21 by the end of this

week. therefore bearing all that in mind, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion filed on calendar number 95 be vitiated and the senate proceed to the consideration of this nomination at a time on tuesday, june 4, determined by the majority leader after consultation with the republican leader. further i ask that there be one hour of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form and that at the expiration or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: this good man, trey travason was first nominated in june of 2012. he's a brilliant man, honors

graduate of stanford law school, mr. president, justice roberts left that court in 2005. we've been trying to fill spots on that court for all these many years, six or seven years. the d.c. circuit is the court that some say is more important than the supreme court. no judges have been confirmed in the d.c. circuit since 2006. it's an 11-member court established by law. to have a seven-member court is unfair. we've had one woman, for example, caitlin halligan, highly qualified nominee, has been filibustered twice by the

republicans. she was nominated to fill the seat of justice roberts. this man we're talking about today has been nominated to a seat that has been vacant for five years. the four seats were vacated in 2005, 2008 and senior status by two other judges in the last year or two. his nomination has been pending for 345 days. by far the longest of any judicial nominations currently awaiting confirmation by the full senate. my friend, the republican leader, talks about in bush's second term he didn't get many nominations. he didn't, mr. president, because we approved so many the first. just the opposite with president obama. 18 bush circuit court nominees

were confirmed within seven days or less after being reported by the committee. the republican-controlled senate filed cloture on three circuit court judges, including some real controversial ones: william pryor, janice rogers brown cloture was filed within days, less than a week. mr. president, there has been a stall going on here in the senate for years. it doesn't take a mathematician to figure it out. we're being held up on nominations and legislation. president obama has been trying to have the people he wants as part of his team for four and a half years. multiple vacancies in this

court. it's been reported out unanimously by the committee. it's all a stall. let's wait. maybe they'll be able to render another couple of opinions in the next few weeks and work the law which says there should be 11 people to pack the court -- to pack the court with what has been determined to be the number of people that should be on that court. is it right to have six members of the supreme court total? are you packing the court because you feel what's called for in the constitution? no. so, mr. president, we should vote on this young man today so he can go to work in helping fill one of the four vacancies that have been long-standing in that court for five or six or

seven years. so, we are going to have -- unless there's an agreement, a cloture vote on him tomorrow. and if they want to use their 30 hours, which they're entitled to do under the arrangement we made at the beginning of this year, they can use the 30 hours. we're going to get this young man confirmed. it's the right thing to do. we're going to get him confirmed. having waited 345 days, i think he deserves this. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the first time this nominee who was reported out of committee unanimously appeared on the executive calendar was two days ago. president obama waited years before making any nominations to the d.c. circuit. then he made just one -- caitlin halligan -- and this is his second nominee to that court. but more broadly, the issue is how has the senate been treating

president obama? we've confirmed a total of 190 obama judicial nominations. we've defeated two. that's 190-2. there are 70% of the federal seats, judicial seats without any nominees. 70% of the vacancies without any nominees. look, this is a manufactured crisis. and the core point here, i say to my friend, the majority leader, we have a good relationship. we work together every day. but you gave your word to the senate that we determined what the rules were for this congress. a number of my members felt that it was settled. we voted for resolutions and some rules changes at the beginning of the year based upon your word. it's important for your word to mean something not just to your members, but to ours. and statistically, it's just not

true. the math can't be denied. it's just simply not true that we've been mistreating the president in any way with regard to the confirmation process. and with regard to the way the senate itself is working, you've been actually quite complimentary. and i give you credit for helping us get back to normal here. we have a regular process on bills. wrda was a good example where we're calling up bills. many of them were getting on without even a motion to proceed based upon the majority leader's representation we're going to have votes. and, by golly, we've been having votes and amazingly enough senators like that. they're not marginalized by a process under which they don't get to participate. so i think we made an enormous amount of progress, and i just want to make sure the majority leader intends to keep his word so that we can continue to have the kind of collegial, constructive atmosphere we've had this year in the senate throughout the balance of this

congress. mr. reid: mr. president? we have to work together here. but it's a mutual work. it's not all on one side. it's not my word versus somebody else's word. in 2006 -- i'm sorry, in 2005 we had a knock down, drag out battle here. where my friend, te republican leader, along with others gave speeches here on the floor that -- that the process regarding judges wasn't running quickly enough. as a result of that crisis, an effort to resolve this matter, we agreed to put some peel on the bench

that we -- some people on the bench that we have greeted since then. janice rogers brown and others. we need a balance. my friend is focused on the judiciary, on judicial nomination. we have been doing better there. but other nominations not so. we can talk about all the rights of minority and all that. you know, presently in the united states whether it is george bush or president obama or jeb bush or hillary clinton, whoever it might be, they deserve the right to have people work -- that they want to work there and not be held up for months and months to fill some of these minor posts. i could run thraw a list of names -- i could run through a list of names that have been held up and held up for a long time. so, mr. president, my friend,

the republican leader, said during the squabble we had previously how he agreed with the fact that we should changeee -- change the rules. i am not saying that we're going to change the rules. but we have to do a better job of what's going on on around here. you need to look at the facts. we're going to continue working to look through this morass we have here. but let's not focus only on the judiciary. we've a lot of problems with regular nominee nags. i haven't talked about regular legislation. we're doing better on that. but, mr. president, a perfect example of that is what's going on with the budget. people begged around here, yelled, screamed, fought for

regular order. they get it, they don't want it. so, mr. president, i am convinced that we need to move forward. i think one of the things we should do -- some of these have been reported out of the committee 18-0 and there have been vacancies for six or seven years. we should do that immediately, not wait for a couple weeks to do it. if somebody really cares about this good man, his record is available. they could look, treed in ten minutes. -- read it in ten minutes. so, i'm sorry i had to object to my friend's unanimous consent request, but it was easy to do because the request is simply wrong. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me just thank my -- the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: -- friend the republican leader for confirming that he intends to keep his word. with regard to nonjudicial nominations, the facts are not irrelevant. of the 3 nominations in the senate that we've academmed on this year, this calendar year,

cloture has been required on try, brennan, hagel, and halligan, and cloture was not invoked on only one. we've confirmed 33, boards -- actually judges, agencies. 33 nominations confirmed this year. cloture was required on only three and cloture was not invoked not only one. my only point to my friend, the majority leader, is that the math is hard to dispute. we have made a major effort here to move the senate back in the direction that i know the majority leader and i agree on, the way that the senate ought to operate. we've made major progress. and i think that progress needs to be recognized. and my friend shall the majority leader, said it on various

occasions this year in connection with bills that we processed in a fair and open way with plenty of amendments and an opportunity for everybody to be involved. so let's tone down the rhetoric. and i want to say again i appreciate the majority leader's commitment to keep his word. it is important around here. it has a lot to do with how we go forward. so i think this conversation this morning has been constructive, and i thank him. i'm sorry that he feels we can't wait ten days to do this nominee, tuckl particularly sine there are circuit nominees, and maybe district as well, already on the calendar. the way we've done it around here, we'd sort of take them up in the order they came out and appeared on the calendar. there is a judge from wyoming that the senators from wyoming of my party are for. they're asking me, why is this particular nominee jumped over their nominee, because we've been kind of sequencing these, i believe, have we not, as they

come out? so i -- i -- here we have a nominee that we all agree on, a court that's not overloaded with work, a nomination only recently made and recently confirmed, and the only dispute here seems to be over whether we do it this week or a week from now. thus, my friend, that's why i called it a manufactured crisis. there's no crisis here. we're not arguing over this nominee. we like him. so, you know, the majority leader can make us have a cloture vote this week and he can skip over the judges that have been waiting, that came out of committee and are on the calendar, if he chooses to. there are some advantages to being the majority leader. we have enough arguments over here over things we disagree on. it sounds to me like we're having an argument on something

we agree on. i would hope we could tone down the rhetoric. we have big controversial issues coming our way. let's don't make - being a senar and functioning in the senate any more difficult than it is anyway because we have big differencedifferences about thef the country. let's have those debates in a collegial way and not manufacture crisis that really don't exist. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: everyone knows that numbers you can show anything you want with numbers. the fact is there's been a slow-walking done of the president's nominations. and we could look at how they do that. it's been interesting. it is a new way of doing things around here. a nominee comes up and what the committee does is submit hundreds and hundreds of questions. one of our nominees got 1,000 questions in writing that that person had to respond to.

i mean, that's never happened before. we have all these ways of stalling. mr. president, i know that the senators from wyoming -- one of them has spoken to me about gregory alan phillips. let's do him right now. let's do him today. the wyoming senators shouldn't have to wait. that's why i would ask consent that we do -- and i'm sorry, i like him, but the man who is going to be -- we're going to vote cloture on -- he graduated law school with my son. he's fine man. i'm not the only one who messes his name up. he was a basketball player in kansas much his parents came to all of his games and they cringed every time his name was pronounced because it is a hard name to pronounce. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined i may -- that we proceed to calendar number

95, that's srikanth srinivasan, that there be an hour of debate divided in the usually form, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action on this nomination, th the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, the president be note nied of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, i think what we're witnessing sheer a manufactured crisis -- here is a manufactured crisis. we're doing four judges this very week, four judges. there are five others that are on the calendar before the nominee the majority leader has been trying to get us to process this week. i think there is a better policy -- i think it is a better policy to continue to set votes as the fact show, in a timely way.

why are we doing this in we're not -- we're not having a problem confirming judges. i don't understand. why are we doing this? it doesn't make any sense. we've got big issues coming our way on immigration, for example, that are going to be very controversial. members on both sides have been making every effort to tone down otorhetoric, to get us -- to down tone the rhetoric, to get us in the proper place, to deal with a very contentious piece of legislation. why are we doing this? what is the point? all of these judges are going to be approved within a relatively short period of time, in an orderly process, that we have been working on all year, that has produced four times as many judicial confirmations for president obama in his second term as president bush had at this time in his first term, when he had a republican senate. this is an unprecedented rapid pace for confirmations. so i would say to my friend, why are we doing this?

i'm going to object, but i would like to know what the point is here. what is the problem? mr. reid: mr. president, i will be happy to respond to what the problem is. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: senator leahy said yesterday, "a recent report by the nonpartisan congressional research service compares the whole of president obama's first term to the whole of president bush's first term and the contrast could not being more clear. the median senate floor time for president obama's district court nominees was five times longer than protect's. president obama's circuit court nominees faced even longer delays. and their median wait time was. 7.3 times longer. president bush's unanimously confirmed circuit nominees had a median wait time of 14 days . compare that to the 130 1/2 days

for president obama's unanimous nominees. 14 days compared to 130 1/2. things are moving really well? i don't think so. on with what senator leahy said. "that is more than nine times longer. even the nonpartisan c.r.s. called this notable change. there is no good reason for such unprecedented delays, but those are the facts." so that's why we're doing this. there is no reason to wait ten days or two weeks for this good man to fill a court who has been waiting for people to get on the court for seven years. you have a -- you have a majority in that court that is wreaking havoc with the country. for the first time in 230 years, they rule the president can't make a recess appointment. so, yes, there is a crisis, and we need to do something about

it. one way to resolve part of it is to get this good man on the court now. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i got -- the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the whole purpose here is to stack the court. so the real issue here, i guess, is he disagrees with the rulings on the d.c. circuit. look, we've been voting for, to confirm judges that we know we won't prefer the outcome of their decisions. but it sounds to me like the majority leader has finally kind of confessed up to what the real problem is. the reason it should be done this week versus next week is because he wants -- he doesn't like what the d.c. circuit is doing. so it doesn't have anything to do with caseload or anything else. in fact, what's unprecedented is confirming a d.c. circuit court judge two days after he's been on the calendar. two days. goodness, what is the difference between now and next week?

i find it impossible to understand. in fact, i don't understand why we're having this whole discussion this morning. we've got plenty of things to debate around here and plenty of things we disagree upon. we've had an orderly process. this congress has done well. 19 judges compared to 4 for president bush at this point. is there still a consent pending? i object. i think the majority leader and i -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: i think the majority leader and i ought to sit down like we normally do and figure this out and eliminate a manufactured crisis and go forward. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: in school, we studied a lot of things, but one of the things i can't forget is george or well's 1984. it's an interesting book because in that book he talked about people coming to a time when whatever they said was just factually just the opposite. and here's where we are now. the d.c. circuit has legislated,

been determined they should have 11 members. and my friend says we're stacking the court. there's four vacancies. stacking the court by having eight there instead of seven. that math isn't very good, mr. president. my friend keeps talking about the d.c. circuit doesn't have anything to do. the d.c. circuit is now more than one-third vacant, four judicial vacancies. mr. srinivasan is nominated to the eighth seat on the d.c. circuit. three still remain empty. and, yes, we are, the country is concerned about the decisions coming out of that court. the d.c. circuit court of appeals is considered by some the most important court in the land, but by virtually the second most important court in the land because of the complex nature of the cases they handle. the court reviews complicated decisions and rule making in

many federal agencies and in recent years handled some of the most terrorism, enemy combatant cases since 9/11. these cases are very complex in nature, requiring additional time for consideration. congress took action to address these concerns about their caseload by decreasing the number of judgeships in 2008 from 12 to 11. congress has set the number of judgeships needed by the court at 11. the court should not be understaffed by one-third. in reality, according to the administrative office of the u.s. courts, the caseload per active judge has increased by 50% since 2005 when the senate confirmed president bush's nominee to fill the 11th seat on the d.c. circuit. so, mr. president, senate republicans willingly confirm president bush's nominee for the 9th, 10th and 11th seats on the d.c. circuit.

we didn't think they were stacking it. i didn't like some of the people they put on there but it wasn't stacking it. that's what the legislation called for. this good man is president obama's second nominee to the d.c. circuit to fill the eighth seat, and they filibustered halligan twice. so, mr. president, this is a situation that needs to be resolved quickly. you can't have a second or first most important court in the land one-third vacant. stacking the court with one person? i think not. so, mr. president, we can stay here longer, but i've made my point. one thing i have to say to my friend, although we've gotten a few of these conversations before on the floor, i'll wind up getting the last word. mr. mcconnell: i know the majority leader will always have the last word. that's the advantage of being in the majority and not the minority. i think it has been a good discussion this morning. i think we've demonstrated there is no real problem here. we've confirmed the president's

nominees, both the judiciary and for the executive branch in a very timely fashion. and we'll continue to process these judges in consultation with the majority leader as they come along. mr. reid: mr. president, i would suggest -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: what about the judge from wyoming? why don't we do that today? could there be a more republican state in the country than wyoming? maybe. maybe idaho is vying for number one. but i'm willing to approve this judge today. why don't we vote on him today? if you want to go ahead and vote cloture on -- vote cloture on this other guy, we'll do that. but i'm willing to vote on the wyoming guy today. mr. mcconnell: we'll continue to process these judges in an orderly fashion as we have all year long, and hopefully he and

i can discuss this further off the floor and find a way forward. i yield the floor. mr. reid: i wasn't going to say anything, but i said i would get the last word, so, senator mcconnell, you can say something now and i won't get the last word. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the republicans controlling the first half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i appreciate the senator from kentucky and president obama nevada having this discussion -- and the senator from nevada having this discussion. was can operate inside a bubble. how many americans feel their rights are being threatened and how many fear we aren't going to

leave behind a better country for our children? that's why it's so important that we stay connected to our constituents. it's why i travel home almost every weekend or telephone and online town halls from my washington office and try and read my mail, which is so very important. in a recent online town hall, i answered some difficult questions on the issues we're facing as a nation. however, one of the toughest questions that was posed wasn't about a specific policy issue. instead it was when i was asked how do we fix the mess in washington? i answered in part that transparency and accountability would go a long way to restoring the faith in washington. that was before the benghazi controversy escalated. then news of the i.r.s. scandal broke. almost immediately after that we learned that the department of justice had obtained the private phone records of dozens of associated press reporters.

this is the opposite of what we need to do to fix the problems in washington. these scandals move us in the wrong direction. it's hard to pick which one of these i find the most troubling, but i want to focus on the i.r.s. scandal because targeting political groups, singling them out for additional scrutiny simply because you disagree with their ideological views is wrong on every level. dismissing this massive overreach as if just -- there's acts of a few rogue agents in cincinnati as some have tried to do since the onset is not taking leadership. nor is it seeking to hold the agency accountable. we now know that the acting i.r.s. commissioner knew of these abuses for at least a year and that officials at treasury and as high up as the chief of staff at the white house were briefed before the leak.

despite the repeated claims that the administration learned about it through news reports. we know it wasn't just cincinnati. i.r.s. officials at the agency's washington headquarters also sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and progressive groups who operated the same way were not subjected to this type of harassment. on top of all this, there's real concern that i.r.s. officials may have lied to congress in an effort to cover up the agency's misdeeds. yesterday before the finance committee, the former head of the agency who was in charge at the time of these abuses claimed that this wasn't politically motivated while at the same time he said he didn't know how the targeting happened. along with this impressive double-talk, he refused to apologize for the abuses that went on under his watch. somebody has to be accountable.

this is not a time for excuses. it's a time for leadership. the president needs to fully cooperate with the congressional investigations into the i.r.s. scandal. last week our entire caucus sent a letter to the white house that demands at least this much from the administration. washington's credibility, what is left of it is on the line. the american people deserve to know what actions will be taken to ensure those who made these decisions at the i.r.s. will be held accountable. the good news is that people on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, are rightfully outraged. we're going to get to the bottom of this. people will be held accountable. at the very least, those engaging in the unethical actions need to be fired. if they broke the law, they need

to be prosecuted. this scandal gives the already maligned i.r.s. a black eye. it reinforces people's worst fears about washington, that those in power will use any means necessary to maintain that power. keep in mind this agency will be responsible for implementing and enforcing key provisions of the president's health care law, a law that a majority of arkansans do not support. if these types of abuses are allowed to go unchecked, what kind of bullying will go on when that implementation begins? especially in light of the fact that the official that was in charge of the unit that targeted conservative groups now runs the i.r.s. office responsible for the health care law. everyone needs to be treated fairly under the law. clearly there are employees at i.r.s. who do not subscribe to this principle. there must be zero tolerance for the actions of those

individuals. until we change the culture here in washington, we will not gain the confidence of the american people. the onus is on us. washington as a whole, the white house, congress and every civil servant has to remember who we work for and to whom we are accountable. the actions of the i.r.s. along with the other scandals plaguing d.c. only move us further from the goal post, not closer. i yield back.

mrs. fischer: mr. president, i rise today to discuss a number of ongoing controversies of national importance, including the i.r.s.'s unfair treatment of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. the department of justice's secret gathering of journalist's phone records and the administration's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. madam president, both the house and the senate have held

hearings with the former and acting i.r.s. commissioners as well as the treasury department's inspector general for tax administration, who conducted an internal audit and authored the report revealing the pattern of government abuse within the i.r.s. tax-exempt division. while i'm pleased that congress is judiciously exercising its oversight powers, very few questions have been answered, and the pattern of inconsistent explanations continues. we still do not know why exactly -- excuse me, we still do not know who exactly initiati initie practice of targeting these groups. it was testified you understand

oath that there were no political motivations behind the practice. however, mr. miller could not identify the names of the individuals whose motives he was supposedly vouching for. how is that even possible? nebraskans know better than to buy that bill of goods. we still do not know why, madam president, this abusive policy was implemented in the first place. i.r.s. officials have maintained that the extra scrutiny given to conservative groups was an attempt to deal with an influx of applications. but as a number of fact checkers and media outlets have noted, that surge in applications didn't happen until well after the targeting began. the reasoning for the practice put forth by the i.r.s. then simply does not align with the facts. we still do not know why the

i.r.s. felt that it had the right to release confidential data, which it had wrongly requested in the first place. they released that to third parties with adversarial interests to these conservative groups in question. the progressive publication propublica admitted it obtained from the internal revenue service illegally leaked, confidence tax forms from nine organizations. all of the groups whose records were improperly released were conservative. why did the i.r.s. leak these records? what was their goal? and why did only conservative organizations have their confidential information leaked? why did the white house senior staff, including the white house

counsel and the white house chief of staff, fail to inform the president of this egregious government overreach by the i.r.s.? former special counsel to president clinton, lanny davis, recently wrote an opinion piece in "the hill." quote -- "with all due respect to someone who has impeccable legal credentials, if she did have foreknowledge and did not inform the president immediately, i respectfully suggest she is in the wrong job understan--in the wrong job ande should resign." as "politico" recently reported, the story keeps cayinging. "the white house explanation of what it knew about the i.r.s. story ahead of the first press reports on the controversy shifted once again thursday." let pee repea me repeat that.

shifted once again. it seems that some folks in the white house can't get their facts straight. why? the white house press secretary admitted yesterday that officials in the white house discussed how and when the i.r.s. would tell the public that the agency had been targeting conservative groups. the eventual public disclosure was made by i.r.s. tax-exempt division director lois lerner, who revealed the pattern of government abuse with an intentionally planted question at an otherwise little-noticed washington, d.c., lawyers conference. it is outrageous that despite numerous congressional inquiries asking the i.r.s. for answers in both public hearings and formal letters, the i.r.s. would first reveal the truth through a

charade of a planted question. then lener went on to earn herself a bushel of pinocchios from the washington folks factchecker for her series of misstatements and weesly wording. whatever happened to the president's worthy goals of promoting the most accountable, the most transparent, the most open administration in history? i don't appreciate being misled, and nebraskans don't either. regarding the department of justice's secret collection of over 100 associated press journalists' phone records, two key questions remain: why didn't the department of justice ask the associated press to voluntarily cooperate before issuing those subpoenas, as the law requires?

and why did the department of justice fail to abide by the law and inform the associated press that the records were subpoenaed, denying the them the opportunity to appeal that heavyhanded play. "washington post" columnist eugene robinson put it well, "the obama administration has no business rummaging through phone records, tracking their e-mails and tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from gathering news. this heavyhanded business isn't chilling; it's just plain cold." but once again, the overreach does not stop there. recent news has surfaced that a fox news journalist was criminally investigated for doing his job, lawfully soliciting information from a government source.

the "post" describes the investigation in vivid detail. they use security badge access records to track the reporter's comings and goings from the state department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. they traced the timing of his calls with an inspector success specked of sharing the report. they obtained a search warrant for the reporter's personal e-mails. madam president, this assault on the first amendment is unacceptable, and the intimidation of reporters through unnecessary criminal investigations and excessive surveillance raises serious questions about the freedom of the press. the president and the department of justice have yet to come forward with credible answers. the american people are still

waiting. finally, i'd like to briefly touch on the tragic attack on our consulate in benghazi. much attention has been paid to the internal white house e-mails and changes to the u.n. ambassador susan rice's talkingpoints explaining the source of the attack. i believe that a key question still remains to be answered. why for two weeks did the administration propagate the tale that it was a youtube video-inspired attack when officials knew almost immediately that it was cared out by afil affiliates of al qa? that's a prist simple question. -- that's a pretty simple question. why were the american people told that an antii anti-islam ye

video prompted the attack when it is known at that it did not? no one -- no one, mr. president, has answered this very basic question. instead of providing answers to these questions, a top white house advisor has impugned the integrity of those seeking the truth by decrying persistent questioning as a witch-hunt. it is time for the president to put politics aside, demand accountability from his staff, step up and do his job. congress is doing its part by conducting serious oversight hearings on both the i.r.s. overreach and the benghazi attack. yet critical government

witnesses, like the i.r.s. tax-exempt division director lois lerner, refuse to cooperate, insisting on pleading the fifth amendment during hearings to set the record straight. madam president, it's up to the president -- it's up to the president to transform this culture of arrogance and change the above-the-law attitude that seems to have a grip over his departments and his agencies. ignorance, willful or otherwise, just isn't going to cut it anymore. we simply cannot afford to have a president on the sidelines. this unraveling saga of government gone wild demonstra demonstrates exactly one of two

things: either the height of government incompetence or the gross abuse of power. rather than sending surrogates out on a sunday talk show to claim that the law is irrelevant with regard to that i.r.s. overreach, i call on the president to work with congress to build back the people's trust. this includes taking responsibility for the actions of those working within the executive branch, enforcing the laws, and removing all those responsible for this disturbing pattern of government overreach. i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, this last weekend white house advisor dan pfeiffer visited all five sunday morning talk shows, and what he tried to do there was to defend the obama administration's handling of the various scandals that we are all too familiar with. unfortunately for the president, i think he only made things worse. for example, he said that president obama's whereabouts on the night of the benghazi terrorist attack were irrelevant. that's a strange use of the word. where the president is when a terrorist attack kills more american citizens in libya, to call that irrelevant strikes me as an odd choice of words.

he was also asked whether it is illegal for the i.r.s. to talk individuals and organizations for political reasons. again, he said -- and i quote -- "it's irrelevant." strange choice of words. in other words, if the american people were hoping that this white house would finally provide straight answers to basic questions, they were once again disappointed. let's review the facts, starting with benghazi, as the senator from nebraska was just talking about. eight months, of course, have now passed since four brave americans were killed by terrorists linked to al qaeda. eight months have passed since the obama administration blamed the attack on a spontaneous demonstration incited by some amateur youtube video.

is it irrelevant that we don't know where the president of the united states was on the night of the attack or what he did or did not do to come to the aid of these four brave americans who were at risk of losing their life, and did in fact lose their lives? is it irrelevant that members of the obama administration deliberately misled time and time again the american people about this act of terrorism? is it irrelevant that ambassador susan rice was blaming the massacre on a youtube video the very same day that libya's president was calling it a preplanned terrorist attack? is it irrelevant that the former deputy to the late ambassador chris stevens has said that everybody at the u.s. embassy --

everybody at the u.s. embassy believed from the start that it was a terrorist attack? and finally, is it irrelevant that this former deputy, gregory hicks, was punished by the state department for cooperating with congressional investigators so the truth could get out? strange choice of words: irrelevant. i don't think the american people believe that is irrelevant, any of these facts. in fact, i think what we can only conclude is that the culture at the white house, unfortunately, has created one where coverups, misdirection, prevarication, dissembling or okay; not being straight with the american people. no wonder the american people doubt their leadership in

washington, and particularly in the white house. if the white house is going to create a culture in which these sort of coverups are okay, or in the word of dan pfeiffer, simply irrelevant. when the american people can't trust the white house to be honest with them and refuses to accept responsibility for their mistakes, it is not irrelevant. as for the i.r.s. scandal, some people have tried to dismiss the targeting of various conservative groups as a rogue operation managed by a few renegade staffers in the cincinnati office. yet, the more we learn about the scandal, the bigger it seems. anybody who's been around a big bureaucracy, and certainly the i.r.s. qualifies as a big bureaucracy, knows that the easiest answer when you ask the bureaucrats something, the easiest answer is "no" because they don't get in trouble for

saying "no." it may not be very helpful or responsive but they don't get in trouble. what strikes me about this idea that there were agents in cincinnati who decided to cook this idea on their own goes against the grain of everything we know about bureaucracies. why in the world would they take the initiative to target political speech unless they thought they either had the explicit or the implicit approval of their higher ups? it just doesn't make any sense otherwise. last week one cincinnati i.r.s. employee told "the washington post" -- and i think this has the ring of truth -- this cincinnati i.r.s. employee said everything comes from the top. we don't have any authority to make these decisions without someone signing off on them. there has to be a directive. now that sounds like the bureaucracy that i know and am familiar with.

so i'd like to ask the white house, is it irrelevant that america's tax collection agency was turned into some political attack machine, deciding that they were the ones who could police political speech and activity protected by the first amendment to the constitution? is it irrelevant that an agency with the power to destroy people's lives adopted the tactics of a dictator? is it irrelevant that senior i.r.s. officials learned about these abuses at least two years ago and lied to congress and to the american people when we asked them about them? when i got reports from the king street patriots and true the vote in houston, texas and the waco and san any -- san antonio

tea parties about the tactics they were being exposed to i and the other senator wrote to the commissioner, mr. shlin and the acting commissioner and they failed to disclose what we now know as the truth. senator hatch told mr. miller yesterday that was a lie by omission at the very least. certainly it was not telling the whole truth to the members of congress whose responsibility is to provide oversight for the american people of the i.r.s. and of the federal government. so i don't think it's irrelevant when i.r.s. commissioner douglas shulman categorically denied these abuses in sworn testimony before the house ways and means committee in march of 2012. and furthermore, i don't think it's irrelevant that i.r.s. officials may have committed criminal offenses.

i realize that's a serious statement and charge to make, but we know this morning that the director of the internal revenue service division overseeing nonprofit organizations has taken the fifth amendment when asked for sworn testimony by a congressional oversight committee. now just to refresh everyone's memory, the fifth amendment to the united states constitution means that you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself and possibly expose yourself by virtue of your own testimony to a criminal prosecution. that's what taking the fifth amendment is. while she is within her rights to take the fifth amendment, if she has a credible fear of prosecution for violating the criminal laws, this, i believe, elevates this scandal to a new level. finally, i would suggest to our friends at the white house that it is not irrelevant that a

texas businesswoman named catherine englebreck was targeted not only by the i.r.s., but by the f.b.i., the a.t.f. and osha after she founded organizations in houston, texas, known as the king street patriots and true the vote. i think most americans would agree that all of this information is quite relevant, quite reprehensible and something that congress ought to on a bipartisan basis investigate. now i have to congratulate the chairman of the senate finance committee, max baucus, a democrat -- not a member of my political party -- and senator orrin hatch, the ranking republican on the finance committee for the bipartisan way that they have begun the investigation into this i.r.s. scandal. because we all recognize, republicans and democrats alike, that this is a threat to the

public's trust in its government's institutions and this culture of intimidation is not something we can stand for. using the extraordinary power of the federal government to target american citizens for exercising their constitutional rights. indeed, if president obama wants to know why the american people's trust in the federal government has plummeted to an all-time low, all he has to do is to look at these two scandals and to consider how the administration is handling them. would government officials consistently mislead, stonewall and abuse their power, people take notice and they don't forget. and the day of reckoning will surely come. madam president, i yield the floor. and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. it's my understanding that i have ten minutes to speak. can you confirm if that's correct. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i am here today to speak to the importance of bringing much-needed reform to the federal sugar program. i understand that this is not something that the presiding officer supports and that this is not something that the

agriculture committee addressed in the farm bill. but i think it's important to try and address some of the misinformation that's out there. we've been hearing a lot of talk about the need to protect america's sugar farmers, but blah we haven't heard -- but what we haven't heard is that sugar remains the most tightly controlled commodity in this country. we currently have what i believe is an outdated program that offers a sweet deal to a small group of sugar growers and processers at the expense of too many other american businesses and at the expense of american consumers. what the amendment that i have offered with a number of cosponsors will do is reform the sugar program to make u.s. manufacturers more competitive and to reduce prices for consumers. it will lower sugar price

support levels and it will reform the excessive restrictions on domestic supply and import quotas for sugars. these reforms would save taxpayers money. the congressional budget office has estimated that this legislation would save $82 million over the next ten years. now, i think it's important to keep in mind that the amendment that we've introduced does not eliminate the safety net for sugar producers. it simply makes some moderate commonsense reforms in the program. sugar growers would still be supported by the sugar loan program and protected by import restrictions and domestic marketing allotments. in fact, this amendment simply returns us to the same policies that sugar producers themselves supported as recently as 2007. since 2008, sugar prices in the united states have soared to record highs and they've

consistently reached levels that are about twice the price -- the world price of sugar. in fact, the sugar program has cost consumers and businesses as much as $14 billion over the last four years. this amendment would provide a smart, practical, and pragmatic fix to the policies that are currently in place, and it is a bipartisan proposal. there are 18 other senators from both sides of the aisle who have joined on this amendment. now, again, we've been hearing about jobs that would be lost in the sugar industry if we make these moderate reforms. but the reality is, we're already losing and have lost too many valuable manufacturing jobs across this country, as businesses close or move overseas in search of lower prices. we can see some of this

illustrated on this chart. these are sugar-using jobs in the food industry, and there are more than 30 times as many of this jobs than there are in sugar processing. so we can use sugar-using food and bench jobs much that's the blue. compared to sugar farming, production, and processing -- the red. so 590,669 compared to 18,078. and where do these crumb numbere from? well, in fact they're from the u.s. census and the department of commerce. unfortunately, between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 of these jobs -- the manufacturing jobs -- were lost in sugar-using industries. in fact, the u.s. department of commerce has estimated that for

every one sugar-growing job that is saved through high sugar prices, that approximately three manufacturing jobs are lost. so, again, let me put the numbers in the perspective, as it does -- as this chart does. there are less than 5,000 sugar growers and processors in the country. u.s. data shows there are about 18,000 total jobs in the industry, sugar industry. compared with almost 600,000 jobs in the sugar-using industry. now, we've also been hearing that this amendment would allow for an increase in foreign sugar into the u.s. market. this amendment maintains the current import quotas for each country, so let me repeat that again. it maintains the current import quotas for each country. it allows the secretary of agriculture to modify these quotas, if he or she determines that it's necessary, just as

they were able to do before 200. -- before 2008. and the fact is, this amendment would have no impact on sugar imports from mexico, because under the north american free trade agreement, or nafta, mexico currently is the only country without a quotas for sugar importation. and that's true whether we pass this amendment or not. that's true under the current system. so even if we don't pass reforms, the argument that mexico is coming in and bringing sugar into the country is true. there is sugar coming in from mexico. but the fact is that's the way it is under the current program. and currently sugar is the only -- let me repeat, the only commodity program that was not reformed in the committee-passed farm bill that is under consideration now. and let me just be clear. i think the agriculture

committee and senator stabenow and the committee did a great job on that bill in most areas, because they provided savings, they reformed the program. and so it's particularly puzzling to me that they totally left the sugar subsidies out of the bill, that they did nothing to reform the sugar program. i don't think any program that the federal government operates should be immune from updates and improvements. we need to act. we need to act now to reform the sugar program and to protect those workers who are in the food industry, that use sugaringsugar,and protect consue spending more money for the cost of sugar. thank you very much, madam chair. i yield the floor.

mr. udall: madam president, i would like to ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my good friend, senator collins of maine, for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam chair of madam chair -- madam president, i should say, senator collins and i are here today to underscore the timel timelinessa bipartisan solution we have been pushing for since march. while i firmly believe we should replace the sequestration with a balanced and comprehensive plan that delivers the same deficit-reducing bunch, it appears to me and to all of us that the sequester is here for the remainder of the fiscal year year. i want to underline, we need deficit reduction. but the way in which we're doing it through the sequester is terrible policy and it is time to fix it. just after the fiscal year 2013

sequester was triggered, senator collins and i introduced a commonsense plan that would empower federal departments and agencies to replace the indiscriminate cuts with more strategic cuts. you just have to look at the way in which sequestration has endangered critical programs for working families, our senior citizens, and the middle class to know that we have to do more than we're doing today. and just throwing up our hands and doing nothing is poor governing. senator collins and i believe that we have a responsibility here as leaders to inject some measure of common sense into the process. with that, madam president, i'd like to turn to my colleague, senator collins, for her thoughts on the necessity of the collins-udall legislative proposal. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, of course my friend and colleague from colorado is exactly right.

and i want to thank him for his leadership on this issue and for working with me to develop a bipartisan, commonsense plan that would help to mitigate the harmful effects of the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration that took effect on march 1. i want to emphasize that under our proposal, budget targets would still have to be met. we understand the need to confront our enormous federal debt, which is approaching $17 trillion. but our plan does so in a sensible way. it recognizes that rather than imposing mea meat-ax cuts, we sd

be setting priorities. our bill would give the heads of federal agencies and departments affected by sequestration the flexibility to implement the required cuts in a much more thoughtful way by preserving vital programs and reducing or eliminating lower-priority programs. our bill also ensures appropriate congressional oversight of these decisions by requiring the agency heads to submit their spending plans to both the house and senate appropriations committees five days before implementing these decisions. these committees and their subcommittees know the budgets of these agencies inside and out and will be able to effectively monitor the spending decisions,

just as the committees now oversee reprogramming requests. madam president, congress has already demonstrated that providing flexibility to federal agencies in a commonsense way to address the unprecedented problems caused by sequestration makes a great deal of sense. just recently congress passed a bill that we authored that gave the department of transportation the flexibility to end the furloughs of air traffic controllers and to instead reduce spending by transferring unused balances from a grant program. that's the kind of decision-making flexibility that we're talking about. in this case, the furloughs were causing terrible flight delays and had the potential to truly

harm the economies of maine, colorado, and countless other states that count on tourists visiting to see our amazing scenery, to sample our extraordinary food, and to just be with our great people. had we not come together to pass this bill, the impacts could have been devastating to maine and to colorado businesses and their employees. in maine, it would have affected everyone from our wait staff and ash inn keepers to the countless tourist attractions in our state. it would have even affected federal institutions like the gem of acadia national park and our state parks as well. in our states, each season but particularly during those key peak summer months, we welcome

with open arms visitors from around the globe. but if those visitors were going to have to sit on a tarmac for three hours awaiting a flight, they most likely were going to cancel their trips. i'm proud of the work that senator udall and i did to pass this bipartisan bill, but more can and should be done to give other agencies the same kind of flexibility to set wise spending priorities. and i would turn to the senator from colorado to ask him if he agrees that isn't that a better approach than just across-the-board cuts with no flexibility? mr. udall: the senator from maine has it exactly right. i want to commend her for her leadership. madam president, i want to point out to those who were critical of what we did when it came to

the f.a.a., it doesn't just the members of congress that uses the air traffic system. it is every american possible using our air transportation system. you see the egalitarian nature of our air transportation system when you are in the airports. she brockered a sense -- she brokered a sensible compromise and kept commerce flowing smoothly. i remember senator collins standing here on the floor somewhat late at night and senator collins led the way. we also led in the furloughs for meat inspectors. we've proven we can find consensus. it is time to finish that job. i want to turn back to my colleague for any final thoughts she might have to make about our bill and the importance of this effort we have under way. ms. collins: i want to mak thank my good friend and colleague. it wouldn't have happened without his support. we took a bipartisan approach,

and that's the kind of approach that we're taking today in urging our colleagues to look at our bill and our leaders to move it. many agencies face the same challenges that were encountered by the f.a.a. and many agencies know of better ways to meet the sequestration targets. i have long believed that these across-the-board cuts where we don't prio prioritize simply dot make sense. last week the department of defense announced that because the navy was able to identify cost-effective ways to meet its budget targets, thousands of hardworking men and women at our nation's naval shipyards like the portsmouth shipyard in maine would not have to be furloughed.

i have long argued that the department of defense has the flexibility to minimize the furloughs because we gave them that authority as part of the continuing resolution. i would be remiss if i did not note, however, my disappointment that some of the workers at the shipyard and others, like those in the national guard and at other facilities such as the defense accounting services center in limestone, maine, still physical furloughs. there are other important programs as well. biomedical researchers, school superintendents are also in a quandary of having little or no flexibility to implement the sequestration targets. now instead of enacting piecemeal fixes, whether it's the f.a.a. or it's the meat inspectors, our bill would

empower administrators to head off this problem and avoid indiscriminate spending cuts. we can mitigate the harmful effects of sequestration, protect jobs and avoid mindless spending cuts while tackling the very real problem of excessive and unnecessary spending by simply allowing managers to distinguish between vital programs to be creative and to cut those that are of lesser importance. i know that my colleague from colorado would agree that no business facing the need to cut expenses would ever treat every program and function and service of that business as if they were

of equal worth. instead, the business managers and executives and employees would evaluate all the programs and set priorities. and that's all we're asking here. so i would like to thank the senator from colorado, my good friend, senator udall, for his strong partnership on our effort to protect the jobs of hardworking americans, prevent arbitrary spending cuts and yet deal with an unsustainable $16.8 trillion debt. we know that our approach would go a long way toward allowing priorities to be set. and after all, madam president, if we're not going to set priorities and make the tough decisions and distinguish among absolutely vital programs and those that could be cut or

eliminated, then we might as well go home and just have a computer apply a formula to the budget. but that's not what we're here and that is not what the american people expect. they expect us to exercise judgment and make good decisions. mr. udall: madam president, i believe our time has expired, or is beginning to expire, but i wanted to underline what senator collins said. we are passionate about this. some say passionate problem solver is an oxymoron. that isn't the case here. we want to solve this. we both have private-sector experience. this is not how you would run a concern in the private sector. we can do this. we have shown we can do this. let's move forward and provide certainty not just to the federal age sits, the people

of -- agencies and not just the people of this country. we want to create more certainty and budget and execute in a wiser, smart way. i want to thank the senator from maine for her leadership. i value our partnership and i know we're going to see this to a successful conclusion. madam president, i did have a unanimous consent request before i relinquish the floor. i have ten unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i would therefore ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, is there -- could the president inform me of whether or not there's an order to proceed right now or whether there's

some additional time for morning business? the presiding officer: there is 4 minutes remaining for the majority in morning business. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: could i ask unanimous consent that the senator from maine be recognized for 4 minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i understand that senator baldwin is on the way to make her maiden speech, and i promise

that i will stop talking the moment that she enters the chamber. and i thank my colleague from colorado. madam president, later today the senate will vote on a resolution that has been introduced by senators menendez and graham. and i'm very pleased to join my senate colleagues in cosponsoring this resolution which reaffirms our commitment to a strong u.s.-israeli relationship and to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. at this time in our history, it is more important than ever before that we demonstrate a firm commitment to our allies, even if the neighborhood in which they exist appears to be more of a tinder box than it has been in decades.

this resolution reaffirms that the united states will be a reliable friend and a determined ally even in dangerous times. indeed, especially in dangerous times. we are at a critical juncture in our efforts to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. and during my time in the senate i've repeatedly supported and indeed authored legislation that would impose sanctions on iran and put pressure on the regime to change course. this resolution that we'll vote on later today goes further. it makes very clear that the united states will stand by israel if israel feels that the state needs to take action to protect its very existence.

madam president, i see that the senator has now arrived. so i would ask unanimous consent that the balance of my remarks be entered into the record as if read. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: as i make my first remarks on the senate floor, i have the honor of occupying the same senate seat and in fact occupying the very senate desk once used by senator robert m. la follette sr.. fighting bob la follette as he was known was a republican senator from wisconsin a century ago. he is credited as the founder of the progressive party and

progressive movement in this nation. and i admire fighting bob's legacy in many ways, but i want to assure my colleagues who are present in the chamber at this moment that i will not emulate his maiden speech, which went on for three successive days. bob la follette ran for this office because he was concerned that while corporate interests were being well served in washington, ordinary people weren't even being heard. he traveled all around the state of wisconsin literally speaking from makeshift stages of soapboxes and hay wagons at county fairs. and his message came to define my state's progressive tradition. the things he talked about in that day still ring true today. as i've traveled the state, wisconsinites have told me that powerful and well-connected seem

to still write their own rules, while the concerns and struggles of middle-class families go unnoticed here in washington. they feel like our economic system is tilted towards those at the top and that our political system exists to protect those unfair advantages instead of to make sure that everybody gets a fair shot. they see washington happy to let wall street write their own rules, but unable to help students pull themselves out of debt. they see washington working to protect big tax breaks for powerful corporations but unwilling to protect small manufacturers getting ripped off by china's cheating. they see washington bouncing from one manufactured fiscal crisis to the next, but never addressing the real and ongoing crisis of our disappearing

middle class. the truth is that while you hear a lot about the wide distance between democrats and republicans, the widest and most important distance in our political system is between the content of the debate here in washington and the concerns of hardworking people in places like wisconsin. that distance parallels the large and growing gaps between rich and poor, between rising costs and stagnant incomes, between our nation and our competitors when it comes to education and innovation. and it's really hurting people. when my grandparents were raising me, i learned that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you can get ahead. the wisconsinites i talk to grew up learn that very same thing.

they're working as hard as ever to get ahead. but many are finding that they're hardly getting by. people are still working for that middle-class dream, a job that pays the bills, health coverage you can rely on, a home that you can call your own, a chance to save for your kids' college education, and a secure retirement. but instead too many are finding that even two jobs aren't enough to make ends meet, and those jobs are hard to find and hard to keep. they're finding that the homes they worked so hard to own aren't even worth what still remains on their mortgage. they're finding that the cost of college is going up, and they're worried that they might never be able to retire comfortably. that's the biggest gap of all, the gap between the economic

security wisconsinites work so hard to achieve and the economic uncertainty that they are asked to settle for. and if we can't close that gap, we might some day talk about the middle class as something we used to have, not something that each generation can aspire to. we all get it. we all see this happening. and while wisconsinites don't agree about what we should do, they want to see us working together to find solutions, even if it takes some spirited debate. but when they look across that yawning divide to washington, they see us advancing talking points and playing politics instead of putting our varying experiences and talents to work solving these problems. but i'm optimistic. i didn't run for the senate just because i agree with those

complaints. i ran for the senate because i think we can do better. and i know that i have a great example to follow in the people of wisconsin. these are particularly tough times for my state. even as the national economy is rebounding and businesses in wisconsin, middle-class families in my state really remain stuck in neutral. the manufacturing sector that sustained our prosperity for generations has taken a lot of hits, some that could have been prevented and others that are simply a factor of our changing economy and our changing world. but you don't see wisconsin workers and business owners wallowing in crisis or looking for someone to blame. our state motto is one word: "forward."

and that's the only thing we know. in the short time that i've been here, i've made it my mission to fight to make sure that wisconsinites have the tools and skills that they need to succeed in a made in wisconsin economy that revitalizes our manufacturing sector and rebuilds our prosperity. and that means respecting labor. it means investing in regional hubs of collaborative research and development, supporting the technical colleges that are working to provide a skilled work force, and encouraging public and private partnerships to revitalize our manufacturing sector. but it all relies on the talent of individuals who are working hard to help our communities move forward. years ago, john miller, a disabled marine corps veteran who lives near milwaukee, invented a new kind of motorcycle windshield that uses

l.e.d. lights embedded in acrylic. for years he has been working hard to find investors and bring his ideas to market. he's been testing different acrylics, showing off his work at strayed-trade shows, spendings months trying to get approvals from the department of transportation. now, investors are lining up at john's door. harley davidson even wanted to buy his patent. but he doesn't want to just make a profit. he wants to make a difference. so he's holding out until he knows that everything in his product will be made and manufactured in the united states. hopefully, by other disabled veterans who often have a hard time finding work when they come home. wisconsin is full of john millers, ordinary people with ingenuity, with the determination and civic spirit to become not just successful

but engines of economic opportunity for their whole communities, committed to the common good. i am so proud of all the remarkable potential i've seen in wisconsin. the global water center in milwaukee, which will open this summer as an incubator for water technology businesses, the partnership of johnson controls and u.w. milwaukee for an innovation campus research park. the advances in energy efficiency technology being realized at orion energy. the work on sustainable biofuels at the great lakes bioenergy research center in madison and small business incubators across our state helping to build the dreams of entrepreneurs. but these stories of innovation

and cooperation, these exciting opportunities to build an economy made to last, these are happening all over our country. and i'm going to let people in on a little secret. we here in the senate can be innovative, too. we can cooperate. we can be excited by these opportunities. it's true of democrats and republicans alike, because none of us came here just to audition for cable news or to win our next election before the bumper stickers from the last one even come off the cars. i've already had the great joy of working with colleagues from both parties, and i know that neither party has a monopoly on compassion or common sense. there's nothing liberal or conservative about wanting to help our manufacturers compete and win on the world stage. there's not a senator in this

body whose heart hasn't broken when listening to a constituent who just can't seem to get ahead. we can't fix all those gaps in our economy with one bill, around not even fighting -- fighting bob lafollette could close that guide in our political system with one speech. but i'm using my first speech, my first on the senate floor, to say i'm ready to work hard and work with anyone to make progress on these challenges and help move this great country forward. thank you and i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? first before the senator from wisconsin leaves the floor i

just want to indicate how thrilled i am to have another great lakes senator with us in the united states senate, and senator baldwin is an unvaluable member of the budget committee. she's fighting hard for wisconsin agriculture, and now in the middle of the efforts on the farm bill i know she's deeply involved and concerned about our men and women who provide the food that we put on our tables every day, and so we just want to thank you for your leadership. we're just so pleased to have you in the united states senate. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 954, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 73, s. 954, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, we're going to have a vote coming up in -- let's see, in about 20 minutes and it's a vote on my amendment to the -- to the farm bill or the ag bill, however we want to refer it. i'm sorry. i call up senate amendment number 960 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there an objection to setting aside the pending amendment? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. inhofe proposes amendment numbered 960. ms. stabenow: to my distinguished colleague from oklahoma, if i could enter a unanimous consent about the vote. mr. inhofe: yes. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent at 12:00 noon the senate

proceed to vote on the inhofe amendment number 960, that the time be divide between senators inhofe or stabenow or their designees and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: i thank the gentlelady and we will be prepared to vote on an amendment at noon today. in accordance -- it's kind of interesting. when i go back to oklahoma where -- i know this is offensive to some people -- back where normal people are. i was giving to a speech i say to the the gentlelady who is managing the bill. it was did in duncan, oklahoma, where they had the first fracking in 1949. and i tell them about the farm bill, they say what farm bill?

they say 80% of the farm bill is not a farm bill but it's a welfare bill. we're talking about the food stamp program. this is a shocker to people. why would they call this a farm if 80% of it is -- is -- is talking about the food stamp program? $800 billion over ten years. now, in the first five years enrollment of the food stamp program has grown from -- by 70%. i'd say this, madam president, it's gone from 28 million families to 47 million families. that's almost doubling in a period of four years. i know there are a lot of people -- i don't say this critically, there are people who are very liberal who say government should have a greater involvement in our lives and certainly that's what this system is all about, to kind of weigh these things and see. i can't think of anyone who could rationally say that this program of food stamps could

justify being increased by 100% in a period of four years. i mean it kind of reminds me of many years ago when most of us had gone through elementary school, and at that time we heard about alexis de tocqueville, looking at the wealth of the country and the last paragraph of the last chapter says once the people of this country find they can vote themselves money out of the public trust, the system will fail. what he talked about there, it gets to the point where 50% of the people are on the receiving end of government. now, i know that we all remember that and maybe a lot of people think times have changed but you have to stop somewhere. and in -- this amendment i think is the most important amendment on the farm bill. because it actually turns this into a farm bill. i would think people who are concerned with agriculture as i am, oklahoma, my state of oklahoma is a big ag state and it's one that -- you know, i'm

very concerned about agriculture. but i can't find anyone in my state who says this should be a part of a program that would be a charity bill that could be voted on in its own merits not throwing it in with the farm bill. so over the same time period in the last four years this has grown and it's increased by 100% from the costs being $37 billion to $75 billion. that's a 100% increase in one program. enrollment in the program has even increased at an -- and unemployment rate has declined. in 2010 when the average unemployment rate was 9.6% across the country, enrollment was 40.3 million people or families. in 2012, when the unemployment rate was 8%, which is a half -- one and a half percent lower than 2010, enrollment had increased by 46 -- to 46 million people.

unfortunately, the farm bill was written only makes a 4% cut in the program over ten years which is a cut of less than 0.5%. so i think those who say wait a minute we are cutting that program, when you cut it by 0.5% that's not really a cut. let me just -- the amendment is very straightforward, very simple. it says it -- it converts the program into into a block grant so the states will have all authority needed to ensure the program prevents the impoverished from going hungry, the funding provided is sufficient to provide benefits to the same number of participants that we enrolled in the mid 2000's, money would be divided among the states proportionately based on the number of individuals living under the federal poverty line. so it would have to be fair, it's not going according to population, not according to size, not according to wealth but those living under the poverty line.

the new program would give states the ability to keep the money that they receive for five years so that they can build flexibility into their programs, allowing their programs to shrink and grow as the economy changes. after five years, any of the the -- after five years, any unused money would return to the treasury for deficit reduction. now, while the amendment is careful to give states maximum control over the design and implementation of their own programs which is what we want to happen, it does require them to include work requirements, mandatory drug testing and verification of citizenship prior to qualifying anyone to participate in the program. you go out on the street of any of the towns, any of the states of this country and ask, is it unreasonable to require people to have work requirements, certainly the last time we -- the -- when commit president clinton was in office we enacted

some major merms that required, and most of the democrats were supportive of that and people should not be concerned about mandatory drug testing, verification of citizenship. certainly the citizenship thing is something we hear quite often. further, states would not be allowed to authorize users to purchase things like alcohol, tobacco, dog food and things like that. in total, i expect this amendment to save some $300 billion over ten years relative to the current funding baseline. now, i feel very strongly about this. this is one of those issues that people are talking about all over the country. i know when my wife comes back and she talks about people who are there perfectly capable of working coming up and buying things like beer and all this, using food stamps, this is something that offends democrats, republicans, and liberals and conservatives alike throughout america.

so that amendment is going to be coming up at noon, 15 minutes from now, and and i encourage my colleagues to turn the farm bill into a farm bill instet of a charity bill. with that i will yield the floor but if no one else wants to speak i want to make a comment about what's happening in oklahoma. i came back from my state of oklahoma. we've all seen on the media the disaster, the heart wrenching things that are happening in moore, oklahoma. i remember so well 14 years ago in 1999 the same -- another tornado came through. if you look at it, it's on the same path as this tornado that came through two days ago. and it was just about the same devastation. and i stood there and i looked at -- and recalled what i saw in 1999 and i have to tell you, madam president, it was one that just breaks your heart when you see these people.

they were trying to determine -- trying to match up missing parents with missing kids. think about that. we had two schools but one of them, they felt at one time all the kids would have been killed in there, when you look at the rubbish you can't imagine anyone could have survived. and yet some did survive. in the early reports of the deaths were a lot higher but the deaths are very important but that's not the only thing. there are people in the hospitals right now that are -- that are trying -- one of the hospitals had to evacuate every bed in that hospital when they saw it coming and it's a miracle not one person, not one of the persons who was in that hospital was killed. no no one can understand how that could have happened. but we watched this going on. and seeing parents -- you know, i've got 20 kids and grandkids, and i just can't imagine what it would be like to go through something like that. i have to say this, that the federal government, the state

government, the county government, the city of oklahoma city, the city of -- of moore and all the private sector have joined in together. i've never seen any effort, including the 1999 effort, that really drew people together like this. we have people that are -- companies and there are -- there are a lot of people who are builders and developers who have heavy equipment and trucks and things like that and they're donating that to -- to this cause, to help these people. so i want everyone to pray for these people, for the families, and for us to pull together and make this thing survivable. i know that we live, that oklahoma's in the tornado belt. everybody reminds me of that all the time and it's true. i can remember being involved in close -- and either there at the time or right after almost every tornado in the last 25 or 30 years. little town of pitcher, oklahoma, a tiny tornado, but it

wiped out everything. and that's the thing that's characteristic about tornadoes. no one survives, with one exception, they're now talking about maybe accelerating the number of safe rooms and tornado shelters. this is a program started in 1999 and i can't tell you -- we're trying to evaluate right now how many people in moore, oklahoma, are alive today because they actually took advantage of that program. and i can assure thaw many more will now -- assure you that many more will now. i don't want to hog the time. there are others who want to talk on this bill. but i just want to say we in oklahoma appreciate the love and help from all government levels as well as private-sector levels and ask sincerely for the prayers of everyone within earshot of me right now. i will yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. before speaking on the amendment, i want to share, as i know everyone in the senate wants to share, their thoughts and prayers with the people of oklahoma. as the distinguished senator from oklahoma knows, i have a

strong connection with oklahoma. my mom grew up on a farm in -- picking cotton in oklahoma, and we've talked before about my grandparents, until they passed away, being there. and it was a wonderful trip for my family to go every summer to oklahoma, ponka city the -- in later years with my grandparents to visit every summer. and i'll never forget that in the backyard, my grandparents had a tornado shelter basically. it was on a little mound of dirt and you opened up the door. it looked just like dorothy and the "wizard of oz," opening the door and going down into the cellar. and we had a couple of times when in the middle of the night we had to get up and go use the cellar, and i know how frightening that was for me as a child to experience that. and i know that the storms have just gotten more and more and

more intense with more and more devastation. and we all hope for the very, very best in the recovery for all the families involved. mr. inhofe: if i could just respond, i do recall -- you're talking about your years and your family, your background in oklahoma. the only thing i disagree with is we've always had this -- really, statistics show they're not getting more intense, they're not getting worse. they're just bad. i mean, the people are -- and -- and the -- the storm shelters that you're talking, the gentlelady from michigan is talking about, you drive through oklahoma in the rural areas, everybody's got those. we dug them and -- because we've been used to that for many, many years. now the major difference here is in the major cities or the -- the cities, they don't have them like they do. i'd say 95% of them in the rural areas do. but the ones in the cities, maybe a half of 1%. so that's going to be getting some attention from us. and i thank you for your remarks. ms. stabenow: thank you very

much. madam president, i do rise in opposition to the amendment. i appreciate the -- the concerns raised by the senator but i rise in strong opposition to block granting and cutting the food assistance program called snap, supplemental nutrition assistance program, for our country. i have always viewed, as chair of the agriculture committee, two programs very similarly. one, crop insurance that's there when there's a disaster for a farmer. and snap, or the food assistance program, which is there when there's a disaster for a family. they both go up when the disasters go up. they both go up in cost. they go down when things get better. so when we have droughts, when we have what we've had happening to our farmers over the last year and before, we see costs go up for crop insurance. we don't cap that arbitrarily, saying we don't like these

droughts, we don't like these freezes, we don't like all this stuff so even though it's real for the farmers, we're just going to cap how much we'll help them. crop insurance is there. same thing is true for a family. it wasn't that long ago -- in fact, the beginning of 2009, when we in michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country. i believe it hit 15.7% unemployment at that time. we had an awful lot of people at that time and many that have continued as -- although things are getting a lot better -- who've paid taxes all their lives, never thought in their wildest dreams they would ever need help putting food on the table for their families. but they did. and it's temporary. the average length of time that someone needs help is ten mont months. but i consider that to be a point of pride for our country that we have a value system that

says, we're going to make sure when families are hit on hard times through no fault of their own, that they're not going to starve. that they're going to be able to put food on the table for their children. i think that's the best about us. and now that things are getting better and the unemployment rate is coming down, the costs of these programs is coming down. our farm bill shows a cut in spending not because we've decided we're only going to help some people and not other peop people, some children not other children. but because people are going back to work. they don't need -- they don't need the help anymore. so we are seeing those lines go down. by the way, as crop insurance goes up, because disasters and weather have gone up, we're seeing family disasters going down, which is where we want it to go. but unfortunately this amendment would cap the amount of help that we would give on

supplemental nutrition, would cap it for 2014 at just over half of the current levels. so we would say, we don't care how many families have a problem, we don't care what happens, we don't care what happens because of weather that wipes out a business and suddenly folks who've worked hard all their lives find they need some help that they never thought that they would need. this would arbitrarily cap at just over half the current levels needed to maintain the current help. it would mean absolutely devastating results for millions of families that are trying to feed their children. and if you consider the fact that about 47% of those who get help right now are children, almost half of the food help in this country is for children, and then you add to that another 17% are for senior citizens and the disabled and you put that together, you find that this amendment would be insufficient to even cover those individuals alone, let alone the other 37%

of men and women who get help right now. unfortunately block granting this program would not only -- and capping it and cutting it would not only hurt families who are counting on us for temporary help, but it would create a situation where we couldn't respond during an economic recession like we can right now. again, crop insurance, we respond. there's a disaster, costs, spending goes up. i support that. but in this area, if we are capping and block granting and sending it back to the states, there would be no ability to be able to do that. the other thing that i think is -- is absolutely true for many of our states, and certainly unfortunately, i regret to say, in my own state right now is a fact, is that by

block granting and not requiring that the dollars be used for food assistance for families, there is no guarantee that would go to food assistance. none. when we look at the pressures on budgets in other areas for critical needs and -- or things that people feel are important, we have absolutely no guarantee that this would go to food for families. we have a very efficient program right now. we've got one of the best error rates of any federal program right now. maybe the lowest. and we are able to efficiently support families and do it in a way that guarantees they actually get the nutritious food that they need. so i am deeply concerned about the amendment. i do not support it. i think it takes us in exactly the wrong direction as a country. it leaves a whole lot of

families high and dry in an economic disaster or any kind of disaster that could occur for them, when at their most vulnerable pointed, when they're trying to figure out what to do to get back on their feet, we create a situation where they don't even have enough food for their families to be able to feed them during their economic crisis. so i strongly urge colleagues to vote "no" on the amendment. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield for a question? ms. stabenow: i would be happy to. mr. inhofe: in listening to your comments and your opposition to this amendment, it occurred to me that, do you see that there's anything wrong with the fact that this program has increased by 100% in the last four years? in the costs? and, secondly, do you find it -- nothing objectionable about projecting this for another four years to be another 100% increase in costs? ms. stabenow: well, first, to my

friend from oklahoma, i would say that the budget office has indicated it will not only not go up 100% -- another 100%, it's going down. so they've projected about $11.5 billion reduction that we've put into our farm bill. it's going down because the economy's getting better. we do know that in food assistance, as the unemployment rate goes up, one of the lagging indicators, the things that aren't affected as quickly in coming down is food assistance for families. so it's now coming down. in my judgment, it's coming down the way it should come down, which is the fact that people are going back to work. that's why it's coming down. and, again, to just arbitrarily cap something as basic as food going on the table for a family is something that i -- i just, with all due respect, don't support. mr. inhofe: yes. and i would only ask one last question.

the fact that you believe that it's going to be going down, it did not go down when the unemployment rate went down between the two years of 2010 and 2011. what would be different about this time? ms. stabenow: here's what we are finding, and it's not my belief, it's the c.b.o. scoring. so the budget office that we rely on, objective scoring, not my judgment, is telling us it's going down. you're correct, it's slow to go down. as the unemployment goes down, it takes a little longer before food help goes down because we do provide some help to people as they're getting back to work, even if they're not at full speed yet, back to work. so it does go down more slowly. but they have projected over the next ten years that, in fact, the spending on food assistance is going down because the economy is getting better. and that comes from the c.b.o. and is built into the dollars that we have. mr. inhofe: sure.

well, one last question. that -- even though i disagree with your answer to the second question, the first question w was, do you find it to be objectionable that that increased by 100% over the past four years, from 2008? ms. stabenow: what i find objectionable is so many people lost their jobs, because the reason that went up is that people were out of work. and so i find that objectionable because a lot of those folks were in my state. and so i've worked very hard to do everything i can to support the private sector. and we're seeing -- the good news is, is manufacturing's coming back and agriculture is strong and -- and moving forward. and so in my judgment, yes, i find it very concerning that more people needed help putting food on their table. the good news is, is that less of them are going to in the next decade. and that's because people are going to be getting back to work. i believe our time -- our time i

believe at this point has expired. i don't know if we have others that wish to speak at this poi point. i would ask for the yeas and nays, madam president, on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: