or public commitment to with you continue to work, in implementing a national freight policy? >> senator, i'm very excited about this initiative, and i want to thank you for your leadership on it. freight is a critical player in our economy. and can be an even greater force in our ability to reach out into global markets and to move goods quickly within our borders. i am aware that there is activity associated with populating the national freight council, and that the national freight strategic plan is going to be the product of a lot of stakeholders coming together. and i really am excited about the possibility of working with you and others on the project. >> one of the issues related to the is the level of congestion that affects our ports, or affects our roadways in moving u.s. products to their destinations. some estimates are that cost

u.s. business more than $200 billion a year. so do you believe there's a need to establish a dedicated source of funding for nationally and regionally significant freight mobility project? >> i think it's something that should be looked at, and i'm sure would be looked at by the freight council. and as the process moves forward i look forward to working with account details and let the ideas that come out of it. >> thank you. very washington state centered issue, our ferry system carries in the more than double the amount of people compared to the amtrak northeast corridor. our ferries are like many of the national transportation systems. they face congestion our problems. but often times the funding falls between the cracks and so i want to make sure that i have your assurances that the ferry system in funding from the department of transportation will receive the support that they deserve, as part of our national highway system.

>> i will absolutely work to advocate for critical expectation systems, and, obviously, in washington state, the ferry system is one of those. >> thank you. one of the priorities that chairman rockefeller under his leadership has, the aviation safety act of 2010, and this was to address the aftermath of the 2009 colgan air crash, something that included several rule makings which have been completed but there are some that still haven't. administrator told the committee multiple times that new rules for pilot qualifications for these regional aircraft will be completed before august 1, 2013. this is something that's very important too many of us on the committee, and wanted to get your support and confirming the committee can count on you to ensure that these rules to get implemented, or i should say

published by the august 1 deadline. >> my understanding is that the process is on track, and i would look forward to working to meet those deadlines if confirmed. >> okay. and one less issue if i could get you thought that is the transparency and airline ticket pricing. last year, airlines collected about 6 billion in baggage and reservations change the some passengers but because of the growing menu of ancillary fees, it's been increasingly difficult for consumers to compare and shop for airfares. and i know that there's been a lot going on both with the department and challenges by the airlines to some of these rules before, an in almost all the wao the supreme court. so i know that there are some proposed airline tickets, transparency rules now under review by omb, but i wanted to get your thoughts on the boards of giving consumers better information so that they can make the right pricing

decisions. >> well, as someone who purchased airline tickets decatur, i certainly would support -- tickets decatur, i know i to consume and other consumers know what they are being charged for. and, of course, the process as you just described are in process and are being worked through with stakeholders and i certainly would like to have a chance to hear all sides of those issues as they move along, but as a consumer i certainly understand. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cantwell. senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mayor foxx, welcome. >> thank you. >> congratulations on your nomination. i appreciate your coming by my office. we had i think a very good, productive conversation and i appreciate your time here answering our questions. i'd like to follow up on a couple of areas that you and i discussed in my office.

>> short. >> and i want to start by revisiting a conversation you had just a moment ago with senator blunt, concerning the faa air traffic controller furloughs and sequestration. in my judgment the sequestration funding levels are quite likely to continue. and, indeed, given the fiscal and economic challenges we have, we may see even further budgetary cuts at some point in the future. and quite a few of us had been concerned that the administration in implement and sequestration has been looking for ways to implement those cuts that are visible and painful and exacerbate the pain of the cuts. and, indeed, quite a few of us i think believe that the air traffic controller furloughs was an example of that. can we have a commitment from you in implementing

sequestration and implementing whatever further budget cuts may occur down the road that you will employ your very best efforts to target waste fraud or abuse, to target redundancy, to target ways to trim the fat and tightened the belt while minimizing the pain and inconvenience to customers, to the american people while minimizing unnecessary inconvenience to consumers? >> well, thank you for the question, send it to, and i did enjoyed our visit. i've been telling people that they seem to act surprised i don't know why but i've had a good visit with you. let me say that a couple things, i come from local government where you've got to work within what you have. and as i said in response to senator fischer, i will be

looking for ways to help the department, not only work more efficiently, but to be even more effective at what it is charged to carry out. but i don't enter into this presupposing what that actually plays out into in terms of actual reductions or whatever. i still actually have hope that this country will develop a broader approach to both deficit reduction and investing in infrastructure. i'm hopeful that we can get there, but if not, what you can count on from is that i will do my best to make the best of the situation we have, with sequestration if that is indeed what we have. i cannot guarantee that they will be painless choices. by definition, the sequester is a bit of a blunt instrument, and

my guess is that given the fact that three quarters of the departments budget isn't subject to the sequester, and yet the overall caps on spending our, that there will probably be some places where there is significant pain. but i don't walk into the door looking to make life miserable for people. i walk in the door trying to help make our transportation system work. >> and so it's fair to say that you'd look for ways to minimize the pain and not to exacerbate it? >> i would look for ways to make our department function as effectively as possible with the least amount of pain possible, but i think we're in a situation with th sequester where there's going to be paying. >> i'd like to shift to another topic that you and i think had a very productive conversation and that is impact of government regulation, regarding economic growth, telling jobs, and the

need for regulatory reform, which is a principle that the president has publicly espoused. and in our conversation you likewise expressed significant agreement, is that a fair characterization? >> regarding regular burdens? >> yes. >> yes. and i think the president agrees with that. he has issued executive orders regarding across agencies asking them to review their regulations to figure out ways to streamli streamline, and as recent as last week announced another streamlining set of provisions. so i think that there is broad agreement. if we can streamline processes, make them move more efficiently and effectively and deliver projects faster, that's good for the country. >> i would note that just recently the congressional research service released a report that indicates that there in the first four years of

president obama's of administration, that the administration issued more than 13,000 final rules, which was substantially more than its predecessor. and, indeed, there were 330 major rules, rules that have economic impact of $100 million or greater. and that represented a 24% increase from the second term of the bush administration. and given the concerns you raised about working to minimize the harm of regulations, would you agree in your first 100 days as secretary, if you are confirmed, to work to identify at least three regulations within your purview that, in your judgment, are unduly burdensome? and to work with me to ameliorate that burden? >> senator, let me say this, that if i find 10 that we can

eliminate or reduce, i'd like to do that, but i can't do it blindly. i'm not in the job now. if confirmed, i would like an opportunity to visit with you and extend this conversation and see where we can take things. but, you know, there are, my interest is in making sure that this department continue to serve its mission. so safety, critical mission of the agency. there are a lot of ways in which the agency touches on the environment, and so to the extent that we can figure out ways to minimize the burden without compromising safety, without compromising the delivery of projects and so forth, i think that we have some common ground that we can work on but i couldn't do you chapter

and verse where that is today. >> i will certainly accept as a friendly amendment to work on 10 instead of three. [laughter] and if i may ask the chairman's indulgence to ask one additional question although my time is expired, and the final question i wanted to ask is, there's a provision in map-21 that allows states to assume responsibilities for environmental studies and clearances. and one of the significant impediments to building new transportation projects can be those clearances. it's referred to as -- and prejudice your california was the only state to assume meet the delegation. the state of texas and now embarking on the same path, into the legislation recent past legislation, the governor cited the duties of california has ordered been able to realize a 25% cost and time savings as a result of the delegation.

and texas will now have to petition the department to the granite authority. and if you are confirmed i wanted to ask your approach as how you approach that petition that will be forthcoming. >> well, of course there are systems in place to review those types of petitions, and have to have the information in front of me with the recommendation from the department to be able to view. but i think that if we can find ways, this is another way to streamline processes, if the requirements are met and we can afford i look forward to doing that, but i would count that as one of the 10. [laughter] >> we all agreed on that. and let me say thank you for your candor. i look forward to are working

together, and i look forward to supporting your nomination, thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator. mr. mayor, there are actually no more questions, i don't think, but i want to make a statement which partly arises from this hearing. which i've been living with as somebody who represents west virginia where there are needs, human and physical of vast proportions, and it's a very small state. and that is, in a sense, really the hypocrisy that we put you through a nomination hearing, and everybody asks for infrastructure as the lifeblood of the country and nextgen is so important, and there are 13,000 or whatever it is, and then

people talk about minimizing pain. as opposed to not maximizing pain, as if that is a brighter light. what is needed in this country for you to be a successful secretary of transportation, and for us to be a successful country, is a willingness to bite the bullet which some in this congress, in both houses, refused to bend to, thus causing others who would bend to it not to bend to it, because of the fear of what would happen in the next primary. and has developed into a fairly fine art, and it is the fastest way to destroy the future of our country that i can possibly think of.

because the prospect is based upon the fact that if you simply eliminate all those regulations, and certainly don't do any tolls and raised no revenues, that by simply avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse which i've been hearing for 50 years in government, which is certainly pertinent and will be done, you know, medicaid and medicare, pretty hard to find that stuff. medicaid and medicare so much more efficient than the private health care system is not even close. they are about two or 3% of administrative costs. but, no, you don't want to do that because if you expand medicaid, the senators state has rejected that, and has enormous number of uninsured citizens.

but that seems to be okay. we cannot achieve greatness again as the country without having research, without having infrastructure, without having trained people, without having business having confidence in the future, and thus deciding to invest in the future because they see that we in the government are willing to invest in our future, and they know as well as we do. they don't want their taxes to skyrocket, but they know as do a lot of people with a lot of money that you can't wish for something, or you can't minimize your self integrated. you can minimize your self into a minimal thing, and you can feel good all along, and winning election after election and that you are doing the country no favors. so when you talk, and that old

-- and i don't want you to say one word in response to this -- affect when you talk about, you know, doing all the things that you've been asked to do, they will cost money, and you can come you can get all the squeezing and tightening. i just can't wait for you to take a look at the faa and find all the money just sitting there waiting for you to squeeze a couple billion dollars out. the size of the u.s. government and the number of people is smaller than anytime since dwight eisenhower. now, i don't think there's any american that knows that, and the press certainly doesn't talk about that. it just to be that we were constantly beseiged with talks with sermons on our deficit problems, and how that was a symbol of how america was

wasting, just wasting. and, of course, now the deficit is beginning to fix everything is changed to the debt. none of that is what i want to safety. what i want to say to you is i want you to be a good secretary of transportation, and you cannot do that without new revenue and you cannot do that without goading us in the congress, which will be hard. you've got to get oem be to agree to it but sometimes, you, your predecessor was pretty good going around saying what you want and getting away with it. you can't do that without revenue. you can't, you can't pretend that everything stands still for the last 10 years and you have no more money to do it. and expect to have it. you won't have the greatest. you won't have resources. you won't have infrastructure.

great to talk about infrastructure bank. great to talk about the $3 billion sitting in the coffers of the american enterprise system, but that $3 trillion would come out if they felt that they weren't going to have to do the whole thing all by themselves. people need to pay on a fair basis, personal taxes. we need to raise in this country if we're going to cure cancer, diabetes, or all the other things that plague us, as well as get rid of mercer, which is one of the great chillers in our society, and basically a hospital, hospital bathrooms that are not clean. work on that is being done on the international space station to try to get the cure for mrsa which is most people don't know about but it's a terrible killer in this country. there's no cure for it. so i just, i want to register a strong counter voice about, i

totally believe in america's future. but we're not going to get there is all of our demands of you, and our aspirations for you, our that you can't have more people. you will do that necessarily as a manager because managers know how to do that, as governors do. i had to lay off 10,000 people once when i was governor. and it's no fun but you do what you've got to do, but to simply accept the premise, i mean, being a mayor frank is not the same thing as being the president or a congressperson. we have national responsibilities. you don't have, you're going to build a fast freight system are a fast rail system, you don't do it intrastate. you do at interstate, and it's a

larger function. if you're going to do, take the cdc seriously or take the and the h. series a or the national science foundation seriously by the national institute of science and technology seriously, if you're going to take cybersecurity seriously, if you're going to take any of these things safely, if you take our economy seriously or we will have to spend money. and a great game around it is you just don't talk about it. you just don't talk about it. because there is some that can't wait for you to do it is so that they can get somebody to run against you for the next primary. the beauty of politics is when politics overcomes that kind of smallness. the and beauty of politics is when politics, when that's not possible. when people are driven into submission about honest answers for the future of our country.

so i will simply conclude by saying that they hope that you will push us, and the director of omb is a west virginian. so by definition, i'm a, south dakota, that's about as good as you can get. she is a west virginian and she's, understands the problems of small rural states, and the whole country in which she is working. but go does. you can't do something because you can do the money to do it. let us have it. express your frustrations. say i've squeeze this, i squeeze that, i squeeze that. nextgen i can't do. don't have the money for it. or, you know, safety inspections of their lines or safety inspections of parts of new planes, each one of which, and i've seen this, we tried to develop a jet in west virginia and ther over 13,000 parts to tt

which are individually inspected inspectors from i guess the faa, individually inspected. you cut the faa way back, those people disappear, innovation, entrepreneurship and disappears. you don't necessarily create an entrepreneurial society by starving it. you don't do it by burying it in taxes. you do it by something that is responsible, and responsible means that you have revenues and your discipline, you have focus, you have leadership. but you have the money to do what you've got to do, whether it's the military or whether it's the rest of the country. so i would ask that you keep that in mind, and unless my colleague wants to say something. >> well, mr. chairman, if i can

just add to what you said, and i do have another question to two, perhaps i can put those on the record. i think the one thing that i would just, observation of make with regard to where we are, and the one thing we can't do, and this is what i asked the question about the next i would bill and what you saw your role as being. we cannot continue to borrow from the general fund to fund highways. we either have to decide that we are going to pay for it and figured how we're going to do, or ramp down a loss of appetite when it comes to ever touch. the one outcome that is not acceptable to me is to continue to borrow and transfer from the general fund and basically put that on the backs of our children and grandchildren. and my frustration has been, is that when the deity secretaries, in front of the committee and we've asked for specific examples, suggestions about how to do that, you know, we are as giddy as we work with you and congress and we understand. we've got to play a role in that, too, but i also hope you will lead, the president will

lead, and come up and put specific ideas on the table about how to solve these problems. infrastructure is important but it's important to our country, it's important our competitors, important to our economy. and the best way to deal with debt and deficits is to get a growing, expanding economy. and so everything that we do we not have a focus on. what will this do to grow the economy, create jobs and improve the take-home pay of middle-class americans, and i think a robust, strong infrastructure that supports that economy is medical and vital to the. but it's got to be paid for. and i hope that you'll get your pencils out and find as many settings as you can within the department's budget and look at the ways in doing things more efficiently. but then when it comes to putting proposals forward with regard, for example, to the next highway bill to be specific and come at us with your ideas, and

we will try to work with you. so thank you, mr. chairman. and i do have a question if i might, i want to get you on the record on this because i mentioned in our meeting that senator mccaskill and i were successful last you in enacting the european trading scheme prohibition act. and based on our discussion i think you're familiar with the issue and i just want to know if you're prepared to exercise your authority granted in the law to protect u.s. aviation users on ill effect if necessary? >> absolutely. >> and speak he feels respond with it and i agreed. >> okay. and do you believe that that is, icao was the place which operates international consensus is the proper venue and manner to address international aviation emissions reductions? >> i do. >> good. we may be facing the issue here again in the not-too-distant future to look forward to working with you on that. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mayor. it's an art have you in front of us, and we wish you well. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator thune.

i a journalist this hearing on the presumption that you will just ride the fast rail. hearing adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> after president grover cleveland loses his bid for reelection in 1888, his wife tells the staff, i want you to take good care of all the furniture and ornaments in the house and not let any of them get lost or broken. i want to find everything just as it is now. when we come back again for years from today. spent and they did return to the white house winning the election of 1892. the life of frances cleveland as we continue our series on first ladies, live monday night at nine eastern on c-span, c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the u.s. senate is about to meet. senators began the day with about an hour of general speeches. at 10:30 a.m. eastern they turn to a judicial nomination for the

u.s. appeals court. the senate will vote on moving the nomination forward and then a vote on a farm bill a minute. senator bernie sanders requires cynically engineered food is labeled as such. several other amendments are pending to the farm bill. the house is in. they take up the student loan bill debate on that on c-span, and now the senate here on thesidin c-span2.g senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by rabbi michael beals, congregation beth shalom this wilmington, delaware. the guest chaplain: let us join together in prayer. let us join together in prayer. ribbonolam -- master of the universe: we send our first words of prayer to the residents of moore, oklahoma. may it be your will that those who are missing be found alive

and be cared for. send comfort to those who have suffered loss -- and, with the help of those gathered here, send the resources required to rebuild. eternal our god, you commanded us to care for the widow, the orphan, and you commanded us to care for -- so appropriate today -- the stranger in our midst. thank you for giving our nation these esteemed united states senators to help us, as a nation, fulfill the command to care for the most vulnerable in our midst. into each of these honorable united states senators you have implanted your divine spark. help these senators, your humble servants, find a way of working together, for the common good. in doing so, may they thus take their individual, holy, inner

lights and join them together, creating one, unified shaft of light so strong that it will shine clear up to the firmament above. we pray this in your sacred and holy name. and let us all say, 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 23, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby

appoint the honorable brian schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm going to have a few things to say, as will senator mcconnell, but now i would yield to my friend from delaware, the junior senator from delaware, and i would ask unanimous consent that when senator mcconnell and i finish our remarks that he be recognize trecognized to speak for up to six, seven -- seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: thank you, senator reid. thank you for the opportunity to recognize and celebrate this ths morning's chaplain. rabbi michael beals has served our community in wilmington, delaware, our country with the strength you heard this morning in this morning's prayer. he is joined by his wife, a caring veterinarian, and his

daughter and many other family and friends. he has a wonderful education having studied at the american university, the university of california at berkeley. in addition to his remarkable education, he is someone who is profoundly grounded in the calling, in the challenge of rebuild being. as you heard in his reflectionist prayer this morning, he is someone who cares deeply for the widow, the orphan, the stranger. i'm grateful for the chance to add his voice to the many who have brought this senate into session year in and year out over the centuries, and i'm grateful for his friendship and his leadership in my hometown of wilmington, delaware. thank you. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: with the republican leader's consent, i would ask unanimous consent that the senior senator from delaware be allowed to say a few words regarding our guest chaplain today. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. carper: thank you, leader. mr. president, senator coons and i spent a couple of lovely hours together in the synagogue of michael beals last saturday, as his daughter was going through bat mitzvah. i'll never forget that. what a joy for everyone there. a source of family pride for the father, the mom, and for the rabbi to be there with your daughter on that special day. to my colleagues i would just say, one of the things i pray fofor every day is that we'll fd our way it a two-state solution in the middle east that provides a homeland -- a capital for the palestinians and security for the people of israel and peace for the people of israel. there's a great partnership in our state between rabbi beals' synagogue and my church, and a number of other chuff churches f different faiths. i want tot to thank you for your

commitment to those across the world to a eell really big troue spot that needs our attention. i thank you for your prayer and mr. leader thank youer letting me say a few word. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 this morning. time will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. president, if the republicans want to use the extra time because of my two democrats here, i have no problem with that. the chair will moi ho will knowh time was taken by senator coons and senator carper. at 10:30 there will be two roll call votes, first a cloture vote on the srikanth srinivasan whom nation for the d.c. circuit and a second on the sanders amendment to the farm bill of managers will continue to work through amendments on the farm bill today.

senators will be notified when additional votes are scheduled. i would vote note we're going to see if we can get a finite list of amendments today on the farm bill. senator stabenow and cochran are working on that. that would be nice if we could do that. also, we hope we can work something out so we can finish our work today. if we don't, then we'll have to be here tomorrow in the afternoon to finish this circuit court thing. mr. president, i have -- i grew up what i wanted to be was a baseball player as a boy. didn't take long till i learned that i wasn't big enough, fast enough, or good enough to be the baseball player of my dreams. but that hasn't taken away my love of the game. i follow it so cellulosel close, many years. i was a cheerleader for any team that greg mad dock was on.

he came from valley high school in las vegas, almost immediately was a star baseball player in the major leagues. whatever team he was on was the team that i cheered for. i've been in washington now for a number of years. they've had in recent years a professional baseball team. i'm reminded, mr. president, when i was going to law school and working in this building, i went to griffith stadium and watched baseball games. i only watched two. but i watched the washington senators play the new york yankees twice, so i remember that. and in recent years, in fact the last two years, i have focused on the nationals a lot because of another phenomenon from las vegas by the name of bryce harper. and he's meant so much to that team, as we learned last night. he is recovering from running into the wall at full speed, hurting himself. but last night he was the reason

they won. he hit a home run and a double in the tenth inning and made a sensational catch. he was very, very good. the reason i mention that is because davy johnson is the manager of the washington nationals. he has managed five different major league baseball teams he is one of the greatest managers in the history of baseball. he won pennants, won national championships. but what would the washington nationals be like today if he didn't have the ability to have the players he wanted? that there's -- someone would say, okay, you can have your third baseman ryan zimmermann, but you can wait until august. we'll let him come in in august. or their first baseman la roche, he is a good first baseman,

golden glover. you can't have him for a while. wait for a few months and then we can bring him on. well, that, mr. president, is an example of what is going on here in the united states national. the president of the united states does not have the team that he wants, the team that he deserves. yesterday my friend -- and he is my friend -- the minority leader, offered a full-throated defense of the dysfunctional status quo here on capitol hill. here's what he said. quote -- "you i think we've depend straighted there's no real problem here." end of quote talking about the senate. this he said yesterday on this floor. congress has an approval rating that i don't even like to talk about. it is real low. senator mcconnell stood on the senate floor and said things here in congress are going just fine. i think it's safe to say, americans disagree. and, mr. president, i am on their side.

senator mcconnell is free to defend this republican-created logjam that exists in the senate today, but i'll not join him in this defense. the problem with gridlock in washington is real and it must be fixed. i'm committed to making the senate work again. these remarks i'm giving here today are only an effort to get this body to work well. there is no -- nothing sin tear in what i am saying. i just want the senate to work well. i have been here a long time, mr. president. and it didn't work this way of b despite the agreement we reached in january of this year, republican obstruction on nominees continues unabated, no different than it was the last congress. the minority leader used strong words yesterday accusing me of going back on my word. i take that accusation very seriously. it is through in january democrats and republicans entered into an agreement. republicans agreed to cease the

endless obstruction of presidential nominees. they agreed that they would work with us. quote -- "to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner, except in extraordinary circumstances." end of quote. now, mr. president, this is what he said, the minority leader said. i just quoted that. he said it this year. i repeat, "republicans agreed they would no longer block the president's nominees without extraordinary circumstances." mr. president, look at the dictionary about "extraordinary circumstances." here is how it is defined. "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary." that's not some definition i came up with. that's the definition in the dictionary. "extraordinary" is detined as "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary." in run for that i remember saying that's what they would do, we agreed that we would not consider any changes to the senate rules outside of regular order.

democrats have kept our words. we intend to keep our word. we have not altered the rules sm.since we entered that that, republicans have failed to hold up their end of the bargain. what they have done has not been usual, regular, or customary. not only have they not scheduled with us to schedule votes in a timely manner, they're doing everything they can to deny the president his team and thus undermine become's presidency. so instead of throwing about acould yoaccusations, let's stie facts. republican obstruction has slowed down nearly every nominee that president obama has submitted. even cabinet secretaries have faced unparalleled procedural hurdles. and republicans are threatening to block many more of them. for example, in the some 230-plus years we have been a country, for the first time in the history of this country while a war is going on and one

is winding down -- for the first time in the history of this country, senate republicans filibustered the nomination of secretary of defense, chuck hagel, who, by the way, is a republican and, by the way, is a vietnam hero for his combat activities there, and was a republican senator from nebraska. the minority leader himself is threatening to block president obama's nominee for secretary of labor, and he said so. secretary of labor is a good person. mr. president, he put himself through school working a as garbage man. his parents are immigrants. republicans on the -- now, mr. president, what we have done here for generations of the senate is we have hearings on these nominees. and that's the way it should be and there in recent years have

been, after the hearings have taken place, a senator will say, i have a few more questions. we'll send them. and there were two, three, four, five questions. but secretary geithner, who recently resigned as secretary of treasury, he got 28 questions. but, mr. president, -- mr. mcconnell: would the senator yield for a question? mr. reid: i'm going to finish my statement. mr. president, we understand that now what has happened in these committees is that they ask all the questions they wanted to. that's not good enough for them. 28 questions is not enough. for example, on gina mccarthy, she would be his director of environment and public works -- the e.p.a. -- i'm sorry. more than 1,100 questions were submitted to her after the

hearing. jack lew who has had many, many jobs in the government, he had a full hearing. they gave him more than 700 questions to answer. this has gotten way out of hand. anything they can do to slow things down, that's what they do. the executive and judicial nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the senate are pending an average of 200 days, more than six months. mr. president, listen to that. executive and judicial nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the senate have been pending an average of 200 days. that's more than six months. the confirmation process is moving at glacial pace because of extraordinary republican obstruction. cloture has been filed on 58 of president obama's nominees. 58. by this point in president bush's term cloture had been filed on a handful of nominees.

but republicans are not blocking these nominations because they object to the qualifications of the nominees. we passed in this body something called dodd-frank. it was an answer to what was going on on wall street, the collapse of wall street. richard, cordray is a perfect example. he was nominated by the president of the united states almost two years ago, 23 months ago. the republicans aren't concerned about his ability to do the job. they're afraid, i guess, he can do his job too well. he's extremely well qualified. if anything, they're concerned that he might do the job: protecting consumers from the kind of corporate greed that collapsed the financial markets in the first place. if he received an up-or-down vote here today, he would be approved in a milli second,

however long it takes to call the roll. a couple of other examples. we talked yesterday about the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit, some saeut most important -- say the most important court in america, more important than the supreme court, has 11 spots. justice roberts went to the supreme court in 2005. his spot has not been filled yesterday. we tried. we had two filibusters stopping that. we have four vacancies there. president obama is the first president in more than 50 years who has not had an appointment confirmed at the d.c. circuit. but it's not because we haven't tried. for example, kate halligan, tried to get her for four years. filibustered twice. the seat for which she was nominated was the seat vacated by justice roberts in 2005. today it's 2013. do the math. now republicans have forced cloture on this nomination even

though srikanth srinivasan was nominated by the d.c. circuit a year ago. but even though it was reported out of the committee unanimously, no, we're going to stall. we're not going to have a vote. the nominee has wide bipartisan support, it appears, from both sides of the aisle. if he was reported out of the committee unanimously, i would assume that is the case. neither stellar qualifications nor bipartisan support is tphouf tphouf -- enough to prevent republican obstructionism. court the research department first term judicial nominees reported out of committee unanimously have waited nine times longer to be confirmed than under president bush. president obama's first-term district court nominees waited five times longer than those previously. first-term circuit court nominees have waited more than seven times longer. yesterday the republican leader

raised an example of judges who proved they are willing to support our nominees. wyoming, as i indicated yesterday, there may be a more republican state in the union. i don't know where it is. i said let's do him yesterday. let's do him wednesday. the republican leader said no. it doesn't take a mathematician to figure why we have a judicial vacancy crisis in this country. we can talk about all the -- well, we cleared most of the calendar. i take the senate's charge to advise and consent very seriously. the republicans corrupted the founders' intent blocking qualified nominees for the slightest reason, if no reason. president obama stefrbs to choose his -- deserves to choose his team. i believe any president deserves his or her team. the republicans have obstructed the president's nominees. this has created an unworkable standard where minor issues are

raised to block major nominees or require a 60-vote supermajority for nomination. before the republican president accuses me of going back on my word, he should take a long look in the mirror and spend some time in honest reflex of republicans' -- reflection of republicans own actions because he claims there is no real problem here. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: according to the congressional research service, president obama has had his cabinet nominees confirmed quicker -- quicker -- than his predecessors during the same period the second term. quicker. i don't know what the majority leader thinks advise and consent means. listening to him, it means sit down, shut up, don't ask any questions, and confirm immediately. i don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind.

talk about manufacturing a problem. the secretary of energy 97-0. the secretary of interior, 87-11. the secretary of treasury 71-26. office of management and budget 96-0. secretary of the 94-3, in just seven days. seven days. what we just heard here from my good friend, the majority leader, in spite of the baseball analogy is that -- and i read in the papers this morning, he's been meeting with his members trying to get 51 votes to blow the senate up. we've got important issues coming down the pike. we want to finish the farm bill. we've been working hard to develop a broad bipartisan support for an immigration bill. we know what's going on here.

what i fear is the majority leader is working his way toward breaking his word to the senate and to the american people, and blowing up this institution and making it extremely difficult for us to operate on the collegial basis we've operated on for over 200 years. he wants to have no debate. do what i say, and do it now. this is the culture of intimidation that we've seen at the i.r.s., that we've seen at h.h.s., is he f.e.c., at the s.e.c. and now here in the senate. do what i say when i say it. sit down, shut up. or we'll change the rules. we'll break the rules to change the rules. now, we need to think over how

we conduct ourselves in this body. the majority leader has a very important position. it's not only to lead the party of the majority, it is also to protect the institution. what i hear lacking in that speech is any interest whatsoever in protecting the traditions of this institution. what i hear is we're going to get our way as rapidly as possible. you guys and gals, sit down and shut up. don't ask too many questions. don't make it take a week longer. you do what we say. and if you don't, we'll break the rules to change the rules. that's what this is about. so i want to make sure everybody understands where the majority leader is taking us. make no mistake about it, the american people have given us divided government. that doesn't mean they expect us not to accomplish things. we're on the cusp of beginning

an extremely important debate about the future of the country after the recess, but we know what's going on. and so what i hear here is the majority leader does not want to keep his word to the senate or to the american people. and we'll take that into consideration as we move forward. now with regard to this d.c. circuit nominations, talk about a manufactured crisis, this well-qualified nominee came out of the committee unanimously. we have been operating on confirming judges on the basis of coming out of committee. so the majority leader decided that's not good enough; we're going to do it now. and yesterday i objected to that simply because we have not had a problem here, and we've been operating in a very collegial and sensible way. however, he's now manufactured something he can call a

filibuster by filing cloture on a nominee we were prepared to confirm on an up-or-down vote a week from now. so we ought to confirm him now. therefore, mr. president, as i noted yesterday, senate republicans don't have a problem with an up-or-down vote on this pending nominee for the d.c. circuit. indeed, the day after his nomination appeared on the executive calendar for the first time, we offered to have an up-or-down vote on the nomination. the only thing we asked was that members who do not serve on the judiciary committee have at least a reasonable amount of time to review his record. unfortunately, the majority would not take "yes" for an answer. instead is moved to set a 60-vote hurdle by filing cloture on the nomination the day after it appeared on the calendar. it was heavy-handed and, frankly, completely mystifying. like i said, the nomination had been on the executive calendar for barely a day.

barely a day. but we're not going to let the majority leader manufacturer obstruction and an obstruction crisis where nonexists. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled number 95 be vitiated and the senate proceed to executive session at 1:00 p.m. today for the consideration of calendar number 95, there be one hour of debate equally divided in the tphaoufrpl and at the -- in the usual form and at the use of time the senate proceed to confirmation on the nomination with no action -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm not going to have a long conversation this morning with my friend, the republican leader. other than to say this: my speech speaks for itself. i wrote it. no one else wrote it. it's my speech. and i want everyone to look at

that. i want republicans to look at it and democrats to look at it. i also want the record to be clear this man who we're going to vote on this afternoon at 1:00 or 2:00, whatever time the consent agreement suggests, has been waiting one year -- one year. so you can talk about how quick it came, but this man's been waiting for a year. i went through the statistics. i'm not going to go over them again. i hope things work out in the senate that we don't have to go through any more procedural battles here. but things are not working well. i went through the statistics. they're in my speech. i don't object. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: let me make sure everybody understands where we are. let's have no misunderstanding. what the majority leader is doing is trying to get 51 votes to break the rules of the

senate, to change the rules of the senate. we know what he's doing, and let's make no mistake what the stakes are. he is threatening this institution which he's elected in part to protect by manufacturing a crisis that does not exist. and of course, as we all know, in the senate every senator has the ability to impact how we do business. unanimous consent means exactly what it says: unanimous consent. so i hope the majority leader will think long and hard. i hope our friends in the majority who may someday be in the minority -- i know there are a lot of new democratic senators who think that will never happen, but amazingly enough the american people do from time to time change their minds about who they would like to be running the country. the shoe could be on the other foot. you never know when. i could have the job the majority leader currently has.

i think we need to think long and hard about protecting this institution and its traditions, and particularly manufacturing crises when they don't exist. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? prior to coming to congress, i was a trial lawyer. tried more than 100 cases to juries. the jury decided what was right or wrong in that particular conflict. i have the american people on my side. they don't like what's going on in the snavment i have an obstacles to protect the senate. i know that. and my friend reminds me of that and i think of it very often. i think of it every day when i have my weekly caucus. i represent them. i represent the people they represent. because the people they represent are republicans, deans, and independents, so i

understand that. i'm going to take this case to the american people. i hope, mr. president, that welcome resolve any problems we have but it is not right what is going on. and i submit my case to the american people. i submit my case to the american people, and i don't know what he's talking about. i had a very early morning this morning. i haven't read the paper. i don't know anything about the 51 vets. vet -- 51 votes. as i said, i don't want to have any animosity between me and my friend much he's lawyer. i am a lawyer. he represents kentucky. i represent nevada. we both represent our respective caucuses. and we both have an obligation to make this place work better. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: now i would like to talk about a real scandal, no at manufactured crisis. -- not a manufactured crisis. nearly two weeks ahave passed since -- nearly two weeks have passed since we first learned

about the scandal at the i.r.s. it is now clear that this was about much more than one or two employees going rogue at some far-flung office out in the administrativeland, as was first suggested. the facts we've seen so far point to something far more systemic than that. and it really shouldn't surprise anybody. i mine, this i mean, this is the talking about, the i.r.s. this is an agency that's basically a euphemism for mine-numbing bureaucracy. the kind of place where you assume nobody does much of anything without signatures and countersignatures from section chiefs and subsection chiefs and deputy office heads and secondary assistant subdirectors. sort of like a kafka novel without the laughs. what we heard first always

stretched credulity. officials going rogue? come on. think back to the testimony we heard this week or didn't hear. why did lois lerner and other i.r.s. officials rephos to address questions that they had previously misled congress? somehow i doubt it is because they had nothing of interest to saivmensay. we look forward to hearing more from them and we look forward to hearing to whoever made theizatiothesedecisions. no one is able to take responsibility for what went on. let's not forget that the administration continues to give us different time lines about who knew what and when. so the long and short of the situation is this: the public doesn't know the full story yet. a number of my constituents have shared stories with my office

about the i.r.s. auditing their organizations and businesses during the recent presidential campaign for the first time ever. all of a sudden they get audited during a presidential campaign, for the first time ever. i'd like to ask you all to -- mr. president, i'm sorry. i was distracted by the floor staff these folks believe that aids were conducted for no other reason than the fact that their groups were conservative. and they believe the questions they've been asked have more to do with their political views than their business activities. so without a proper investigation, frankly, we'll just never know. so we owe that to our constituents to have a detailed and deliberate investigation. that's why both house and senate committees have begun investigations into the matter.

that's why last week every republican on the finance committee signed a letter to the foinspector general for tax administration requesting a probe into reports that the i.r.s. leaked confidential information about conservative groups, actually to their political opponents. leaked information about conservative groups to their political opponents. and that's why even the f.b.i. is looking into the matter. because, as attorney general holder recently testified, the i.r.s. targeting of conservative groups could have violated numerous criminal provisions. i'm willing to bet there's a lot more we'll discover in terms of scope, in terms of time line, in terms of who was involved, and why. but we certainly can't go about fixing the problem, we can't remove awful those who need -- all of those who need to be removed, we can't put standards in place if they're deemed

necessary, until we find out all the details. here's another thing we shouldn't be doing: handing over the administration of obamacare to these folks. handing over the administration of obamacare to the i.r.s. think about that. a deeply unpopular law being administered by an agency that has so betrayed the public trust. even the i.r.s.'s staunchest defend ers in this scandal defend their actions as a case of -- quote -- "horrible customer service." that's the best they can say? horrible customer service. and now they're going to be put in charge of a new trillion dollar program, one that will give them access to all sorts of sensitive and deeply personal information? well, that's just what the administration and congressional democrats are about to let happen. the i.r.s. is in charge of administering some of the most

important elements of obamacare, and for many americans, that's going to mean submitted to probing questions about their health insurance, questions like -- this is the i.r.s. asking you, american citizens, do we have insurance? what kind of insurance is it? does it follow our rules? and if the people at i.r.s. don't like your answers, you'll be hit with new taxes. if the people over at the i.r.s., don't like your answer s to their questions about your health insurance, you'll be hit with new taxes. for small businesses, the questions are going to be far, far more extensive. and the consequences for noncompliance far, far worse. and the agency will have broad discretion to define what constitutes noncompliance. the i.r.s. will have broad authority to determine what is noncompliance with obamacare.

this is nuts. the potential for waste and abuse would have been there regardless of which agency was put in charge of administering this bloated law. i mean, obamacare is just massive. about 20,000 pages of regulations already. that's about seven feet tall. so waste and abuse is basically unavoidable. but now we're going to have americans worrying that they might be discriminated against, too, just for having an opinion. and, you know what? we're not going to be able to tell them not to worry because we don't know the truth ourselves yet. and guess who's heading the office charged with managing obamacare? get this: i.t. thit's the very same persot led the division of i.r.s. now embroiled in the scandal, who

oversaw the very office now under fire for the discriminatory and harassing behavior. i'm not making this up. so here's what needs to be done today: number one -- the administration needs to work honestly and transparently with us to get to the bottom of this scandal once and for all. they can do that by working cooperatively with congressional investigators. they can do it by testifying openly and sharing key documents with house and senate committees. and they can help us conduct a thorough administration-wide review to enn ensure no other behavior like this is occurring anywhere else in the federal government. number two -- the administration needs to suspend its implementation of obamacare until all the things i mentioned have been taken care of. the supreme court declared the

individual mandate, the core of obamacare, to be a tax -- a tax. so i.r.s. involvement is going to be unavoidable, absolutely unavoid be. -- absolutely unavoidable. that needs to be halted. better yes yet, the administratn could work with us to repeal the law and put in form reforms that could provide better health care for our constituents. i wouldn't hold my breath on that one. but here's what i do know. i no he that we need to get to the bottom of this i.r.s. scandal. because at a minimum americans from the left, right, and center should not have to worry that their government will harass or intimidate them for daring -- daring -- to have an opinion and express it. they shouldn't have to worry about that. when partaking into the

political process the and they certainly should not have to worry about it when this comes to an issue as personal and as sensitive as health care. mr. president, i yield the floor. 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 until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, and the time equally divided between the twoered loos or their designees. -- between the two leaders or their designees. mormr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you. i asked to be recognized and i see the appearance of my senior

senator from kansas on the floor. there's many things that we admire about our feck folks bacn kansas. but one thing that stands out is how strongly people care about their local communities and the citizens who live there. it's demonstrated by volunteering at school and serving at their church or getting involved in public service. kansans are looking for ways to improve the live lives of thoset are around them. melvin minor was exactly one of those individuals. in kansas his family, his constituents lost a great man. he was a talented educator, highly regarded by his students, and a dedicated public servant. mel was born in 1937 in a small central kansas town of arlington. as young man he attended kansas state teachers college now known as emporia state universality he graduated in 1959. six years later on july 31, 19 e-- 1965, mel maryland carolyn

fuller. she passed in 2011. together they raised two daughters. mel and carolyn had a lot in common, especially their interest in education and in young people. in fact, they met while they were both serving, workin workis teachers. mel taught american government and carolyn taught home economics. many of us can remember a favorite teacher who made an impact on our lives when we were growing up, someone who taughtes not only the facts and figures but also instilled an interest in learning. mel was just that kind of teacher for many kansas high school students. st. john is a small rural community. many folks who live there make their living on the farm and mel understood this way of life and could relate to his students from the farm because he, too, was a farmer. for more than a decade, mel

taught them about how our government works and invested in their lives. he helped broaden the horizon of those students and hoped their eyes to new ideas. upon learning of his passing, a former student said, "there was no better social studies and government teacher than melvin minor." after teepg for 15 years, he decided to try his own hand at governing. he was elected and serve kansans in the 114th district for 14 years. we all know that to serve in public office it takes a great commitment from your family, but especially from your spouse. for the minor family running for office was really a team effort. mel and carolyn made a great team. such a team that in fact carolyn served as his campaign manager and treasurer. i had the privilege of getting to know mel when i served as a state senator and our terms

overlapped for six years. even though we were different political parties, we had a lot in common because it was about our love for kansas and interest in rural issues that brought us together. he was such a strong advocate for rural kansas and the special way of life that we enjoy. as a farmer, mel was especially interested in agricultural policy and he stood up for the best interests of kansas farmers and ranchers. as a longtime kansas resident, mel was respected throughout our state, but especially there in central kansas where he was very active in the community of stafford. he was a member of the stafford united methodist church and served on the board of directors of st. john national bank. he was also dedicated to making sure all kansans have access to a quality education. during his time on the school board he met another strong advocate for education, ruth titan. after getting to know ruth and

witnessing her dedication to kansans, mel encouraged her to run for the united states senate. here it was a democrat encouraging a republican to run. it took eight years to prod her and she finally ran and she served eight years in the kansas senate. she remembers mel as someone who was never without a smile. even when things weren't going his way, he was known for his saying "the sun will come up tomorrow" and he took all of life in stride. his family and friends describe him as someone others went to for advice and counsel. he was known for his integrity, hardworking spirit and dedication to the work at hand whether as a teacher, farmer or legislator. one of his former colleagues in the house den miss mckenny rose to become the minority leader and considered mel his mentor when he began his political career. he remembers mel as someone who always lived out the biblical command to care for those with the greatest needs.

from the patients at lerner state hospital to the youth in the juvenile justice system, mel was always looking for ways to serve his fellow kansans and improve theirs lives. dennis mckenny also remembers mel minor had a great sense of hugh -- humor. he remembers when the two of them were the only ones voting for an appropriations bill. dennis said he felt a little bit awkward. mel looked and said he didn't see anyone in the chamber registered to vote in his district. he said he wasn't concerned about the pressure from his colleagues but was more concerned about doing what was right for the people who voted him into ofplts -- office. mel lived each day to its fullest. i extend on behalf of senator roberts and i sympathies to his family. i know they loved him dearly.

he loved them dearly. he will miss them. they will miss him very much. i ask my colleagues in kansas to remember the minor family in our thoughts and our prayers as they face these days ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i thank my colleague from kansas for a wonderful eulogy to a wonderful man, a teacher, state legislator and just a very nice individual. and i thank you for that excellent eulogy. we will miss him. mr. president, i understand that the distinguished chairperson of the sometimes powerful senate agriculture committee will be on the floor to lock in amendment number 965 by senator sanders. i want to rise in opposition to that amendment. the amendment would allow states to require -- let me emphasize

the word "require" -- that any food, beverage or other product be labeled if it contains a genetically engineered ingredient. now that's how it's described mostly in this debate. a genetically engineered ingredient. i think it would be more accurately called a modern science to feed a very troubled and hungry world. we already have policies and procedures, i would tell my colleagues, in place at the food and drug administration to address labeling of foods that are derived from modern biotechnology. the u.s. standards ensure that all labels for all foods are truthful and are not misleading to the public. the f.d.a. has a scientifically based review process to evaluate all food products.

the food and drug administration states f.d.a. has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that as a class foods developed by the new techniques present any greater safety concern than foods that are developed by a traditional plant breed. the f.d.a. reviews products and determines that they're safe. i think we need to trust the science of their review and allow this process to work. this amendment would result -- the amendment by senator sanders would result in additional cost to food producers, and that's going to come right back to consumers. the f.d.a. has determined that approved biotech crops are not materially different than conventional crops and, therefore, do not require

subjugation from conventional crops. the only difference here if you have a bioengineered product and let's say you come from africa, one of the countries over there that continually have a very difficult time trying to feed themselves, the only difference is that if you use a bioengineered product that makes that crop less -- or pardon me -- more resistant to heat or to rain or to a particular insect that is causing a lot of problems, you've got a choice. you can have a crop or you can have no crop or you can have perhaps a crop with a pesticide or you can have a bioengineered product that's perfectly safe. furthermore, a change in policy would place additional costs on farmers by potentially requiring them to segregate crops and change their equipment. it would also be very problematic for grain processing

facilities. and i know that some fail to recognize and i know that many criticize the importance of biotechnology or criticize the safety of the product. i just say let science be the judge. each product goes through extensive tests to ensure safety to both human health and the environment. there are different views, of course, on farming, and some of my colleagues here in the senate believe we should focus on those that only farm a few acres, the small family farm, somebody about 5 feet three inches from vermont and then grow the crops and sell them at the local farmers market. nothing wrong with that. i encourage that. nothing wrong with organic farming and certainly nothing wrong with regard to farmers who farm those acres. god bless them. however, if we're going to supply enough food for this growing population around the world -- nine billion more

people the next several decades -- we need agriculture of all types, and that includes organic and conventional and biotech crops. the more nations we can help to feed and bring economic prosperity, the more stable the world will become. that's good for our families, the nation and the world and the world's stability. we can only do that through commonsense policies based on sound science that would allow our producers to do what they need to do to get the job done. my colleagues -- i see the distinguished chairperson here, i will conclude in just about 30 seconds. and i'm glad that she is here. i would just say that, to my colleagues in the senate, we shouldn't be putting on lab coats individually and take action on this amendment. we have a clear scientifically based review process that works. we passed this amendment probably in vermont, california,

you'll have a requirement, some other states may or may not -- in kansas we will not -- and so our state legislature would have no need putting on lab coats. the f.d.a. has guidance and companies that can choose to label products if their customers want it, if they demand it. let the consumer decide. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. now that the circuit court nomination vote has been scheduled for later this afternoon, i ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. the senate resume consideration of s. 954, the farm bill, that there be two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the sanders amendment 965 as provided under the previous order. finally, following the confirmation vote at 2:00 p.m. the senate resume legislative session in consideration of s. 954. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i would call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i have eight unanimous consent requests to make for committees to meet today during the session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that the questionrequests be agreed to ad printed in the record. fer if he withouthe. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s.954, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 54, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate prior

to a vote in relation to amendment number 965 offered by the senator from vermont, mr. sanders. time is equally divided. who yields time? mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. sand sand i want tmr. sanders: k senators for cosponsoring this amendment as well as many food organizations all over the country. the concept we're talking about today is a fairly commonsense and nonradical idea. all over the world, in the european union, in many other countries around the world, dozens and dozens of countries, people are able to look at the

food that they are buying and determine through labeling whether or not that product contains genetically modified organisms. that's what the issue is. in the state of vermont, our legislature voted overwhelmingly for labeling in the state. the state senate in connecticut, by an almost unanimous vote, did the same. all over this country, states are considering this issue. one of the concerns that arises when a state goes forward is large biotech companies like monsanto suggest that states do not have the constitutional right to go forward, that they're preempting federal authority. this bill makes it very clear, states can go forward. and i would appreciate my colleagues' support for this. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: first, mr. president, before discussing the amendment, i think it is important to het note that this is not germane to the farm bill

and food label something properly subject to the jurisdiction of the help committee and, therefore, senator harkin opposes the amendment. i, too, while i appreciate very much the advocacy of senator sanders on so many different issues, i do believe that this particular amendment would interfere with the f.d.a.'s science-based process to determine what food label something necessary for consumers. it's also important to note that around the world now we are seeing genetically modified crops that have the ability to resist crop diseases and improve nutritional content and survive drought conditions in many developing countries, we see wonderful work being done by foundations like the gates foundation and others, that are using new techniques to be able to feed hungry people. i believe we must rely on the f.d.a.'s science-based examination before we make conclusions about food ingredients derived from genetically modified foods.

they currently do not require special labeling because they've determined that food content of these ingredients does not materially differ from their conventional counterparts. so i would urge a "no" vote. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. ms. stabenow: i ask for the yeas and nays. ferraro is there a sufficient-- the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 27, the nays are 71. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoings of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. nor senator lay it on the table. tear officer without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator missouri. nor senator rise to make a unanimous consent motion but i want to make a few remarks first. at the rick of being patronizing to my colleagues about the constitution, i would like to give a basic lesson on the

constitution this morning. the presiding officer: could we have order, please. a senator: my understanding is our founding fathers in the constitution devised a system where we'd a house of representatives and a senate, and they have to agree before something becomes a law. ms. mccaskill: now, i think this is an amazing decision that our founding fathers made, because what this does, it requires that the senate, where all of us represent a whole state, have to reach agreement with our colleagues in the house, who have much smaller constituencies and, therefore, may be targeted more to one specific area than some of us are. now, i listened to lecture after lecture from my colleagues across the aisle about the constitution. it's almost as if some of you think you're the only one that's read it or you're the only one that understands it.

well, you're not. and here's how the constitution works. when we pass a bill and the house passes a bill, we go to conference. and why did the founding fathers want that? because they understood that compromise was the mother's milk of a democracy. now, here's the reall really bie thing about this. i bet i heard as a candidate for office last year 10,000 times, why don't you pass a budget? i listened to the leader of the republican party stand on this floor, and i'd love to put together a upon ta montage. we go too far and say too much, but it is not exaggerating. the rallying cry of the republican party, "pass a budget," "regular order," pass a budget, rig order. and what did we do?

we passed a budget in regular order. now, here's the really bizarre part. following the constitution that my friends like to wave around and pretend like they're the only ones that love it, we now have the nerve that some people on that side think regular order doesn't matter and, by the way, they don't want to go to conference and they don't want to compromise. blowing up the constitutional premise of compromise between the two houses, blowing it up. now, i don't know what the american people think of this, but you've got to, like, shake your head at the politics of this. you've got to shake your head, because here's what's really bizarre about this. they keep moving the goalpost about what it would take to get us to conference. by the washing the people who are going to be conferring on the other side are the republican party. are you so worried that they

haven't read the constitution and that they're not answerable to their constituents who votes them into office as republicans? so, you know, we've got to have another budget bill and redo the debate or we've got to make sure that they can't compromise on anything, and we've got to put it into law. now, there was an opportunity to get your way. it was called amendments. you could have gotten your way through the amendment process. we had over 100 of them. we were here until 5:30 in the morning voting on them. we passed 70 of them. now, how many amendments do you think the senator from texas offered on the debt ceiling? that he's now saying he has to have before we can even go to conference. how many amendments do you think he offered on that? zero. he offered 17 amendments, but he didn't offer one -- in fact there was not one republican amendment on the debt ceiling, not one. so i got to tell you, it's pretty obvious they didn't want a budget. they wanted a political talking

point. they wanted to make it look like we didn't care about doing our job. they didn't care about a bucket. if you cared about a budget you you'd high-tail it to conference right now. you would hightail it to conference. it's been two months. so i hope the american people are paying attention. no wonder they think we're all losers. this is not a game, and you can't love the constitution one day and blow it up the next. you can't be a situational constitutionalist when you don't get your way. that's not the way our democracy works. i got elected fair and square, and so did you guys. and that's why we all have to be willing to compromise with one another. we are not serving the american people by playing these games and they are sick and tired of t and i think, frankly, it makes, you know, the body looks a little silly. so i would, mr. leader -- excuse me, mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 33, house concurrent resolution 25, that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of senate concurrent resolution number 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate, being inserted in lieu thereof, that house concurrent resolution 25 as amended be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, and that the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on part of the senate, that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side, motion to instruct relative to the debt limit, motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue, that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the to leaders h.r. other designees prior to votes in relation to, no amendments be in order knox all occurring with no

inkvening action or debate. ferraro is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i ask unanimous consent that the senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report, that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debtly. -- to raise the debt limit. the presiding officer: will the senator so modify her request. ms. mccaskill: i'm asking, are you saying the constitutional provision for a conference between the two houses, you're saying what the founding fathers put in the constitution for a conferences, that that in fact is a backroom deal in the constitution, you don't accept that part of the constitution? mr. lee: my friend and my distinguished colleague from missouri is absolutely correct in citing the constitution and pointing out the fact that the two houses do have to agree before something becomes law. it's also important to point that under article 1, section 5, clause 2, of the constitution,

each house of congress is constitutionally charged with the task of establishing its own rules per operation much the rules of operation in this body, as they apply right here, require that this kind of request receive unanimous consent. what that means is that every one of us has been to be willing to vote for this. what i and a few of my colleagues have said is that regardless of what you might decide to do, we respect your opinion. but if you're asking us to vote for this, meaning to give our consent, which is a vote, we're asking for one slight modification. that slight modification includes something very simple, which just says, we're not going to negotiate the debt limit as part of the budget resolution. they are two separate things. we didn't consider a single amendment that would have addressed the debtly. , not a single part of the budget resolution that was passed out addressed the debt limit. the debt limit not having been the subject of the resolution, it is not appropriate for that to be addressed by the

conference committee. mr. mccain: wil mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator so modify her request? mr. mccain: i rise to object. and i will object to the modification. first of all, i think what is being done here, if we agreed that a small number of senators could basically change the way that the senate does business, it could have serious ramifications for the future. the senator from utah just said that he doesn't want to be deprived of his vote. we're ready to vote, i say to my colleague from utah. we're ready to vote. we're ready to vote on a motion that would send this bill, which is the subject of enormous amount of debate and discussion for hours and hours until like 7:00 in the morning, to a

conference with motions to instruct the conferees. i would be more than happy to vote on instructions to the conferees concerning his previous concern about tax increase, which somehow has been removed, and that of increasing the debt limit, instructing those conferees. that's the way that the senate should do business. and if the senator from utah will allow this body to vote on whether we should move to conference with instructions to conferees, that is the regular order. it is not the regular order for a number of senators, a small number, a minority within a minority here, to say that we will not agree to go to conference because of a particular problem with an issue, which i grant is important to the senator from utah; it's important to many senators as to whether we raise the debt limit or not.

but what's to prevent -- we're on the agriculture bill right now, say to my colleague from mississippi. y asuppose we pass the ag bill. suppose that the house of representatives passes the ag bill and we want to appoint conferees. but there is a burning issue that a number of my colleagues might have and so we're then going to block going to conference. look, this isn't just about the budget conferees. this is about whether we will ever be able to appoint conferees on a bill that's been passed by the house and also by the senate and we will come together and do what we have been doing since this body, since the congress of the united states, started functioning. and that is to sit down and iron out our differences. if the senator from utah is worried about the result, i understand. i'm worried about the result. i'm worried about a bill right now that is just outrageous in pork barrel spending and catfish and all kinds of stuff that i have concern about, subsidies

for the tobacco companies and all that. but that does not mean that i am going to object that we move for conferees when the will of the senate and the congress and the people is heard in an open and honest debate and voting. we're here to vote, not here to block things. we're here to articulate our positions on the issues in the best and most possible eloquent way we can and do what we can for the good of the country and then let the process move forward. i say to my friend from utah, you're not going to win every fight here. you're not going to win every battle here. but if you are right, i can tell you from the experience i've had over here in the united states senate, you will win in the end if your cause is just. but you can only win if you articulate your argument before your colleagues here in the congress and the american people. we're about to, i hope -- i

hope -- conclude the immigration reform bill. there will be portions of that bill that i don't like. there will be portions of that bill that many of my colleagues won't like. but we're not counting on 100 votes in the united states senate. but we are counting on a majority of votes in passing it. and we're hoping that the house will do the same. and then we will go to conference. now does that mean that if a group of senators -- four, five, ten; i don't know how many colleagues you have on this issue -- object to us going to conference on the immigration bill that therefore it should stop? i am very worried if this happens about the precedent that will be set on how the congress of the united states does business. now, just a few weeks ago after the newtown massacre, my colleague from utah and my colleague, i believe, from florida -- i'm not sure who

else -- said we don't want to take up the gun bill. we don't want to discuss the gun bill. i happen to have disagreed with many of the proposals, but was it right? would it have been right for us not even to debate in light of the newtown massacre? but the senator from utah thought it was the best thing for us not to move forward. thank god there was a group of us that said let's move forward. let's debate the gun bill. let's do what we can to prevent these further massacres. that's our obligation and our duty to the american people. so here we are again. here we are again. the budget that for four years, i love beating the daylights out of my friend from missouri who would not insist on a budget being brought to the floor of the senate. now a budget has been passed. everybody who was talking about what a great moment it was that we stayed up all night -- at my age that's not nearly as

enjoyable as it once was. and now after being so proud that we can't observe at least a vote? the senator from utah wants a vote on whether we should appoint conferees or not and what those instructions should be to the conferees, that's what we should be doing. i understand how important it is to the senator from florida and senator from i don't know how many there are, but there's a majority of us that wants the senate to work the people's will. all i would do is say, look, i hope my colleagues will agree with motions to instruct the conferees. if it is the senator prosecute utah -- if it is the senator from utah's concerns the conferees should not discuss the debt ceiling, let's propose to

do that. but i can also tell my colleague from utah something else, if we continue to block things like this and block what is the regular order, then the majority will be tempted to change the rules of the senate. that would be the most disastrous outcome that i could ever imagine. and i don't begrudge anybody whether they have been here six months or they have been here 30 years, their rights as senators. but i hope my colleagues would look at the way the senate has functioned in the past. the american people unhappy with us? of course they're unhappy with us. one reason is because they don't see us accomplishing anything. what i have done for these years and the people that i respected in this body on both sides of the aisle, you fight the good fight. you make your case to your colleagues and the american people, and then you accept. you accept the outcome of a regular order while preserving your rights as an individual senator. we have maintained that balance

to a large degree. i hope that my colleagues will understand how important that is. and i would urge my colleagues to do what we've been doing, and that is to have motions to instruct the conferees if their issue is taxes, if their issue is the debt ceiling, we vote to instruct those conferees and those conferees carry out the will of the majority of the united states senate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. lee: mr. president? ms. klobuchar: mr. president? a senator: mr. president mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i ask the right to object to the request made by the senator from utah to amend my request. and i would say that within my request, there is in fact the opportunity to vote. and he had the opportunity to offer an amendment on the debt ceiling in the budget, and he did not. mrs. mccaskill: i certainly thank my colleague from arizona, and i reserve my unanimous -- i

renew my ask -- renew my unanims consent motion. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mrs. mccaskill: there is an objection to the modified request. ms. stabenow: i'm not trying to object, i do have for purposes of colleagues who want to speak next that once the debate is done senator feinstein and senator mccain have 15 minutes to discuss a farm bill amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection to the original request? mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: for 61 days my colleagues and i have objected to the request to circumvent regular order to go to house on conference on the budget. they want to go straight to closed door back room meetings. there senior negotiators in the

house and senate will be free to wait until a convenient or official deadline and ram through their compromise undebated, unamend and mostly unread. with the country backed up against another economic cliff crisis, we're concerned they will exploit that opportunity to sneak a debt limit increase into the budget. we think that's inappropriate. yet objecting to this dysfunctional unrepublican, undemocratic process has invited anger and criticism from colleagues here on both sides of the aisle. we just don't get it, you see. we just don't get it, we're told. proceeding to a secret closed-door backroom 11th hour deal, we're told, is the way the process works, is the way the senate works, is the way the house works, is the way washington works. we know this. that's why we're objecting. in case nobody has noticed, the way washington works stinks. closed-door, backrook, cliff

deals are not the solution. they are the problem. the unspoken premise of every argument we've heard in favor of going to conference is that congress knows what it's doing. trust us to go back into a back room and cut a deal. trust us to ignore special interests and only work for the good of the country. trust us to not wait until the 11th hour, to not hold the full faith and credit of the united states hostage, to not ram through another 1,000 page, $1 trillion deal. trust us. we're congress. as it happens, the american people don't trust congress or either party. we've given them at least 17 trillion reasons not to do so. i can provide physical evidence to support my claim. if the american people had confidence in the way the senate works, i know for a fact i wouldn't be here. i don't think my colleagues joining me in this objection would be here either. we were not sent here to affirm the way the senate worked as congress racked up trillions in

debt, inflated the housing bubble, doled out favors to special interests, squeezed the middle class and trapped the poor in poverty. we were sent here to change that. we're fully aware that washington and the establishments within both parties don't like what we're saying. but as computer programmers are sometimes inclined to say, that's a feature, not a bug. the tactics of washington serve the interests of washington, of congress itself. the federal bureaucracy, corporate cronies and special interests. and it does so at the expense of american people, their wallets and their freedom. the only time i can think of when it hasn't worked out that way was with the recent budget sequestration, and that was literally an accident, a mistake. the sequestration process worked out exactly the opposite of how washington expected and intended. there is a reason, mr. president, that six of the ten wealthiest counties in the united states are suburbs of

washington, d.c., a city that produces almost nothing in real tangible economic value. and it's not because the two parties have been so effective, taking on the special interests and doing the people's business. there is a reason that tea partiers on the right and the occupiers on the left protest their shared perception that our economy, our politics and our society seem rigged. that elites on wall street, k street and pennsylvania avenue get to play by one set of rules and the people on main street must play by another. it's because they're mostly right. this is our true inequality crisis not between rich and poor but between washington and everyone else in america. the national debt and its statutory limit is a hidden part of this inequality crisis. after all, what is new debt but a tax increase of sorts on future americans, on those who in some cases cannot yet vote, on those who in some cases have

yet to be born. raising the debt limit thus results in a pernicious form of taxation without representation. that's why the american people resent it. and it's why washington desperately wants to raise the debt limit with as little public scrutiny and as little accountability as possible. and that's why we're objecting. critics say we should allow the process to move forward so we can have a debate. i don't know if they've noticed, mr. president, but we're having the debate. we've had it for several days in a row. and more than that, we're having the debate here on the floor open to public scrutiny. and not secretly behind closed doors. this right here is how the process is supposed to work. the only way the american people can have any hope in supervising their congress -- not ours, their congress -- is for us to do our work aboveboard and in the open, according to the rules. that's all we're asking for, and only on this one issue.

for all our concerns, we still -- we still said all along that we will not block a budget conference. we can go to conference right now on the budget. right this very moment. we're willing to give the majority permission to break from regular order and scurry off to closed-door negotiations to cut their backroom deal. all we've asked is this one thing, a very small and simple request: leave the debt limit out of it. do everything else you want. spend all the money you want. use all the accounting gimmicks you want. but when you go into that back room, check the debt limit at the door. that way the american people can have that separate debate on its merits here on the floor. this should not be controversial. the house republican budget did not include a debt limit increase or instructions to include one. the senate democratic budget doesn't include it either. house and senate negotiators, therefore, have no procedural or

democratic justification for including a debt limit hike in their caps. they have no right to do it. yet they won't promise not to. once again, mr. president, it's a message of trust us, we're congress. this is how the senate works, they say. this is how we do things. this is how we've always done things. respectfully, mr. president, this is how we fail. this is how we earn our 15% approval rating. we know this is business as usual around here. that's why we're objecting. if the majority wants to proceed to a budget conference through regular order, we we cannot stop them. but again, mr. president, that's not the request. their request is for permission to break from regular order, skip steps and go to secret negotiations behind closed doors where in the washington center view of the world the real governing can be done. the american people do not trust secret back room deals, and neither do i. unless and until the american people are assured that we will not sneak a debt limit increase

into the conference report, i will happily continue to object, and i object to the motion on the floor. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, just briefly, we've been through it before. in a nutshell, what the senator from utah has just said, that is if we pass legislation, if the house passes legislation that we will not go to conference unless certain conditions are imposed on those conferees that happen to be important to a group, a small group of the united states senators. obviously that will paralyze the process here. obviously you can predict the outcome. the senator from utah keeps talking about backroom closed-door deals, it's the process of the senate to appoint conferees and the house to appoint conferees, and those

conferees come to agreement and then subject their agreement to an overall vote of both bodies. if the -- if the senator from utah wants to get rid of the -- quote -- "backroom" all of the other adjectives and adverbs that he used, then what is -- what is the process? what is the process? how do we reconcile legislation that's passed by one body and the other body? there's a -- that's what we've been doing for a couple hundred years. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: so all i can say is, is the senator from utah got another way of reconciling legislation between the house and the senate? of course not. of course he doesn't. of course he doesn't. of course he doesn't. because that's the only way that we can get legislation that will be passed by both bodies and signed by the president of the united states. that's the only way and i tell the senator from utah again, if this is imposed, this condition

is imposed, then there is no reason why any group of senators should impose conditions on conferees from now on, which will then mean, of course, that we won't go to conference. so i would be glad to answer a question. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask the senator from arizona a question through the chair. it's my understanding the budget resolution passed by the house, the budget resolution passed by the senate if conferenced and agreed upon will result in a resolution passed by both the house and senate but never sent to the president. it is a budget resolution that governs the way we appropriate from that point forward. so the question of the debt ceiling, it couldn't be done in a budget resolution. if there's going to be any action on the debt ceiling, it has to be in a separate legislative vehicle that ultimately goes to the president of the united states. so even if there were an agreement on debt -- debt limit in the budget conference, it would have no impact of law. is that not true?

mr. mccain: well, perhaps the senator from utah doesn't know about that, the fact that it couldn't -- even if they did raise the debt limit, it could not become law because it doesn't go to the president of the united states. so again, maybe the senator from utah ought to learn a little bit more about how business has been done in the congress of the united states. budget resolutions -- budget resolutions are not signed by the president of the united states, so even if we did vote to increase the debt limit as a result of the conference, which, by the way, would be irrelevant to the work of the -- of the conference, then it wouldn't have any meaning whatsoever. and again, -- a senator: will the senator yield? mr. mccain: again, this business of secret backroom deal making, that's what conferences are about and conference results are subject to a vote of both houses as to the conference result. i don't -- a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: i would be glad to.

a senator: senator, i conferred with our budget chair while you were debating this with the senator from utah. mrs. mccaskill: and maybe they're not aware that the conference committees are open to anyone who wants to observe them. so i would like, through you, to invite the senator from utah to sit in on the conference committee and listen to every word. this notion that our democracy is a backroom deal because a bill's in conference, the founding fathers are shaking their head in disgust at this notion. it is not a closed process. it's an open process. anybody can come and listen. mr. mccain: and it is my understanding, since the budget conference is open to the public, it will also be broadcast on c-span so that all the american people can watch what the deliberations are. so i wonder, why would the senator from utah say it's a backroom, closed-door deal when the fact -- doesn't the senator from utah know that this is open to the public and seen by

everybody? the conferences? i mean, this is -- for him to say this is a backroom, closed-door deal, either he is directly misleading or has no knowledge of how the budget conference works. i don't know which one it is. and i don't know which one is worse. so all i can say is that we know, one, that even if we had a restriction on -- on allowing raising of the budget -- of the debt limit, even if we -- and -- it would not matter because it's not legislation that would be signed by the president of the united states. no matter what the budget conferees did. and we also know that the budget conferees, unlike many, i will admit, but budget conferees meet in open session with c-span and the american people able to observe it. so i at least hope that the -- that the senator from utah would

withdraw his comment that this is a backroom, closed-door deal because it isn't. it isn't. those are fundamental facts. mr. lee: mr. president? mr. mccain: so, again, i'm -- it's really disappointing that we are spending this time when we should be on the farm bill, the senator from california and i have important amendments to remove a lot of the corruption that's in that bill. and so i would go ahead and yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: as to the suggestion that this produces a budget resolution that at the end of the day does not go to the president and isn't law, technically on its own face that's accurate. what we're concerned about here are the instructions that would accompany the conference report, instructions that would allow the normal rules of the senate to be circumvented. specifically for something like this, for a piece of legislation that would itself raise the debt limit to be considered -- mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. lee: just let me finish what i'm saying. to be voted on a 50-vote margin

rather than on a 60-vote margin. and so this is different. and regardless of how open you make that conference meeting, it is not the same kind of open debate in which every senator, every representative is able to participate in the same way that they would be able to on the floor. mr. mccain: does the senator admit that it's not a closed-door deal, behind closed doors? does he admit that? does he admit that he misspoke on that issue? it's not behind closed doors. mr. lee: look, compared to the way we do things on the floor, this is a closed-door deal. and compared to the way we do things on the floor, this is not subject of the same kind of scrutiny. the fact is that we have rules in the senate, rules that on something like this would allow us to proceed on the basis of a 60-vote threshold. that's the whole purpose of this discussion. that's the basis of our concern is that we don't want legislation that can run through to raise the debt limit, incurring additional potentially trillions of dollars in borrowing authority on the basis of only a 51-vote threshold. that's our concern.

mrs. murray: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have been listening to this debate, not just now but for 61 days as we have been working extremely hard to get the budget passed and then go to conference to work with our house colleagues, who, by the way, are majority republicans. and we are working to do that because the american people have been very loud about not managing by crisis. and we all know that what will happen if we don't go to conference is exactly what the senator from utah has been saying he doesn't want. if we go to conference, we will have an open conference committee to discuss the differences between the house and the senate budgets that will then give the instructions to conference on how to move forward on our appropriations bills that we are now looking at and how we're going to deal with sequestration. it will be an open debate that will come back here.

but if we are not allowed to go to conference, what will happe happen -- because we do have to pass our appropriations and spending bills or move to a continuing resolution because we can't -- if we don't get a budget deal -- we're going to have to have closed-door discussions, secret discussions to figure out what we're going to do when that debt ceiling hits and it will come down on you in the middle of the night and you won't have had an opportunity to be a part of it because of the delay that is occurring right now. if the senate allows us to go to conference, members of the senate, both democrats and republicans, my counterpart, senator sessions and i, and his committee, as long as -- as well as congressman ryan, from the republican party in the house and his committee members and democrats, will sit together in an open process and determine how we move our budget forward. mr. mccain: will the senator yield for gay que? in the case of appointment of conferees, will you have it open to the public and c-span or any other media coverage that would like to come in the room? mrs. murray: well, once the conference is set and we begin

to meet as a conference, it is like any other committee hearing, where, absolutely, the public will be able to come in and listen, they will be able to watch on c-span, it will be an open process. but i would tell the senator from arizona that if we don't get to conference, we are going to have to have discussions as a country about how we manage our finances and our government moving forward and those will be behind closed doors. so the senator is objecting is because of closed-door secret meetings, he is causing. so i would really hope that our republican colleagues would allow us to move forward. as the senator from missouri said, we had 50 hours of debate, we had over a hundred amendments that were considered. not one amendment was offered or considered on the debt ceiling, which is now what they're objecting that we go to conference to. and we had an ability -- in fact, the senator from texas i believe offered 17 amendments and he's been objecting because

of this. not one of them about the debt ceiling. i know the senator wants to have a debt ceiling debate here on the floor of the senate. he is welcome to come to the floor of the senate any time and talk about the debt ceiling. we welcome that discussion. we believe that our bills should be paid. that's separate from what we're talking about here. we're talking about a budget resolution. i would be happy to yield. mr. mccain: how many amendments were considered? mrs. murray: there were over a hundred amendments considered. there was 50 hours of debate equally divided. every senator participated. mr. mccain: and how many were voted on mrs. murray: over 0 were agreed to. mr. mccain: but there was not one amendment on the dell ceiling. mrs. murray: not one amendment was offered or considered on the debt ceiling. mr. mccain: i thank the senator. mrs. murray: what the senator from missouri has offered, after talking with the senator from arizona, is the ability now to have a vote on that. despite there wasn't any during that. to offer with our consent that yes, okay, fine, if you have to have that now, we want to get to conference, we will allow a vote

on that. and -- and proceed to the budget. so i do not understand this argument that we are going into some secret meeting. i assure the senator that we have seen secret meetings here when it comes to the budget in the past that have gotten us all to a very frustrating point. let's move to conference so we do not have those secret meetings. you are arguing for something, i would say to the senator from utah, that you are going to cause. so i would really hope that we can come to an agreement on this. we've offered i a consent that offers two amendments to be considered. we hope to have those. we hope to go to conference. i assure you that we will be as open and as transparent as possible. that budget resolution will come back to the senate. everyone will have a chance to have their say if they want that and then that budget resolution will give us our instructions so we can continue to move forward on regular order to fund the defense department, to fund

agriculture, to fund education, to fund the different aspects of government, transportation and housing, that is our obligation to do as the united states congress in order for the american public to be able to manage what we are doing -- what they are required to do once we pass our budget. so i would really urge our republican colleagues to back off on their insistence on this. i am ready to go to conference. am i going to like what comes out of conference? as chair of the budget committee, that worked really hard to get a budget passed here in the senate? probably not. but i know my responsibility as a united states senator is to work with my house republican colleagues and those on our conference committee to come to the best judgment we can mutually to move our country forward and to get us out of this management by crisis that is forced on us time and time again over the last several years. the american people deserve

certainty. that certainty will come when we can move to conference with an open, transparent committee process that allows us to get the budget in order. and i urge our colleagues to reconsider their objection. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rube low: thank you, mr. president. -- mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i, too, want the senate to move to conference with the house on the budget. i think it's tremendously important. in fact, my colleagues are correct, often times in this place, we have to vote for things that we don't like because it's a product of compromise, it may not have everything we want but it gives us the things that we need. i certainly have been on the losing end of multiple votes in this place during the time i've been here because i'm in the minority, both in party and sometimes in view. and so i certainly understand that part of it. and that's why i voted against the budget. i -- i -- i'm glad we finally produced a budget after a thousand days but i would say to you that that budget is one that i think is deficient and that's why i voted against the budget. nevertheless, i believe that this institution should move forward in negotiating the

differences between our budget and the budget that the house has so that we can finally have a budget in this country and so this country can move forward. the only thing that i'm asking for, the only thing my colleagues are asking for is that as part of that negotiati negotiation, if i may finish my statement and then i'll entertain any questions you may have, that as part of that negotiation, that the issue of the debt limit not be included. now, i've heard here today statements made that there were x number of amendments filed and they didn't include the debt limit. i think the reason is because most of us agreed that that was an issue that needed to be dealt with on its own. this is not just some issue. it needs to be debated in and of itself, it's the function not just of the annual budget, the massive debt our country faces is a function of the structural problem we have. we basically have massive government programs that are going bankrupt and if we don't deal with it, it keeps getting worse. i've heard statements made here today, we can't raise the debt limit even if we wanted to because of the way it's structured. i'm puzzled, why then the

objection to a very simple notion, we can be in conference today with the house, be negotiating at this very moment if all we do is say look, kd, negotiate taxes, if it has tax increase i'm voting against it but negotiate that, negotiate all these sorts of things but the debt limit cannot be part of it, it has to be dealt with separately. i just don't understand the objection to that being in there. i would say one more thing about this thing and the amendments and a cautionary tale. the next time someone says don't file any more amendments, you're dploag slowing the place down. maybe you should file them. if you don't, have you to hold your peace forever. we need to move to negotiation with the house with the very simple language it should not have a debt limit increase. so i am going to move and ask for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 33, house concurrent resolution 25, that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of senate concurrent resolution 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof and house concurrent

resolution 25 as amended be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, that the senate insist upon its amendments, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate all with with no intervening action or debate, further that a conference report in relation to house concurrent resolution 25 not be in order in the senate that includes reconciliation instructions to increase the debt ceiling. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. rubio: we're in the same place we were before. basically this was senatese, what i basically said, i want the senate to go into negotiations with the house and the only thing we ask is that when they come back there not be reconciliation instructions in there, that the debt limit be dealt with, because the debt limit is so consequential that it needs to be dealt with on its own. let me remind everybody what

we're dealing with here. this is a bipartisan debt. i said this yesterday, i'll repeat it today. this is a debt, this is a debt that grew over the last 20 or 30 years with the cooperation of both parties, unfortunately, although we've never seen anything like the last five years. it is a function of a structural problem in our spending programs. if we don't deal with those programs it is going to collapse our economy within our lifetime and certainly that of our children. it is time to deal with it now. that issue this debated, not as part of a negotiation that deals with a one-year spending tbreament. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, we've been through this quite a bit but again i would respond by saying that if it were part of the budget resolution, it would have no effect in law. so one has to then question what the knowledge of those who are advocating this is about the fundamental procedures. second of all, if this is a

prerequisite, then every conference we send, senators will be allowed according to this precedent to set certain parameters of those conferences, which is a procedure we use now instructing to -- instructions to conferees. we are willing to have votes on instructions to conferees on any issue that any senator feels necessary to -- for the conferees to do their job. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: i'll be glad to. mrs. mccaskill: the senate is a wondrous creation by our founding fathers and a great deal of power was given to the minority in the senate. and i know that you've enjoyed having that power from time to time, and i'm sure when my party has been in the minority it has been important that -- and we have respected that in this body. although there have been some

really dicey times, and i'm aware that you have been involved when we were on the brink of blowing up the rights of the minority. i want to make sure i understand, the way i really see what's going on here is we now have a superminority. if this were allowed to pass, what we would be doing is changing what the founding fathers had in mind in terms of the power of the minority and actually saying let's go back in history and say there were one or two or three senators or four senators that decided by gosh, they weren't going to do voting rights legislation or they weren't going to do the vote for women or they weren't going to do some of the changes that have occurred in our country. do you see a problem that if we allow a superminority, a minority of the minority to hijack a process laid out in our constitution, that what would happen is the majority would

have no choice at that point than to begin to circumscribe the rules for the minority? mr. mccain: well, i think that's a danger and i think it's a significant danger if a number of senators, either how large or how small, should insist that certain conditions be imposed unilaterally without a motions to instruct. that's what we have motions to instruct for. it's not that we don't want the conferees to do certain things. but we have motions to instruct. that's the regular order of how we do business. and the senators here who say that the debt ceiling should not be part of any negotiations, fine. let's have a vote, motions to instruct the conferees and it's been my experience that the conferees have stuck with the instructions that were voted on by the majority of the united states senate. so this is just kind of a sad time because here we are, here

we are debating as to whether we should allow the debt limit to be part of negotiations which would have no meaning in law whatsoever because it's not signed by the president, and there are pressing issues. the senator from california and i have an issue that has to do with tobacco and the health of our kids that we'd like to have considered before the united states senate. we could be debating on the instructions to conferees. we could be doing so engine many things and we're not, we're not doing those things. finally, by share my experience with my colleagues. i have lost a lot more times than i have won but i've come to the floor of the senate using the rules of the senate and made the argument on those things i believe in and stand for. and i've been passionate on those issues and sometimes i've irritated my colleagues, but at least i've had my say. but then after i've had my say there have been votes. and the body has decided. and the body has decided whether

i was right or wrong, and when i've been voted down, i've gone back on those issues and i've tried to convince my colleagues of the rightness of my position. rather than like with the gun bill, after people are slaughtered in newtown, connecticut and my colleagues didn't even want to debate the issue of gun control, what we should do about that? that's not how the senate should function. the senate is supposed to debate and discuss and give our passionate appeals and beliefs. and then put it to the will of the body. that's the protection of the individual senator. not to just say we're not going to do anything. that's not the way the american people want us to act. and to throw in all this stuff about the debt and the deficit, i'll match my record on opposing the debt and the deficit against certainly my colleagues here, but that's not the point. the point is will this deliberative body whether it's the greatest in the world or not

or the worst in the world, go ahead and decide on this issue so that we can have a budget so we can at least tell the american people that we are going to do what we haven't done for four years, and that every family in america sooner or later has to do and that is to have a budget. so as i say, we've gone on too long, the farm bill is of the utmost importance, the senator from california and i have amendments on it, but i hope my colleagues will realize that the best way to get their point of view over and sway the opinion of our colleagues this and the american people is to engage in honest and open debate, a as the senate does, instruct the conferees, let them go to conference in an open, not closed-door, not behind closed doors, not back-room process that is the procedure employed by the budget committee in conference. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cruz: mr. president, in gulliver's travels, swift told us of two fictional lands, lilliput and bofusque that had been at war for years over which end of the egg to open first. in lilliiut they opened up the little end and the big enders and little enders battled endlessly. i'm sorry to say that satirical depiction often reflects what occurs in this august body. we spend a great deal of time arguing about procedural niceties, about motions to commit or not to commit that do not matter to the american people. and all the meantime we are bankrupting our children and our grandchildren. if i could, i'd like to cut through all the arguments back and forth because in my view most of the arguments are, by

design, missing the point of this disagreement. this disagreement is over one issue and one issue only. can the united states senate raise our debt limit with only 50 votes, or does it take 60. everything else that's being talked about is smoke, it is a side issue. the central fight here is should the united states senate be able to raise the debt limit with 50 votes or 60. now, i will note my friend from arizona questioned the knowledge of those who are objecting and he suggested that perhaps our knowledge was lacking because this could not be done. i know my friend from arizona is a long veteran of this body, and he surely knows that in 1987 and 1990 it was done. this is not a hypothetical. and in 1995 and 2004, it was attempted. it didn't quite get

accomplished, but it was attempted and what occurs under the budget act of 1974 is that when a conference report is adopted and reconciliation instructions are sent, that raise the debt ceiling, that can then be passed by this body with merely 50 votes. this is all an avenue to allow a debt ceiling increase to be raised with 50 votes, and i know my friend from arizona is well aware of that because he is such an esteemed historian of this body he knows not only can it be done but it has been done. and we don't need to high p.t.o. size over -- hypothesize over whether that is what this is about because for 62 days we have asked the majority leader, simply say we won't use this as a procedural trick to raise the debt ceiling with 50 votes, and we can go to conference. and for 62 days the majority leader has said no, no, i will not do that, i will not do

that. and those protestations make it absolutely clear what this is about. i think on both sides of the chambers there are different things at work. on the democratic side of the chamber, president obama has been very explicit, he wants to raise the debt limit and he has said he wants no debate about it, he wants to shut down the discussion, he simply wants a blank check. he simply wants an unlimited credit card to keep digging the debt hole this nation is in deeper and deeper and deeper. he's said this publicly, repeatedly from the white house. and what our friends, the democrats, are doing is standing shoulder to shoulder with the democrat president in fighting to enable the united states senate to raise the debt limit with just 50 votes, which means if that happens, that that would then allow the 55-member democratic majority to vote to do so without listening

to a word from the minority. that's what this fight is about. there is no other issue being contested here. but what's happening on the republican side? well, some have suggested we ought to just have a motion to instruct. now, the problem with a motion to instruct is a motion to instruct is nonbinding so it's a purely symbolic gesture, but even a motion to instruct not to raise the debt ceiling would lose. why? because there are 55 democrats and the 55 democrats would vote against it. and here's the dirty little secret about some of those on the right side of the aisle. there are some who would very much like to cast a symbolic vote against raising the debt ceiling and nonetheless to allow our friends on the left side of the aisle to raise the debt ceiling. that to some republicans is the ideal outcome because they can go to their constituents and say

see, i voted no and yet at the same time wonderfully they lost and they didn't actually have to stand up and stop what was happening. and so that is an outcome i believe that there are some on this side of the aisle who desire. now, i do feel obliged to rise in defense of my colleagues, the republicans. because the senior senator from arizona has impugned the republicans by claiming repeatedly that it is only a minority of republicans who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling on just 50 votes. and he has repeatedly suggested on the floor of the senate that, in fact, it may be a small minority, that the overwhelming majority of republicans, the senior senator from arizona sa said, stand with harry reid in wanting to be able to raise the debt ceiling on 50 votes. let me suggest to the senior