ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the nucleathe senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: skilled to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. stab disabled that amendment 987 and coons-johanns 1079 be in

order. that at 5:30 p.m. monday, june 3, the senate proceed to votes in relation to the two amendments in the order listed, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes, understand that there be two minutes equally divided between the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you. ms. stabenow: and i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. officer if he without objection. -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i want to start by thanking senator whitehouse who has shown such strong leadership on the issues that we're going to be discussing this afternoon, which is how do we get out of the sequestration box that we are now in. i also want to thank him for joining with me in sponsoring the cut unjustified tax loopholes act, which could do so

much to address the problems which we're going to be discussiodiscussing here today,g the need to move forward on the solutions to our budget deficit and end ting sequestration. and i would -- and to ending sequestration. and i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, following my remarks, that the senator from rhode island, be recognized for his remarks on the subject. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, at the beginning of march, when congrescongress's failure to rea compromise to reach a compromise -- sequestration will take place, and i'm excited said one member of the house of representatives. it is going to be a home run, said another member of the house of representatives. and this will be the first significant tea party vick tricks said a third member of the house of representatives. well, concession may have a victory for the tea party, but it isn't a victory for the american people. it is in the a victory for the

men and women of our military and their families. over the past two months, senate armed services committee has heard testimony from our highe highest-rairchging military leaders, the chairman of the joint chiefs of starving the army chief of staff, the chief of naval operations, the air force chief of starving the commandant of the marine corps, the combatant commanders who are responsible for our forces in afghanistan and candidate around the world. each of these military leaders told us that continued sequestration will damage our security and harm the troops that they lead. general temperature circumthe chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, warned us, "if sequestration occurs, it will is severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy, it will put the nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with men and women in uniform." he warned us that continued sequestration would "destroy

military readiness." general amos, the commandant of the marine corps, told us, "sequestration will leave ships in port, aircraft grounds for want of necessary maintenance and flying hours, units only partially trained and reset after 12 years of continuous combat, and modernization programs canceled." the result, he stated, would be a lapse in american leadership. general odierno, chief of staff of the army told us that -- quote -- "sequestration will result in delays in every one of our ten major modern programs, the inability to set our equipment after 12 years of war, unacceptable reductions in unit in individual training and will continue to place an unreasonable burden on the shoulders of our soldiers and civilians." and he said that "if we do not

have the resources to train and equip our force, our soldiers, our young men and men and womene price potentially with their life." lost flight hours will cause unit standdowns which will result in long-term unit combat degradation, we have already ceased operations for one-third of our fighter and bomber force. within 60 days of a standdown, the effected units will be unable to meet planned requirements. the vice chief of naval operations told us -- quote -- "in fy2013 reduce we will defer an additional 184 aircraft and 184 engine for depot maintenance and defer 8 of 33 planned depot level surface shipment availability.

on our shore basis, we deferred about 16% of our planned fy 2013 sustainment and upgrades, about $1 billion worth of work. by the end of fy 2013, nearly two-thirds of the fleet will be less than fully mission-capable and not certified for major combat operations." mr. president, we rely on the men and women of our military to keep us safe and to help us meet the u.s. national security objectives around the world. we expect our men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line every day. but in return, what we tell them is that we will stand by them. we will stand by their family. we will provide them the best training, the best equipment and the best support available to any military anywhere in the world. sequestration in fiscal year

2013 is already undermining that commitment to the men and women in the military and their families. now, there may be a few people who hearing all of this might still consider sequestration a -- quote -- "victory." but members of the armed services committee who heard this testimony, democrats and republicans, believe that the continued sequestration is a grave mistake. these cuts will damage our military readiness, restrict our ability to respond when crisis erupts, restrict our flexibility in confronting national security threats from iran to north korea to international terrorism. and these cuts will cost taxpayers in the long run because maintaining our military readiness today is far less expensive than rebuilding our military readiness tomorrow, after it's been squandered. sequestration's devastating effects are also felt in other

of our agencies and departments. these effects are going to harm students and seniors and farmers and families across this nation. continued sequestration will setback our slow climb out of recession as well as education and medical research and health care and public safety. as former defense secretary panetta told our committee in february, it's not just defense. it's education, loss of teachers. it's child care. it's about food safety. it's about law enforcement. it's about airport safety. now the desire to avoid this outcome is, i believe, bipartisan. that is why it is so baffling to me that some of our republican colleagues still refuse to allow us to take the necessary next step to avert this continued damage. by refusing to allow a

house-senate conference committee to meet, a meeting in which members of both chambers and both parties would work to resolve differences between the senate and house-passed budgets, a few senate republicans are objecting to the search for a solution to sequestration. for reasons i do not understand, they are objecting now to the normal budget process that they previously urged us on with such energy to follow. now, it is truly baffling because just two months ago we heard from some republicans that it was a travesty that we had failed to pass a budget. they called failure to pass a budget was an outrage. and now that we passed a budget, a few of our colleagues across the aisle are preventing us from going to conference so that we can work out our differences with the house and finalize a budget. those colleagues want a

guarantee in advance of a conference that will -- in which they will get their way on a number of issues or else they say they're going to prevent the conference from even occurring. they want the rules of the game to guarantee that they're going to win even before they agree to play. the budget resolution is no game, but the analogy is apt. i can't understand the reasoning. i simply can't understand that reasoning, but at a time when our national security is challenged on so many fronts and we face the effects of sequestration that i've outlined, this isn't just illogical. it makes responsible governing impossible. it's harmful to our nation. getting to conference and working out our differences is simply essential. and i'm very much encouraged that some of our republican colleagues have come to the floor to point this out.

they have he spoken forcefully, admirably, courageously about the need for the senate to move forward. they give me hope. those senate republicans who have come to the floor and urged us to go to conference and urged those that are blocking our move to conference to remove the blockage have a mission, which i hope succeeds. i've spoken on this floor on a number of occasions about what i see as the proper path to sensible deficit reduction, and that's the reverse of sequestration. a significant majority of americans believe that we need a balanced deficit-reduction plan to dig us out of the hole that we're in. such an approach would include some additional discretionary budget cuts, prudent prioritized cuts replacing the hatchet which is sequestration with a scalpel instead. such an approach would include

reforms to entitlement programs and it would include revenue. budget experts of all ideological stripes know that additional revenue must be part of our deficit solution. and by closing unjustifiable tax loopholes such as those that my permanent subcommittee on investigation has outlined in detail on a bipartisan basis, we can provide tens of billions of dollars for deficit reduction, deficit reduction that does not require us to raise the burden on working families or on the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. and that kind of revenue will help us reverse sequestration, part of a solution to this budget crisis that we're in. a balanced approach to deficit reduction is the approach of this budget -- the approach to this budget which this body

passed on march 24. and i hope that this position prevails in conference when we get to conference with the house. i would hope the senate position prevails. but i can't even believe that members of this body would consider obstructing the budget process until they were given a guarantee that they could get their way. it is the wrong way to govern. most of us know it. you can't guarantee in advance of a conference that the conference is going to have your outcome. if you want to instruct conferees, fair enough. that's what the effort has been here on the part of the democratic majority leader. but for some members of this body to insist that unless they're guaranteed they'll get their way in conference or else they're going to block us going to conference is not the way that we're able to get anything

done here. if we all took that position, we'd never get anything done. and this obstruction does a disservice to the men and women who serve in our military and to the people of this great nation that they protect. their position is as damaging as it is illogical. i hope that they will soon relent to logic, to the needs of the nation and end the objection to proceeding to conference with the house of representatives because that is the way that we can try to work out our differences, finalize a budget and take the necessary steps towards deficit reduction and the end of sequestration. i thank our presiding officer, and again i thank senator whitehouse. it's his initiative that brings us to the floor today. it's his initiative which has cast a light in so many ways on the budget dilemmas we face, but also the solution to these challenges. and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. chairman, let me first thank chairman

levin for the immense amount of work and passion and good thought that he has put into trying to accelerate the day when we can say good riddance to the sequester. he sees firsthand as chairman of the armed services committee how much damage the sequester is doing to the military, to the soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines who honor us by their service, to the talented and loyal civilians who support their efforts. but, mr. president, families all across the country are also feeling the painful consequences of this sequester. just in my small state, rhode island, 8,100 folks have already seen their weekly unemployment checks reduced by $50. for a family struggling to get by, losing $50 can hurt.

and federal rental assistance has been eliminated for 500 low-income rhode island families, which may cause some even to lose their homes. economy-wide, our nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that the $85 billion in sequester cuts this year will cost us 750,000 jobs nationwide. we have 12 million americans out of work already. why on earth would we want to cut 750,000 more jobs? as chairman levin said, it doesn't have to be this way. in fact, leader reid tried twice to bring up measures that would get rid of the sequester, but twice republicans filibustered. and now they refuse even to allow the process to go forward that would negotiate a solution

through the regular legislative process. they won't even let us appoint senators to negotiate a compromise between the senate and the house budgets. it has been 61 days since we passed our budget, and each time we try to move the process along, republicans object. and if their rule is i have to have it my way before i'm willing to enter into negotiations, that i need a guarantee, i'd like some of that deal too. i've got some things i feel pretty passionately about. and if they want to play by those rules, then we should all be playing by those rules. if not, then let's follow the regular order and let the process of democracy work. from government shutdowns to federal default, the other party has a strategy. to manufacture one crisis after another, each time holding our economy hostage to demands for really radical policies that the

vast majority of american people reject. they demand the end to medicare as we know it. the american people want no part of that. they demand cuts to social security. the american people want no part of that. and they refuse to close a single -- not one -- not a single corporate tax loophole. well huge minorities of americans want that to happen, but our friends don't care. they are extremists. it's not just the american public, by the way, that rejects the extremist tea party agenda. so do economists. and what economists say has been confirmed in practice by the experiences of other nations that followed the republican austerity strategy. republicans say budget cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit, but their fervor ignores the established economic effect that has during a recovery.

right now for every dollar we cut, the economy shrinks by more than $1. their theory is that when you cut $1 in government spending, that releases the economy to grow more rapidly. well, the fact of the matter is during a recovery the exact opposite is true. and the way it's measured is through a phenomenon called the fiscal multiplier. there are a number of recent studies that try to identify what the fiscal multiplier is right now and they range from 1.4 to 3.7 which means that for every one dollar you cut, the economy takes a $1.40 hit. there's an extra 40 cent nearly each cut to our national economy. if this is right, every dollar you cut is $3.70 worth of harm to our economy. it is a multiplier of damage from government cuts.

so shrink the g.d.p., which you do if you have a missile multiplier over one and collect less taxes, and less taxes means less of the deficit reduction that is supposedly achieved by the budget cuts. it is a vicious cycle that could keep our economy weak and our deficits high. you can go backwards, and europe proves it. from spain to portugal to greece, countries slashed their budgets and things got worse. double-digit unemployment and negative growth. we have a u.s. unemployment rate of about 7.5%. that is way too high. but it is way better than 27% in spain, 37% in greece, and 16% in portugal. we had 2.3% growth last year. they had negative growth rates.

negative growth rates. their economies contracted. the evidence from the austerity spermt is in -- experiment is in. countries that cut the deepest hurt themselves the worst. as you can see, employment in the euro zone is worse by about 20% since the major austerity programs kicked in. over that same time period, unemployment in the u.s. is better by about 25%. their policies, employment worse by 20%. our policies, employment better by 25%. a lot of these republican calls for harmful austerity cited a 2010 paper called "growth in a time of debt" by harvard economists reinhart and rogoff. republicans loved reinhart and rogoff. they cited them at least five dozen times to justify their

demands for budget cuts. they can't get enough of reinhart and rogoff. turns out there is a big problem. there were numerous errors in their computations, math errors, dropping a column of data. oops. with the fiscal multiplier over one, the best thing we can do to accelerate our recovery is to lift the harmful european style sequester cuts. the job preservation and sequester replacement act of 2013 would do just that through september 30, giving us time to negotiate a broader compromise. cosponsored by chairman levin, chairman harkin, senator lautenberg, senator merkley, senator schatz and senator warren, it would replace the sequester from the buffett rule and closing tax loopholes. sensible tax changes that on their own we should do because they'll make the tax code

fairer. the buffett rule would ensure that multimillion-dollar earners pay at least a 30% effective federal tax rate. last year we debated whether the top income tax rates should be 35% or 39.6%. but the fact of the matter is that many at the top, people making hundreds of millions of dollars in a single year, won't pay anything close to that rate. why? because the tax code is riddled with special provisions that favor ultrahigh-income earners. for example, investment income is taxed at the special rate of 20%. and the so-called carried interest loophole allows billionaire private equity fund managers to pay this low rate. so many of them pay the same tax rate or even less than a hardworking, average firefighter or brick mason in rhode island making $50,000 a year.

$200 million a year paying the same tax rate as folks making $50,000 a year. the buffett rule follows the common sense that people earning millions of dollars a year, even hundreds of millions of dollars a year, should pay higher tax rates than middle-class families. and it would also cut the deficit by $71 billion. another loophole the so-called edwards-gingrich loophole, lets high-earning professionals dodge paying payroll taxes by calling themselves corporations. we close that, too, saving another $9 billion. we save another $3 billion by going after a deduction that allows private jet owners to depreciate their planes faster than commercial aircraft are allowed to be depreciated. another commonsense change. the fourth part of the proposal would contribute $24 billion to lifting the sequester by ending tax breaks for big oil.

over the past decade, the five largest oil companies have reaped over $1 trillion in profits. that's trillion with a t. $1 trillion in profits. and while they're making that massive, massive profit, they nevertheless pull strings in congress to keep billions of dollars a year that regular taxpayers have to cough up for them in tax giveaways. as with all of the elements in this bill, repealing big-oil giveaways is something we should be doing anyway just because it's the right thing to do. finally, weeped a tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. believed, the tax code allows manufacturers to indefinitely delay paying taxes on profits from overseas operations. ending this unfair and un-american advantage would lower the deficit by another $20

billion. each one of these five reforms would make the tax code fairer for all americans. they're each worth passing for that reason alone. they are embairmts in our -- embarrassments in our tax code. getting rid of them could stop the sequester. while democrats and republicans work together on a balanced deficit reduction package. if, of course, we could get republicans to actually work with us and negotiate and go through the regular order they have claimed so long to seek, to get to a balanced and negotiated deficit reduction package. but as chairman levin pointed out, at the moment they refuse even to appoint conferees to begin the process, they want to be assured they will have it their way before they even begin to negotiate. as i said earlier in the speech if that's the way they're going

to behalf, i want some of that action myself. i have things i feel very strongly about. and i could in a position to say i won't allow us to go to conference either until we're clear we're never going to do chained c.p.i. and put that burden on our social security-receiving seniors. i would say i will never go to conference until we get a carbon fee so big polluters are paying their share and we're not having to subsidize what they're doing to our atmosphere and oceans. i could say those things, any one of us could say those things. i yield. mr. levin: if that position were taken by all of us, that is a guarantee of inaction. mr. whitehouse: that is a guarantee of gridlock and failure. that is why it is so important no one in this body try to use that kind of hostage taking extremist tactic rather than allowing the regular order to continue. mr. levin: since i've interrupted the senator, let me ask just one additional

question. i noticed that even though your menu there yields $127 billion, that you only require $85 billion for the one-year sequester replacement which means, for instance, if just the buffett rule were put in place which is a tax fairness approach plus the bottom one, a tax break for offshoring, those two items out of this menu and there are many items not on your menu, those two items alone could reverse sequestration for a year. and i just want to make one other comment if i could about offshoring. my dear friend from rhode island knows that my permanent subcommittee has done a lot of work on the tax breaks from offshoring. in addition to what the senator said about delaying tax on profits, under our tax code companies which move jobs overseas get a tax deduction for the cost of the moving, if

they're building a plant overseas the cost of that plant can be deducted currently, and -- and this is perhaps the most stunning thing that i've learned fairly recently -- it's even possible under our tax code for the cost of operation of that facility to be deducted currently while the tax on the profits or the income of that operation are delayed. which means they can cut their domestic taxes by the cost of running a foreign operation currently. now, that takes a little bit of gimmickry to do it, but that's what's going on and i just wanted to kind of fill in that one little element of some of these offshore bonanzas, these incredible loopholes that are in the tax code and as the senator from rhode island says, we should get rid of some of these

things even if we had no deficit because as the senator put it, they are an bairmt. -- an embarrassment. mr. whitehouse: nobody has spent more time and more energy and put more effort into the way in which american income gets hidden offshore so that people can avoid paying taxes and corporations can avoid paying taxes than chairman levin. he is our expert on this, and there indeed are other loopholes that are exploited primarily by corporations but also by very high-income taxpayers hiding money in the cayman islands, putting assets into ireland and other tax havens and refusing to treat them as american even though it's phenomenonnally an american -- nominally an american company. there are innumerable tricks. i'll close by making buoyant. very often people look at what we're trying to accomplish and

even actually pretty honest reporters will say, well, the democrats actually want to raise taxes. that's the fight. republicans want to cut spending, democrats want to raise taxes. no. we raise taxes once already, we raised the rate to -- for the people over $450,000 a year in the last big agreement. what we want to do now is to go into the tax code and close down the loopholes. that is all we're looking for. and what most americans don't understand is that if you look at how much money goes out the back door of the tax code, through loopholes, through special rates, through exemptions and so forth, it's very nearly the same amount of money that's actually collected through the tax code and becomes the revenues of the united states of america. we let almost as much money out the back door of the tax code as we collect through the tax code. and if you take a look at the areas where chairman levin has

done so much good research, that money actually never gets into the tax code to go out the back door. so if you were to count that in addition to the money that's allowed out the back door of the tax code, there is actually more money that goes out the back door of the tax code and is avoided coming through the tax code than is actually collected as revenues of the united states of america. so it is a big, big number. and the refusal of the republicans to let us attack one single loophole, not one loophole, every loophole is sacred right now to them, i think is unjustified and i hope that the people of america understand we are not looking at more tax rate increases, we are looking only at closing these loopholes and it is a rich field to pursue because more money goes through that than actually gets collected and you can bet

if you're an average american that when those loopholes were being carved into the tax code, you were not in the room. the special interests were in the room. and that's why a lot of people want to defend them but it's also a very good reason for making them more honest tax code that gets rid of these loopholes. but our friends what to do crisis manufacture, and they want to do crisis manufacture so they can force-feed bad economic ideas that americans don't want on all of us. and i think we need to resist that. i yield to the chairman. mr. levin: if my friend would yield, the name of the bill which you've cosponsored is called cut unjustified -- or unjustifiable tax loopholes. there are plenty of deductions which are justified. mortgage, accelerated depreciation, contributions to

charitable deductions, these are justifiable tax deductions. and what we're talking about are the unjustifiable ones which shouldn't be there. we're not proposing tax rate increases. from the way i phrase it, i'm talking about collecting taxes which should be paid. not increasing taxes or the rates of taxes but collecting the taxes which in all justice really should be collected by uncle sam. mr. whitehouse: let me thank the chairman for allowing him to join him today. he's shown great leadership in this area and i'm privileged to be here with him today. i yield the floor. is and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider these nominations, calendar number 93, 94, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 10, the 121, 124, 15 with the exception of colonel john j. heck, 126, 127, 128, 19, 130, 131, 133, 14, 15, 116, 137 1, 38 1, 39 and 140

and all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, marine corps and navy, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order to any of the nominations, the that any related statements be printed in the record that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 11 and 1 that the senate proceed to moat-vote on the nominations in the order listed with no interveningvening, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and there be no

intervening action or debate, no further motion be in order to the nominations, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, mark a. barnett of virginia to be judge of the court of international trade, claire a. kelly to be a judge of the court of international trade. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the nomination, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is agreed to. if there is no further debate on the kelly nomination, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 129. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 129, recognizing the significance of may, 2013, as asian pacific american heritage month and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that a resolution be agreed to, that the hirono amendment to the preamble at the desk be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 158. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 158

to authorize the production of records by the permanent subcommittee on investigations of the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. con. res. 17. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 17 providing for conditional adjournment or recess of the senate and adjournment of the house of representatives. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the current resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm told there are two bills at the desk. if that's the case i ask for their first reading.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 3, an act to approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the keystone xl pipeline and for other purposes. h.r. 271, an act to clarify the compliance with an emergency order and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading but object to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that on friday, may 24 through monday, june 3, senators levin and rockefeller be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the senate's recess, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters on tuesday, may 28, from 10:00 a.m.

until 12:00 noon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the senate, the president of the senate, the president pro tempore of the senate, the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only -- mr. reid: i ask unanimous i asks consent the when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene pro forma sessions only, with no business conducted on the following dates and times. following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next session, friday,

may 24, 12:30 p.m., tuesday, may 28, 12:00 p.m., friday, may 31, 12:00 p.m. and the senate adjourn on friday, may 31, until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 3, unless the senate receives a message from the house that it has adopted s. con. res. 17. the adjournment resolution. and if the senate receives such a message, the senate adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 3, 2013. that on monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour will be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m., senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the farm bill, s. 954. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, senators stabenow and cochran have arranged two votes that will begin monday, june 3, at 5:30. if there's no further business

to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on friday unless the senate receives a message from the house that it has passed s. con. res. 17. and the senate stands adjourned pursuant to the terms of s. con. pursuant to the terms of s. con.

they have to agree before something becomes a law. i think this is an amaze decision that the founding fathers made. what this does is it requires that the senate where all of us represent a whole state has 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 ever us are. i listen 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 read it or understands it. you're not! and here is how the constitution works. when we pass a bill, and the house passes a bill, we go to conference.

and why did the founding fathersment that? because they understood the comprise was the mother's milk of a democracy. now here is the bizarre 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 listen to the leader of the republican party stand on this floor. we do a lot of high of damage ration here. we go too far and say too much. it's not exaggerating. the rallying cry of the republican party, pass a budget. registration order, pass a budget, regular order. pass a budget, regular order. what did we do? we passed a budget in regular order. now, here is the real bizarre part following the constitution,

my friends like to waive around and pretended like they're the only ones that love it, we now have the nerve that some people on that side doesn't think that regular order doesn't matter. they don't want to go to conference and comprise. blowing up the constitutional premise of comprise between the two houses. blowing it up. now, i don't know what the american people think of this. , but you have to shake your head at the politics of this. you have to shake your head. because here is what is really bizarre about this, they keep moving the post about what it would take to get us to conference, by the way, the people who are coniferring on the other side are the republican party. are you so worried they haven't read the constitution and they're not answering to their stwepts who voted them to office as republicans? so, you know, we have to have

another budget bill, and do the debate or make sure they can't comprise on anything, and we have to put it in law. there wat your way. it was called amendment. you could have gotten your way in the amendment process. we had over a hundred of them. we were here until 5:30 in the morning working on them. we passed seventy. how many do you think the amendments the senator from offered he's saying to have before question move on. how many amendments do you think he offered on that? zero. he didn't offer one. there was no not one republican amendment on the debt ceiling. not one. so i have to tell you, it's on they didn't want a budget. they wanted a political talking point. they want to make it look like we didn't care about doing our jobs. if you care about budget you

would high tail it to conference right now. you would high tail it conference. it's been two months. i hope the american people are paying attention. no wonder they think we are losers. this is not a game. you can't love the constitution one day and blow it up next. you can't be a situational constitutionist when you don't get your way. i got elected fair and square and so did you. that's why we have to be willing to comprise with one another. we are not serving the american people by playing these games. they are sick and tired of it. i think, frankly, it makes the body look silly. so i would, mr. leader, excuse me, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 33. that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of senate

from current resolution 8 budget resolution passed by the senate inserted in lou there. the motion to reconsider be considered laid point table. that the senate insists on the amendment. request a conference with the house on the disagreeing vote of two houses. and the chair be authorized to appoint con fori on the part of the senate. following the authorization duomotions be it order from each side. motion to instruct real toiftd debt limit, motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue. let there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders prior to vote in the motion. further no amendments be order to either of the motion prior to vote. all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. >> mr. president? >> senator from utah. >> mr. president, reserving the right to object. i ask unanimous consent that the

senator modify the request so it not be in order to conference a report. that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. >> does she modify the request? >> could i inquire the senator? i'm asking is it preventing a back room deal -- between the two house you're saying what the founding fathers put in the constitution for conferences that in fact is a back room deal in the constitution in you don't accept that part of the constitution? >> my friend and my distinguished colleague from missouri is absolutely correct in citing the constitution and pointing out they have to agree before something becomes law. it's important to point out that other article i section v each is charged with the task of establishing its own rules per operation. the rules of operation in this

body, as they apply right here, require that this kind of request unanimous consent. what it means is that every one of us has to be willing to vote for this. what i and a few of my colleagues have said regardless what you decide to do we respect your opinion. if you are asking us to vote for this, to give our consent, which is a vote. we are asking for one slight modification. the slight modification includes something very simple which said we're not going negotiate the debt limit as part of a budget resolution. there are two separate things. we didn't consider a single amendment that would have addressed a debt limit. not a single part of the budget resolution that was out of the body addressed it. not having the subject of the budget resolution. it's not appropriate for that to be addressed by the conference committee. mr. president, would with the senator modify the request? >> i reserve the right to object i will object. >> senator from arizona.

>> first of all, i think that 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 are ready to vote, i say to my colleague from utah. we are ready to vote. we are ready to vote on a motion that would send this bill, which is a 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 con fori, i would be more than happy to vote and

that of increasing the debt limit. instructing the conferee. that's the way that the senate should do business. if the senator from utah will allow this body to vote on whether we should move to conference with instructions to conferee that is the regular order. it is not the regular order 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. what is to prevent on the agricultural bill right now. i say to my colleague from mississippi, suppose we pass the ag bill. suppose that the house of representatives pass the ag bill

and we want to appoint conferees but there's a burning issue that a number of my colleagues might have, and so we're going to -- go to conference. it isn't just about the budget conferee. this is about whether we will ever be able to appoint conferee on a bill that has been passed bit 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 fudging. that's the sit down and iron out our differences. the senator of utah is worried about the result. as i understand. i'm worried about the result. i'm worried about a bill right now that is just outrageous in cat fish and all kind of stuff i'm concerned about. subsidizes for the tobacco companies and that. that doesn't mean i'm going object that we move for conferee

when the will of the senate and the congress and the people is heard in a -- open honest debate and voting. we're here to vote. we are not here to block things. we're here to articulate our positions on the issues. in the best and possible way we can. and do what it can for the country, and then let the process move forward. i say to my friend from utah, you're not going win every fight here. you're not going to win ere battle here. 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. we're not counting on 100 votes in the united states state. we are counting on a majority of votes and passing it. and we're hoping that the house will cod.o.t. same. and we will go to conference. now, does that mean that if if a group of senates, four, five, ten, i don't know how many colleagues you have on the issue, object to us going con conference on the immigration bill therefore it should stop. i'm very worried if this happens about the president that will be said on how the congress of the united states does business. now just a couple of few weeks ago, after the newton 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 happened 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 newton massacre? 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 saidlet move forward. let's debate the gun bill. let's do what we can to prevent these further massacre. that's our obligation and duty to the american people 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 was talking about a great moment of it. we stayed up all night. my age it's not nearly as enjoyable as it once was, and now after being so proud we can't observe at least a vote? the ?rairt -- senator from utah wants a vote whether he should

appoint conferee and what the instructions to the conferee should be. that's what we should be doing. and i understand how important it is for the senator of florida, i can tell you there's a majority of us that want the congress to work the peoples' will. so all i would do is say, look, i hope my colleagues will agree with motions to instruct the conferees. that's the regular process. that's a regular order around here. but i can also tell my colleague from utah something else, if we continue to block things like this and block the -- what is the regular order then the majority will be temped to

change the rules of the senate. that would be the most disastrous outcome that i can ever imagine. and i don't begrudge anybody whether they've been here six months or thirty years. their rights as senators. i hope my colleagues would look at the way the senate has functioned in the pass. are the american people unhappy with us? of course they are unhappy with us. one reason is because they don't see us accomplishing anything. what i have done for these years and the people i respected in this body, on both sides of the aisle, you fight the good fight. you make your case with to your colleagues and the american people. then you accept. you accept the outcome of a regular order while preserving your rights as individual senator.

have motions to instruct the conferee if the issue is taxes, if their issue is the debt ceiling. and we vote to instruct the conferee and the conferees carry out the will of the majority of the united states senate. >> [inaudible conversations] >> mr. president. >> mr. president. >> mr. president. >> mr. president. >> senator from missouri. >> i reserve the right to object to the ask made by the senator from tout amend my ask. i would say within my request there's in fact the opportunity to vote. and he had the opportunity to offer an amendment on the debt ceiling in the budget. he did not. so i certainly thank my colleague from arizona, and i reserve my unanimous -- i renew my unanimous consent motion. >> mr. president, if i might. >> objection for the many modified request. >> there is. >> the objection is heard.

the senator from michigan is recognized. >> thank you. for thirty seconds. it's a important debate. i'm not trying to interrupt. i have for a purposes of a colleagues who want to speak next ask once the debate is done that senator feinstein, senator mccain have fifteen minutes to discuss a farm bill amendment. thank you. >> without objection. >> mr. president? >> is there objection to the original request? >> reserving the right to object. >> the senator for utah. >> for sixty one days several of my colleagues and i have objected to the majority request for unanimous consent to circumvent regular order. to go to conference with the house and budget. they want permission to sip a few steps in the process and jump straight to the closed car door back room meeting. there senior negotiators from the house and senate will be free to wait until a convenient artificial deadline and ram through the comprise. mostly unread. and with the country back up

against another economic cliff crisis, we're concerned that they will exploit that opportunity to sneak a debt limit increase to the budget. we think that is inappropriate. and yet objecting to this dysfunctional unrepublican, undemocratic process invited anger from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we just don't get it, you see. we just don't get it, you're told. proceeding to a secret closed door back room 11th hour deal, we're told, is the way the process works. it's the way the senate works. it's the way the house works. it's 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 back room are not the solution. they are the problem. the unspoken premise we have heard in favor of going to conference on without condition

congress knows what its done. trust us to go back to a back room and cut a deal. trust us to endorse special interest and only work for the good of the country. trust us to not wait until the 11th hour and hold the credit of the united states hostage. to not ram through 1,000-page. trust us. we are congress. as it happens, mr. president, the american people don't trust congress. or either party. and we have 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 confidenced 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 the objection would be here either. we would -- as congress racked up trillions in debt and inflated the housing bubble.

we are fully ware 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 interest of washington. of congress itself. the federal bureaucracy, corporate crony and special interests. and it does so at the expense of the american people, their wallets and 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 are suburbs of washington, d.c. a city that produces almost nothing in tangible economic valuable. it's not because of the two parties have been so effective

taking on the special interests and doing the peoples' business. there's a reason that tea party on the right and the occupiers on the left protest their shared perception that our economy, our politics, and society seem rigged. that elite on washington street, k street, and pennsylvania of a to play by one set of rules and people on matt cain street must play by another. it's because they are mostly right. not between rich and poor. but between washington and everyone else in america. the national debt and the statutory limit is a hidden part of the 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. it's why washington wants to raise the debt limit with as little put lick scrutiny and accountability as possible. that's why we're objecting. critickings say we should allow it to move forward so we have a debate. i don't know if they noticed, mr. president, we're having the debate. we've had it for several days in a row. 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 and supervisorring their congress, not ours, their congress, is for us to do our work above and in the open of only on this one issue for all of our concerns we still -- we have still said all along we would 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 notion negotiations to cut the back room deal. all we ask is one thing, a small simple request. leave the debt limit out of it. do everything else you want. spend all the money you want. using all the accounting gimmicks you want. when you go to the back room, check the debt limited at the door. that way the american people can have that separate debate on the 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 justification for including a debt limit height in their task. they have no right. 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 have always done things. respectfully, mr. president, which is how we fail. this is how we earn our 15% approval rating. we know this is business as usual around here. that's >> we're objecting. if the majority wants to proceed to a budget conference to regular order. we cannot stop them. again, mr. president, that's not their request. their request is for permission to break from regular order, skip a few steps and go to straight to secret negotiations in the washington view of the world, the real governing can be done. the american people do not trust secret back room dreams and neither do i. unless and until the american people are assured that we will not sneak a debt limit increase to the conference report, i will happily continue to object. and i on yect to the motion on the floor. >> objection, sir. >> senator from arizona.

>> mr. president, just briefly. we have been through it before. in a nutshell, what the senator from utah just said that is if we pass a legislation of the house -- if the house passes legislation we will not go to conference unless certain conditions are imposed on those conferees that happen to be important to the -- a small group of the united states senators. ..

then what is the process clerics how do we reconcile legislation by one body and the other body poetics is that we been doing for a couple hundred years. all i can say is this the senator from utah got another way of reconciling legislation between the house and senate? of course not. of course he doesn't. of course he doesn't because that's the only way we can get legislation that will be passed by both bodies and signed by the president of united states. i tell the senator from utah again, if this is imposed, this condition is imposed, there is no reason why any group of senators should impose

conditions on conferees from now on, which would then mean of course we won't let a conference. i'd be glad to answer a question. >> i beg to ask a question to the chair. if commanders in the budget resolution passed by the house come in the budget resolution passed by the senate if conference in agreed-upon will result in a resolution passed by the house and senate, but never sent to the president. it is a budget resolution that governs the way appropriate from that point forward. the question of the debt ceiling could be done in a budget resolution. it is any action on the debt ceiling, it has to be a separate legislative vehicle that ultimately goes to the president of the united states. even if there were in agreement on debt limit in the budget conference, it would have no impact of law. >> perhaps the senator from utah doesn't know about the fact that even if they did raise the debt

limit could not become law because it doesn't go to the president of the united states. again, maybe the senator from utah are to learn a little more about how business has been done in the congress of the united states. i get budget resolutions 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 conference, then it wouldn't have any meaning whatsoever. and again, this business is secret. that's what conferences are about to conference results are subject to a vote of both houses as to the conference resolved. >> senator, i have conferred with budget chair while you are debating mess with the senator

from utah and maybe they are not aware the conference committee is open to anyone who wants to observe them pay a i would like for you to invite the senator from utah to sit in sit in and listen to every word. this notion in our democracy is a backroom deal, the founding fathers are shaking their head in disgust at this notion. it's an open process. anyone can come and listen. >> it is my understanding since the budget conference is open to the public, it will also be broadcast on c-span so the american people can watch what deliberations are paired so i wonder, why would the senator from utah sits a black backroom clothes store when in fact is the senator from utah know this is open to the public in seeing by everybody? this is for him to say a

backroom closed door deal it either is directly misleading or 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. all i can say is we no one that even if we had a restriction on raising the budget, the debt limit, even if wait -- it would not matter because it is not legislation that would be signed by the president of the united states no matter what the budget conferees today. and we also know the budget conferees, unlike many i would hit the budget conferees meet in open session with c-span and the american people able to observe it. at least at the senator from utah would withdraw his comments this is a basque room closed door deal because it isn't. those are fundamental facts.

it's really disappointing that we are spending this time when we should be on the farrm bill when we have an important amendment to remove a lot of the corruption that do not bill. i would go ahead and yield the floor. >> senator from utah. >> as to the suggestion this produces a budget resolution attended today does not go to the president technically on its own is inaccurate. instructions that would allow the normal most of the senate to be circumvented, specifically for something like this or piece of legislation that would asif raise the debt limit. >> yield for a question? >> let me finish what i'm saying. a 51 vote margin rather than the 65 vote margin. this is different regardless how open you make that meeting, it is not the open debate in which

every senator, every representative is able to participate in the way they went on the floor. >> behind closed doors? does he admit that? does he admit he misspoke on that issue? it's not behind closed doors. >> compared to the way we do things on the floor, this is a closed door deal. this is not subject the same kind of scrutiny. the fact is we have rules in the senate, both on something like this would allow us to proceed on a base threshold. as the basis of our concern that we don't want legislation that could run through to raise the debt limit incurring additional, potentially giants of dollars in borrowing authority on the basis of only 51 vote threshold. that's our concern. >> mr. president. >> senator from washington.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been listening to this for 61 days as we been working extremely hard to get the budget passed and go to conference to work with our house collects, who by the way our majority republicans. we are working to do that because the american people have been very loud about not managing the budget crisis. we all know what'll happen if we don't conference is exactly what the senator from utah has been saying he doesn't want. africa conference, we'll have an open conference committee to discuss differences between the house and senate budget vote then gave conference how to move forward on appropriations bills we are now looking at and how we will do a sequestration. it will be an open debate that will come back here. but if we're not allowed to go to conference, what will happen because we do have to pass the

appropriations bill or move to a continuing resolution we don't get get a budget deal, will have to closed-door discussions to figure out a way when the debt ceiling had them will come down in the middle of the night and he would've had an opportunity to be a part of it because of the delay occurring right now. if the senate allows us to go to conference, members of the senate, democrats and republicans, senator sessions than i and his committee as those congressmen ryan in the house of his committee members will determine how went over budget forward. >> in case of the appointment of conferees, we have it open to the public and c-span or any other media coverage that i took him in the room? >> was the conferences that, it is like any other committee hearing for the public will come

in and listen. i'll be out of watch on c-span. it will be an open process. if we don't get to get to conference, we have discussions about how we manage our finances and government moving forward in this will be behind closed doors. what the senator's objection because the closer a secret meetings he is causing. so i would really hope our republican colleagues would allow us to move forward. we have 50 hours of debate. we had over 100 amendments considered. not one amendment was offered are considered on the debt ceiling, which now we go to conference two. we had an ability in fact with 17 amendments 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 cover the floor of the senate anytime and talk about the debt ceiling. we welcome that discussion. we believe they should be paid separate from what we talk about here. i would be happy to yield. >> how many amendments consider? >> there was 50 hours of debate equally divided. >> how many were voted on? >> over 70 were great too. >> there was not one of them in on the debt ceiling. >> i think the senator. >> i would ask 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 to offer that okay fine if you have to have that now, we want to get to conference. we will allow a vote on not and proceed to the budget. i do not understand this

argument that we are going into some secret meaning. i assure the senator reads the secret meetings when it comes to the budget in the past that have gotten us to a frustrating point appear that some of the conference so we do not have secret meetings. you're arguing for something that you are going to cut. i would really hope we can come to an agreement on a standard offered to amendments to be considered. we hope to have those and go to conference. i assure you we will be as open and transparent as possible. the budget resolution will come back to the senate. everyone will have a chance to have their say and not budget resolution would give us our instructions so we can continue to move forward on regular order to find the defense department, to fund our work culture, education and aspects of

government transportation and housing that is our obligation to do as the united days congress in order to the american public to manage what they are required to do once they pass their budget. so i would really urge our republican colleagues to back off on their insistence on this. am i going to like what comes out of conference? is sure the budget committee to work hard to get a budget passed in the senate, probably not. i know my responsibility as 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 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. certainty willcommonly commit to to conference with an open and transparent committee process

that allows us to get the budget in order and i urge our colleagues to reconsider their objection. >> mr. president. >> senator from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it is critically important. i have tremendous respect to our public at the state level, local level, federal of all my colleagues are correct oftentimes we have to vote for things we don't like and may not have everything we want because as things we need. i've been on the list and enter the time i've been here because i'm in the minority and sometimes in view and so i certainly understand that part of it. i'm glad we produce the budget after a thousand days. i say the budget summit is efficient and that's why voted against the budget. i believe this institution should move forward to negotiating differences between our budget in the budget the house has two finally have a budget said a country can move

forward. the only thing my colleagues are asking for his part of a negotiation if i may finish my statement that is part of the negotiation issue that got them and not be included. i heard statements made by x number of amendments that didn't include the debt limit. most of us agreed that was an issue that needed to be dealt with on its own. it's extremely consequential issue, one that is debated because it is the function not of an annual budget, the massive debt is a function of a structural problem we have. we basically have massive government programs going bankrupt. have also heard statements made that well, we can raise the debt limit if we wanted to because the way it's structured. why then the objection to a very simple notion? we can be a conference today with the house. if all we do is say go ahead and

negotiate taxes at the tax increase, but negotiate all these sorts of things at the debt limit cannot be part of it. it has to be done with separately. i don't understand the objection in there. a cautionary tale the next time someone comes and says if you don't file them coming up at soldier peace forever. we have a debt increase, so i'm going to live and ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration house concurrent resolution 25 that the amendment that the debt with the current resolution, budget resolution passed by the senate be inserted in lieu of their rather and the concurrent resolution 25 is amended be agreed to. the motion to be considered

delayed on the table that the senate insist on amendments are conference of the house and the disagreeing votes of the two houses in the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on part of the senate with no intervening action are today. further conference report a violation to 25 not be in order in the senate that includes reconciliation instructions to increase the debt ceiling. >> is their objection? >> object. >> the objection is heard. >> we are the same place before. what it basically sad is i want the senate to go into negotiations with the house and the only thing we ask is when they come comebacker not be reconciliation instructions on there that the debt limit to what the increase. it's so consequential that any city dealt with on its own. but to remind everybody of over dealing with here. i said this yesterday and i'll repeat it today. this is a debt that over the

last 20 or 30 years with cooperation of both parties. it is a function of a structural problem in spending programs that we don't do with programs that is going to collapse their economy and it's time to do with it now. that issue should be debated not as the budget negotiation that goes by when you're spending agreement. >> mr. president. >> senator from arizona. >> we been through this quite a bit, but i would respond by saying that if you were part of the budget resolution, it would have no effect in law. someone has to question what knowledge of those replicating menace about the fundamental procedures. second of all, if this is a prerequisite, then every conference we sent, the senators will be allowed to set certain

parameters of those conferee conferences, which is a procedure for use for instructions to conferees. we are willing to vote on any issue that any senator feels necessary for the conferees to do their job. >> will the senator yield for a question? >> senator, the senate as a wondrous creation by our founding fathers and a great deal of power was given to the minority in the senate. i know you've enjoyed having that power from time to time and i am sure when my party has been in the minority, it is important that we have respected that. although there have been some dicey times than i am aware you've been involved when we are on the brink of blowing up the

rights of the minority. i want to make sure i understand the way if he was going on here as we now have a super minority. if this were allowed to pass, we would be changing with the founding fathers had in mind in terms of the power of the minority and saying let's go in history considers one or two or three or four senators i decided to work and i about it right legislation or they weren't going to get the vote for women or the changes that have occurred. do we allow a super minority to hijack a process in our constitution that would have been would have no choice at that point then to begin to circumscribe the rules for the

minority. >> i think that's a danger and a significant danger of a number of senators know how large or small to insist by certain conditions he imposed unilaterally without emotions to instruct. it's not that we don't want the conferees to do certain things, but that's the regular order of how we do business. the senators hear his head at that feeling should not be part of any negotiations, fine. it's been my experience the conferees have stuck with the instructions that were voted on by the majority of the united states senate. this is a sad time because here we are debating as to whether we should allow the debt limit to be part of negotiations, which

was should have no meeting because it's not signed by the president. the senator from california have an issue that has to do with tobacco and halt the kid to have considered before the united states senate. we could be debating on the instructions to the contrary. am i not doing nice things. finally i would share with my colleagues. i've lost my times and have fun, but i've come to the floor of the senate and made the argument on those things i believe in game four. but after the body has decided whether it is right or wrong and when i've been voted down i've gone back on this issues and try

to convince my colleagues. in my colleagues didn't want to debate the issue of gun control what we should do about that. that's not how the senate should function. they need to give our passionate appeals and the leaves and put it to the will of the body. that is the protection of the individual that's not the way the american people want us to ask. my colleagues here. while this deliberative body, whether the greatest in the world are worst in the world go ahead and decide on this issue so they can on the budget and at

least tell the american people that we are going to do what we haven't done in every family in america sooner or later has to do and that is to have a budget. senator from california and i hope my colleagues will realize the best way to get their point of view over in the senate doesn't start the conferees and hope in not closed-door, not behind closed doors, not backroom process by the budget committee and conference. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from texas. >> mr. president, and gulliver's travels have told us the two

lands. they have been at war for years over which end of the two open first. emma looked at the the big eight in both its good for small end of the egg in the big band and little end battled endlessly. i am sorry to say that satirical depiction often reflects what occurs in this address to body. we spent a great deal of time arguing about procedural niceties, motions to commit or not to commit that do not matter to the american people and all the meantime, we're bankrupting children and grandchildren. if i could come up with it to cut through the arguments back and forth because 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 razor.i. on that with 50 votes? what does it take 60? everything else talk about his smoke, a side issue to the central site era should the united states senate bill would've raised the debt limit was 50 votes or 60? my friend from arizona? knowledge of those who are object name and perhaps our knowledge is lacking. i know my friend from arizona is a long veteran of this body and he surely knows in 1987 and 1990s, it was done. this is not a hypothetical. in 1995 in 2004, it was attempted. what occurs under the budget act of 1974 is on a conference report adopted reconciliation

are sent to raise the dead feline that cannot be passed by this body with nearly 50 votes. this is on avenue to allow a debt ceiling increase to be raised and i know my friend from arizona is well aware of that because he is such an esteemed historian of this body that he knows not only can it be done, but it has been done and we don't need to hypothesize what it's about because for 62 days, with vast majority leaders to simply say would not use this as a procedural trick to raise the debt ceiling with 50 votes that we can go to conference. for 62 days, the majority leader has said now, i will not do that. and those make absolutely clear what this is about.

mr. president, on both sides of the chamber, very different things that work. on the democratic side, president obama has been explicit. you must erase the debt limit and i said he wants no debate about it. it was to shut down the discussion. he simply wants a blank check. he wants an unlimited credit card to keep digging the debt hole deeper and deeper and he says publicly reputedly from the white house, to friends the democrats are doing is sitting shoulder to shoulder and feigning 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 the fight is about. no other issue being contested

here. what's happening on the republican side? somehow suggested we have to have a motion to instruct. the problem is the motion to instruct his nonbinding compass is a purely symbolic gesture. even a motion to instruct not to raise the death i would lose because they are said to have democrats in the 55 democrats would vote against it. here's the dirty little secret about some of those on the right side of the aisle. her son 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 dead feeling. back to some republicans is the ideal outcome because they can go to constituents and say i voted no and at the same time wonderfully they lost and they

didn't have to stand up and stop what was happening. said that as an outcome i believe there are some on the side cio who desire. i do feel obliged to rise in defense of my colleagues the republicans because the senior senator from arizona hasn't here the republicans by claiming repeatedly it is only a minority of republicans who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling i'm just 50 votes and he has repeatedly suggested on the floor of the senate that it may be a small minority, and that the overwhelmingly senior senator to want to go to raise the debt down to 50 votes. let me sit just from the senior senator that number one in saying he is impugning all 45

republicans in this body. but number two, it has been suggested that those of us fighting to defend liberty, fighting to turn around the out-of-control spending in debt in this country by fighting to defend the constitution has been suggested we are walkover's. if that is the case, i suggest there may be more in the senate bennis suspected. indeed i would encourage my friends come in the senior senator from arizona that if he were to circulate to republicans a simple statement that said, we the undersigned republican senators hereby state that we support giving harry reid to democrats the ability to raise the debt ceiling with 50 votes instead of 60. i believe his representation to

this body is only a minority of republicans that opposed not is not accurate. this issue gets scared by the procedural complexities and that's not by accident. washington is very good at speaking doublespeak to make citizen's eyes glaze over. at its heart is very, very simple. majority leader reid and the democrats want to raise the debt ceiling. they want to do so consistently president obama's instructions coming to do so without debate because he doesn't want to debate this issue, without conditions come without anything to fix out-of-control spending, spending, out-of-control debt to simply give him an additional blank credit card because going from $10 trillion to $17 trillion has not been enough. that is the desired the democrat

candidates candid. we should go to compensate now if they would simply say we will raise the debt ceiling was just using 50 votes. we will debate on the floor with a 60-vote threshold and be forced to find some bipartisan agreement. that's not what the majority wants to do. and those who are arguing that republicans should i see to that demand are arguing that all those who've taught her constituents were quantified to solve its economic problems and staff this out-of-control spending and stop encrypting our kids, that those promises are just so we tell constituents at home. it's not what we do on the floor of the senate. i would know when the senior senator from arizona said it's only a small minority that believes this on the republican side is my friend the senior

senator is able to produce a written letter with the majority of republicans i will offer here and now to go to a home game of my houston astros wearing arizona diamondback hat and i can guarantee you in houston that will not be well-received, but yet i stand in complete comfort that i will not find myself in that situation because i don't believe it's right that a majority of republicans in the body have given up the fight on spending, given up the fight on reining in out-of-control washington bipartisan spending deficits and debt. i believe we are seeing leadership in this body stand together to fix the problem is that the american people want. let me say this in closing. it's easy to get confused by all the procedural discussions back and forth.

this issue is about one issue alone. should majority leader harry reid deal to raise raise the debt limit an unlimited amount with just 50 votes? or should it require 60? if you require 60 there'll have to be some positive steps made to fix the problem. if it's just 50, the majority leader has the votes right now today to write a blank check for the federal debt. that's the issue and i think the american people are not conflicted in the answer to this issue. to fix the the problem and start digging the debt hole deeper and deeper. i am proud so many senators are standing here working hard to honor commitments to constituents because that's exactly what our job is. i yield the floor.

>> senator from utah. >> madam president, a couple of points that have come out today. it's important for us to remember that although the rules might allow for a conference committee and also may have happened in the past time to time. it typically hasn't happened in recent years. it's relatively rare. to sit just an open process that has the capacity to be made are not the same things. typically we can legitimately expect to backroom closed-door

process. we of course a conference committee. are not disputing the fact that sometimes it's important for conference committees to meet in order to attempt to reconcile competing versions of the same legislation. one passed in the house and one of the senate. what we talk about here is a limited request to limit the scope of their work so as to exclude the possibility of the debt limit increase without the 60-vote threshold. although this is a procedure that the majority has chosen to use in order to get to a conference committee is not the only way. in fact, it is possible without unanimous consent. it's possible to do this without all the speed willing to do it by withholding our objection is effectively voting to do that. if as has been suggested the other body does in fact want to go to conference, the other body could take the budget we passed,

even replace most or all of our pressure but there and not the point is my understand it at a conference about the need for unanimous consent. so there are other ways. this is just a way to majority has chosen to go. the majority has every right to do that and we have every right to object. that we will continue to do until such time as it either becomes unnecessary or until such time as the majority agrees to modify the request along the lines were specified. as to permit an insurer and in the discussions of those will take place subsequent to normal order and subject to 60-vote threshold. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. >> topics of discussion included response efforts to the oklahoma tornadoes, immigration

legislation and the irs targeting of conservative groups. this is about 20 minutes. >> just a thing about these those. they'll come around the time we are supposed to be meeting. we'll have to use that time very economically here because the room has to move on. really, it is so, so sad to even think about what happened in oklahoma. our hearts remain very much with the people of stepdad, oklahoma and all those caught in the path of this deadly tornado. for those of us who don't live in tornado country, it's hard to understand the impact. just anyone of these

interventions into the lives of people, loss of community in certain respects. this seems to be a strong community and the character of the display is carrying it through. nonetheless, no words can come to those who lost a family member or loved one. the small children lost his heartbreaking. i spoke on the floor yesterday that having visited an earthquake site in italy years ago with a seventh grade class was in church releasing for holy communion and the earthquake proof came down on the class. every seventh grader in that village was gone. imagine the devastation it caused losing these children, at least seven in the school entry otherwise. such a set thing. of course will work with colleagues from oklahoma to make sure they get assistance they need. president obama has deployed the

head of fema and as we wait nice the aftermath of the tornado, the teachers are always there for the students to protect their students from harm and the first responders who immediately ran to search for survivors, rescue neighbors and begin the work of recovery and they had some level of success. for those heroes and all the people of oklahoma, i hope it's a comfort that so many people share their grace, juan velazquez and standby to have them recover and rebuild. on monday, americans will mark the memorial day to remember the men and women in uniform and under the service and sacrifice of service members in every generation. and really for the history of

our country. yesterday democratic members of affairs committee vote on a package to ensure timely access to benefit veterans and families. i was proud of the work congressmen mike michaud, ranking member of the committee as well as other members of the committee who would introduce legislation, which i hope will be moving forward in a bipartisan way. the backlog of claims is the challenger country happens to be an legislation will promote innovation to speed up the claims process and the power to reduce and eliminate the backlog and really pay when the claim is long overdue out from what it is and work it out later. it's money we have to pay anyway. we might as well our vets to pay the rent and other responsibilities. secretary should seki has taken steps already two in the back of

the secretary hagel yesterday will testify she has directed the pentagon to find ways to better innovate health records with the va and that's one of the problems is the compatibility and operability of one technology. more must be done. we know that with memorial day drawing near. all of us are like to laugh, aubrey affirming our basic premise to the military to men and women in uniform and in the military they say on the battlefield when we come home -- when they come home they will leave no veteran behind. as we prepare to start another recess, the clock is beginning to take it the leadership

prepares to do nothing on jobs or the budget. the legislative branch, the first article of the constitution, the responsibility to legislate or not getting the job done. 141 days since the start of the congress, no jobs bill. 61 days since the senate passed the budget, no conference. republicans ask for regular order. that is music to our tears. open, transparent discussion at the table between the house bill is senate bill as to what differences we can reconcile. they ask for regular order and didn't take yes for an answer over 61 days ago. we are not the only house and senate democrat calling for going to the table in a transparent and open way. in recent days, senator mccain and senator collins have

demanded their own call for regular order are going to conference and bringing those budgets to the table. instead of working to enact a budget or create jobs today, house republicans will vote to make college more extensive. them as clearly demonstrate how damaging mass is to college affordability, those who want to help them to do so. we've talked about trying to keep it at 3.4%. it will double a 6.8. we want to stop that from happening. republican remedy is to go beyond 6.8, a market rate without a reasonable cap and

masqueraded this, which it is not. please pay attention and the american people. again, it's now time to waste. vanessa kerry budget that creates jobs, reduces the deficit, gets rid of sequestration and takes us into the future. one of the areas we're focusing on in a bipartisan way and i'm very hopeful we can achieve success in just a matter of weeks or months before the august recess is comprehensive immigration. we have to restore confidence in who we are as a people. by and large we're a nation of immigrants. every immigration who comes that their hope, their determination, their optimism for the future makes america more american. it's an invigoration, in which

ministers we can pass the bill, we can more fully avail ourselves, our country, all of us including none too proceeding to the future. in order to do this and i want to be clear because i hear misrepresentations reported in the press. if you check with me, i'll tell you. we must have comprehensive immigration. we must value the contribution of immigrants to our country. in doing so we must protect our borders every must protect our workers and we must protect the taxpayer. we have said since day one, we cited in the affordable care act and we will say it again that undocumented people will not have access to subsidies in the affordable care act. any representation to the contrary is simply not to.

no cost to the taxpayer and that it's always been a democratic position. we would do something different than that is simply not true. is a bottom-line, no subsidies in the affordable care act, no medicaid. that's it. so again, we're optimistic about the prospects. what might be a legitimate condition and conditions are not that these people in our country will be on a path to legalization and eventually

citizenship. i congratulate the senate for passing a bill last night out of committee. again, it's not everything we want, but it is taking us forward and hopefully we can make improvements as they go along. it is my view would be helpful to have a bipartisan house bill to go to the table to reconcile their differences before the summer is out to have a dream come true for so many people. yesterday we had a reception honoring his 70 years as a priest ordained 70 years ago in january and now in another few days celebrate his 96th birthday. it is really beautiful. it is bipartisan, happy, lovely. following a meeting with the president at the white house and i bring into because at the

beginning of the remarks he said america is a beautiful dream. and then his remarks exposed or not. it's a beautiful dream for all of us here and for all of our founders. a beautiful dream for men and women in uniform who protect the freedoms that make our america so beautiful and it's a beautiful dream for many people in our country whether immigrants are not about the aspirations of her children. we have serious work to do to improve the lives of the american people. step one is to go to the table. we have time for questions now. two nights ago. it seemed like last night to me. the record stands correct day.

>> since the irs have been on president obama/, and how much hit or do you think the democrats will take a hit on the irs and the 2014 midterms? >> and have been on the appointment of the head of the irs who was appointed by president bush, his length of stay extended into president obama. i think that points to the fact why is this a issue that we all are concerned about how the irs does what it is supposed to do, but does not do it in a selective way. i said before what they did was wrong. the inspector general has said over and over, it is not illegal, but the committee wants to challenge the inspector general on his findings so that will unfold.

again, the irs is an independent agency. the entrance to be drawn from what happened on his watches that have been on his watch the way some other cabinet agencies of government way. no, this is an independent agency headed by a bush appointee. we have to make sure it doesn't happen again. selective review. we don't like it on our site, we don't like it on their site. it has no place. >> shouldn't have known about all these things -- he didn't know about any of this. >> the president does know everything going on. should mr. boehner have known this was his neighboring district in cincinnati where the irs often is. i don't think that holds them accountable for what happened in that irs office. i think obviously the public

will make its decision about it, but that's it. bush appointee under his leadership was wrong. let's make sure it doesn't happen again. >> in yesterday's hearing, both democrats and republicans appointed -- [inaudible] book is your reaction to her pleading the fifth and do you think the committee should bring her back to answer more questions? >> has been in congress a long time, so that people take the fifth in front of the committee and it's really interesting. i don't know that it is in the public interest. it's not like somebody has some culpability. the inspector general said nothing illegal was done. i do think the american people deserve answers. i wish he would have provided them. i don't know what basis is for taking the fifth.

it's your legal right to do, but what we don't want to do is find out how they can have better management, better clarity about how some of these new mechanisms again proliferated since the supreme court decision can be dealt with. i hope that's the only issue. let me say, this does give us an opportunity to say many of these groups are not to paint them all with this brash, that many of the big ones are motivated. this is what they told us directly, that if they had to disclose, they wouldn't be putting money into these five o. one c. fours. the companies would not have employees, customers whatever to know what is happening. so it might be time for us to

revisit the disclose that and say it has to be the same for everybody. the fact is the problem is they are using this nondisclosure a place to go high and what -- how far did they go with promoting social welfare as their primary purpose. that is something the irs must legitimately looking to to reduce the case led to a senate disclose that. ibm iraq [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> let me say first of all we have not seen a full complement. it's a work in progress in terms of the gang of eight. i respect her work they are doing. each one of them has in good faith gone to the table to try to find common ground shared values about what immigration means to our country. that we have to protect our border, protect our workers and the taxpayers and that's why for the first point i am saying there is no obstacle to our support of the bill if it says no taxpayer funding would be a subsidy in the affordable care act and would also be medicaid. since 1986 to find that president reagan, there has been

a provision in the law that people with medical emergencies would not be turned away. the courts have even weighed in on that. that is untouched by any of this. that was a bill signing 1886 by president ronald reagan. this goes back a long way in a bipartisan way. in terms of having health care, we are doing an immigration bill. we are doing an immigration bill. we couldn't pass that on the health care bill, but we should find a path and that is what we are working on so that we have -- as we have been invigorated america, we have a healthy america as well. time for one more. >> if you don't object to republicans to make sure taxpayers don't pay the bill for subsidies on the exchange, what is holding up the agreement?

>> those are issues. were talking about an immigration bill. they have a trigger in their assist you verify if not fully accomplished in five years, it would be six from if you start now to begin the process in five years on top. you verify is not effectively accomplished in five years, then all these people revert to the status they have now. that's pretty drastic. we have to weigh the equities as to what is the reality is you verify being fully complete in what it sets out to do. it's a really a part masher. we support you verify. but what does an immigrant have to do -- it's not the immigrant's responsibility to make sure you verify works.

for has to hope it works otherwise the whole arrangement is off and millions i probationary immigrants would then revert to the status that is not a path to legalization. so just to see okay, that is one barrier. it's an obstacle too much to overcome? if not, maybe that's a path to go. to remove all doubt because their son who don't want to go and they say the democrats want the affordable care act. we are not doing immigration bill. it's simply not the case. unfortunately, we have a very important guest coming into this room. last week we didn't come out in time for you to powder your nose is so whatever. so i'm going to excuse myself and see you next time. thank you all very much.

[inaudible conversations] .. including veterans and native americans.