>> doesn't mean the situation will terms in real terms op the ground, and it doesn't mean this is what defines the security consulate in other places. while deadlockedded on syria, the council's unified in effectiveness, and it is worth remembers this is one of several places that the council ice working, and it's always the case that deadlock attracts more than attention than unity and failure attracts more attention

than success. another quick point just begin that. we don't focus on the issues much in this town, and in the last decade, we focused on two wars we were heavily involved in, iraq and afghanistan, and during that period, from the mid-1990s until the end of the last decade, 2010, the combination of the u.n. diplomacy, mediation, peace keeping saw the number of wars in the world go from the peak of 30 in 1992 to six in 2010. from an average of roughly a million people a year killed in civil wars to about 10,000 in 2010. now, syria spikes the numbers up again, but, overall, globally in the post war period, a huge reinstruction in the number of levels of war in the world for which u.n. and peace keeping play a central role, not exclusive, but central. it's always worth bearing that in mind when the attention goes to big failures, but part of the

story. >> i could only choose a few topics to address in the remarks today, but i look at things where the u.n. had real success, that i believe prevented what could have been violent, violent outcomes and conflict. the nigeria border, who thinks about that? serious dispute, almost finished working to demarcate the entire border, probably a ceremony in december to note this. this is something that ten years ago looked like it was a dangerous war or conflict. the legislative elections in giewny. they looked to be approaching a serious civil conflict months ago. we had a facilitator from the u.n. who brokered an understanding between opposition parties and the government to allow elections to take place in september. these were not headline grabbing things, but had they descended

into car and fought over borders, they would have been headlines. look at the lack of headlines as a mark of u.n. success. >> and on syria? >> on syria, i think more could be done. syria, there's a real dilemma. i feel like working with the neighbor states, working to do what we can to broker, as i said, localize cease fire, humanitarian deliveries across front line, planning scenarios preparing to go whatever happens, and they don't get at the issue that you have two sides in syria and backwards on each side unable to come with the way forward. the general assembly to explain

to him being the foreign minister of syria that he will say the u.n. can't keep secrets, will hear the u.n. is going to have a post conflict planning scenario, setting up teams, setting of sectors of what the u.n. response could be. i want to make sure the government of syria knew. he was taken aback, but as long as -- in the end, concurs that a u.n. role stops is necessary, we were not calling it post-assad planning. >> which, of course, you weren't? >> no. [laughter] >> wait for the microphone, identify yourself, and make sure you ask the question. >> hi, tom, directer of u.n. political affairs at the department of state, great briefing, thank you very much. >> hi, tom. >> just a question of getting back to the original hash tag of u.s. diplomacy, how can the united states most effectively support the united nations based

on your experiences over the last year, financially, politically, rhetorically, what can we do to best help the organization achieve both your goals and our goals for the organization? >> well, i mean, you are -- you do provide 22 #% of the general budget and 28% of the peace keeping budget so there's a fairly significant role the u.s. plays financially in the united nations. there are some structural issues that i don't think is worth boring the audience with where i think the u.s. could be taking a different role, and that's primarily how do you do the funding for the special political missions, but that's sort of a very arcane topic for this type of group, but to the extent that u.s. is able to help explain to the american population why the u.n. is important is what i think we need more than anything else. things like 60% of the world's children are vaccinated from childhood diseases through u.n. programs. a lot of things in this era

where threats to the united states are cross border be they pandemic, terrorist, or bilateral. the u.s. can play an effective role in being a force multiplier in many cases to the extent that u.s. officials are able to help us make that case of the american public, i'd be grateful. >> you see something the u.s. should do from your perspective? >> ha-ha, oh, yeah. [laughter] no, there's, you know, there's every now and then there's -- with the most powerful country, there is of interest in diplomatic, political dynamics, but sometimes you can let the u.n. run with the ball or maybe some smaller actor, smaller state, and take it back for awhile. it brews creativity. u.s. good at that, over the past couple years, keep it up.

the u.n. is more useful to the u.s. than what meets the eye. >> okay. back there on the side. >> thank you, will davis with the united nations secretary program. thank you for the remarks. epa is the dog that doesn't bark, but woofing about the accomplishments is welcome. [laughter] my question gets to a little bit more than this question of, you can walk not too far outside our wonderful surroundings here today and find folks in washington that think the u.n. is hopelessly anti-american, but you go to any of the 192 other member states, and the first thing you hear is the u.n. is a tool of the united states. as the senior american, how do you reconcile the two views, and flowing from that, the fact that the u.n. is increasingly becoming a target, the security environment is more and more challenging, is that a function of the u.n. being too closely

associated with u.s. interests or is this just the world we live in today? thank you. >> well, thanks, and good to see you. one of the most important partnerships i think we have inside the u.n. family is dpa is working together on the support where we cochaired the task force so they are a really important partner inside the system, and you're absolutely right. if you asked 192 member states which country exercises the most influence on what the u.n. does, it's -- the answer will be unanimous. it's the united states. which country influences the direct organization? it's the united states. everyone says that. the perception that -- the perception in the united states of the u.n. being anti-american is based on general assembly debates, based on what some of the member states themselves are able to use the u.n. platform to

express, but the tenor of the organization, i think, broadly -- broadly overlaps, and not a hundred percent, but broadly overlaps with u.s. interests in foreign policy goals. i think about the fact that no matter how talented all of us may be as individuals, no matter how -- what our experience, what our strengths are as individuals, we can do more with -- by joining with family members, having community groups, church groups. you can achieve more than the individual. i look at the u.n -- as an american, i look at the u.n. like that, that we can -- we may not always agree with all the member states, we don't, but we can achieve more by working in the organization, and i believe we do achieve more working the organization than we as the united states alone could do. i, you know, i expected, you know, i'm basically -- i'm in the position because i'm an american. i'm an mearn, and the united states plays an important role

in the u.n.. i expected to be looked at with more suspicion from my colleagues than i think i am. [laughter] they may mask is quite well, but we'll see. >> bruce, you're canadian. what's your perspective on how the u.s. treated the u.n.? >> well, i'll tell you we're not off record, but that's fine, when i was in the peace process team for the middle east, i got a phone call every single day, every single day, for an american diplomat, not one of these two gentlemen, telling me what the secretary general thought about the middle east peace process that day, and i confessed that most days the secretary general thought pretty much that about the middle east peace process. the u.s. does wield a huge amount of influence in the organization so to the question about concerns the u.n. is anti-american is nonsense. anyone working in the organization knows well that the

united states occupies the vast amount of space in the organization, much more than the permanent seat would suggest. i think that actually the united states is relatively good at playing well that the united states is not dumb enough if it's visible the u.s. is doing this, it's a good thing. it's good for the u.n., that the u.n. is able to work with not a lot of actors and find commonground, and that takes, at times, a willingness to stand up and say no to the united states, and i think the key talent that the u.n. diplomats have is to know exactly when and how to say no to the united states, which you have to do carefully, but you can do, and that's striking that balance, using and carrying the weight of the united states behind you to some degree, but knowing when to break from the united states and when to say no matters. >> let me add one more thing. >> the u.s. mission to the u.n.

does not calm me more than other key missions do. i don't feel i'm being watched as a, you know, as an american. in fact, other missions call me more than the americans do, but there was a meeting where i had a very strong point of view, and the americans had another point of view. it was a tough meeting with one of the members of the u.s. mission and the team that was with that representative. very tough meeting. i made it absolutely clear i disagreed 100% and why and i simply was not accepting the u.s. position as being the appropriate response to a particular issue. once the meeting -- it was a tough, tough meeting, and, in fact, a bit tense, and when the american delegation finally left, the team looked at me and said, but, sir, those were the americans. [laughter] you know? you can't talk to them like that. [laughter] >> because you're an american, you can. >> yeah. >> thank you.

you know, this could be a good thing. i mean, this -- this is advanced diplomacy how you play the u.n.-u.s. relationship. when we were going on a mission to somewhere in arian rf cay, and everybody thought missions were too big because all members wanted to go, and so we have this discussion that we should make a little group, and only a small part goes. none of the smaller countries will volunteer not to go. we're only here for two years, nobody offered us a perm nancy. i was not going to throw in the towel, but we have to get it going in a province enough to go, so they will not go to this place, this as everybody else is interested in and has so much to contribute, so then we saw that a little bit strange, but we told the parties that, you know, we're going to be a smaller

mission, and so far the u.s. will not come, and the russians said, okay, we don't have to go in, and americans have to go, and the chinese were starting to drag their feet. then immediately the parties said that we want you alone. we're not coming here unless you bring the americans and the rest of the others. [laughter] it's not serious. that was -- to have that side to it, but that you only here in such situations, but in the end, all 15 of us went. [laughter] i didn't give in. >> you know, bruce has words about the middle east peace process that there was a certain abceps of reference of questions in your remarks. what is it the dpa can and can't do that are hot potato issues? >> i actually had that in app

earlier draft and took it out. [laughter] what can i say? [laughter] >> now you have the opportunity to put it back in. >> let me be honest, the u.n. plays a supportive role, not a leadership role in the specific issue. yes, leadership role in terms we talk to the people the u.s. does not talk to, do things on relief raising the profile for fund raising, for certain programs, but the fundmental political issues of which the israelis and palestinians have to take decisions are ones in which we have to play a supportive role, not a leadership role. the secretary general has been on the record, he's absolutely delighted as the secretary kerry played in the meetings he's had with secretary kerry, made it clear that the u.n. is there to do what it can to support him. we -- we're a member of the quartet, interested in having a

revitalized quartet if it truly plays a role. not having a quartet just for quartet's sake, but i have to say that this is an issue on which we would like to support strong u.s. leadership and not be in the lead ourselves. >> now, as notwithstanding the secretary's efforts, it could well be a situation come september, the u.n. general assembly where the center is in there again. does the dpa have a role, then, when its back on the u.n. agenda? >> i mean, we're -- we are the ones they -- sometimes people say we're the talking points machine because we're the ones preparing the secretary general for his own engagement. whether it's abbas, whoever it happens to be, but in terms of questions of asessions to convention, asessions to other

parts of the u.n., if the pal tin january -- palestinians go that way, there's different governing bodies depending what the specific issue is. the secretary general has, i think, great empathy for the palestinians and also a close relationship with the israelis, and the secretary general would far prefer that we come up with a way to help provide a political solution rather than have one of the other parties moving away that could damage the organization. it's clear to the palestinians there are implications to us as an organization we'd like the palestinians to keep in mind as they consider their own next steps. >> other questions? yes, sir. >> thank you. >> wait for the muffin, -- microphone, please. >> thank you. i'm alex. mr. undersecretary general, you spoke very clearly of consensus

as being really the key to the u.n.'s ability to exercise power on behalf of its mission, and when con sense doesn't exist, u.n. struggles. i wonder if you could shed light on the issue of libya within the u.n., what the perspective is on that now given that's a place where consensus seems almost to have moved in the opposite direction where consensus existed and multiple security council resolutions were passed, and subsequently, there seems to be more divergence among, you know, nations in the international scene, thanks. >> al ex, thanks, you're right. the libya -- the debate over libya continues. there's a discussion over what res lyingses passed authorized, and this plays into the syria discussion, the mal

institutions, plays into the strategy of what you do about the cross border issues from arms smuggling to terrorism, so the libya example looms very, very large; however, there still is security council support for the u.n. mission in libya, the u.n. playing a role in libya, so the debate about libya has affected the discussions on other issues more than what is actually needed in libya today, where there's these -- there's not been any security council member who blocked the ideas of political u.n. work, work on sec secretary reform, things like that. >> over here.

>> hi, i'm a medical student with the american medical association, and my question, well, we all know that in times of civil unrest and international conflict, positions and hospitals and medical services are targets of a lot of the violence that goes on. could the panel offer comments or information about any roles or activities that the u.n. and the u.s. are taking or have taken to make sure that medical neutrality is kept as a foreign policy priority. as you know, maintained or stated and maintained by documents that was mentioned, things like that, and so any comments on that in that situation? >> see, the humanitarian actors of the united nations, and i'll

highlight, you know, people like antonio, the u.n. high commissioner for refugees, valerie, the u.n. coordinator for humanitarian assistance, have really tried to use their voices to raise exactly this issue, particularly, when it comes to syria. they had an appeal a couple months ago you may have seen, a high profile appeal, about the need to protect the neutrality of medical personnel and other humanitarian actors with a security debate on what this is, i believe, this week, where the same key actors are raising the profile in this, but, of course, thed sad fact of the matter is if you look at syria, there have been significant damage, something like a third of the hospitals are not usable now because of damage down from the fighting, and there's targeting.

without having forces on the ground, what we are trying to do is use the voices u.n. has to raise awareness to this, and also to have discussions with those countries that have influence on those inside syria, so publicly, we talk about this to raise issues, and priechtly, talking to the countries that are in touch with fighting with fires on either side to try to build humanitarian space. >> actually, you know, most of the views are raising, are, in a way, in general terms solved in the gee knee that conventions. we have the law, and it's a question of having it respected. one of the sad things of being a diplomat, you know, in our areas, in these times, is probably inability to have new international norms of obligations. i mean, we're stuck with. i don't think the yes geneva conventions, my personal view,

unfortunately, could have today goarnted the gee knee that convention so we are stuck in a situation where we really have to look after the heritage that we have from previous generations. the geneva convention are not bad as all, and it actually does a pretty good job of deseminating it, but this should be the job, in a way, of all of us. if there was a common call for anyone engaged, not just huh man tearian work, but political, it would be to make sure we are -- this is all what we have, but that there is clear regulations there, and any violation to international law is unacceptable, the task of us all to look after. >> i'm afraid we're going to have to have the last question and take it from the young lady here. >> hi. i'm emma lowe, with the

institute for policy studies, and i had a question about the u.s.' influence with specific regards to issue of sovereignty you discussed, and how would or how could changes in the distribution of influence between a diversity of nations affect willingness of a night in conflict to embrace u.n. intervention? >> the question is one that i, certainly, have been thinking about for the year that the u.n., and bruce and i had several discussions about this because if you look at the conflicts between -- one of the questions ask for unsupport, send to be the one who feels they have the more legitimate claim in the cop flick between states, might be the weaker state, but if there's a cop flick between states, it's in general, i think, regimely easy for the u.n. to find an entry point to get involved. where it's a real problem is

where conflicts today emerge, which is not between states for the large part, but inside states. we may all be able to look out and see, okay, country x is having a little ethnic problem in one corner of the country that seems to be spreading. we get a warning. well, that government, the member state of the organization i serve may not think there is a problem or think it has the solution to the problem. may not want to, quote, internationalize the issue, so it takes a lot of work to find the entry point for the u.n., because we are, we are an organization that's based on membership. we are -- so there is a smpty reality that we have to accept as a member state based organization. what do you do? you try to find mediators -- intermediaries with legitimate sigh on their own sending out somebody who was, who you knew

was close to certain government leaders from another country who can talk quietly behind closed doors without it being a big deal. maybe there's a very good u.n. dp graduate, resident coordinator on the grown there who you can work with, use towards the u.n. exiting program to track entry points. there's -- you just look at this. it's one of the reasons why i want to make sure we have a broad financial backing for our mediation tools is so that if those people can say, okay, if this many countries of this many different political persuasions are behind using these mediation tools, then it must not be some western imperialist agenda. it must be truly what they are saying which is we have no objecteddive other than trying to address a conflict, not addressing winners and losers, and having india come on board, they are sensitive to the ownsoeverty, but sees a role for

these tools, having them part of the funding base is a good selling point in some parts of the world. >> bruce? >> an extremely important question. i think we're in a phase where there are new actors in the international stage, india, brazil, turkey, china, ect.. all right? one of the dominant parts of the narrative is that these new players on the international stage challenge the core prince. s of the -- principles, but what's the most important? sovereignty. the united states in the west says maybe not so much with the sovereignty and maybe more on recession; right? that's profoundly destabilizing in the mind set of countries like india, brazil, turkey, ect., who for most of the independent history of the states were formed from sanctions, ect.. it's a sensitive topic.

we saw in libya countries brazil and india get halfway there. they voted for the application of the concept of the responsibility to protect in the case of libya, but when it came time it use force, they had to sustain. halfway there. i wanted to go to the question about sort of what the u.s. can do. it seems to be there is a place where the u.s. not played the cards well, where the united states has to do a lots more work with brazil, with india, with turkey, with these powers on the fence about what way the issues are going. sometimes they side with syria, china, russia on the prosovereignty stance, but who have interests, energy interests, natch resource interests, development interests, a range of interests means they have to get engaged in places. they are on the fence. we've not done enough to work with them to bring them on and bring them aboard on the concepts central to what we do

in the near future, especially at a time when in other -- something we didn't talk about, there are reasons where great power relations are getting tempted. there's tensions, and the united nations is not engaged in that at this stage, and i don't know that it will be, and the more likely scenario is tensions will start to deepen tensions within the counsel as they start to limit, but there are counterissues; right? as you said before, positions in syria, unified action on mali because of the core interest of energy; right? we have to pay attention to the question and build up con conses with brazil, india, turkey, the swing states around this question of sovereignty. >> there's a perception of the member states, the others more sensitive about this subject to colonialism, ect. saying look at the p5, don't touch oursoeverty, but we'll touch yours. we have to transcend that feeling and, as bruce said, take

responsibility to help us overcome that profession. >> well, jeff, you got a hell of a job. [laughter] i, for one, and i think i speak on behalf of everybody on the panel and the audience, very glad you are where you are doing such a great job. thank you for sharing. >> thank you. [applause] ..

[inaudible conversations] >> the senate returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. they will have general speeches on the chamber floor, likely to center and the so-called, nuclear option proposed changes to senate voting rules that would lower the threshold for confirming the president's nominees from 60 to a simple majority. senators from both parties plan to hold a closed-door, joint caucus meeting in the historic old senate chamber to discuss changes to the voting rules for non-judicial nominees. the meeting is being held to discuss how to proceed with seven of president obama's cabinet and other positions previously blocked by republican senators. for more on the meeting we spoke this morning to a capitol hill reporter. >> host: i want to give you other news.

i told you at the top, the senate will meet this evening, all one senators invited to a closed-door meeting possibly invoking the nuclear option, so-called nuclear option. senate majority leader harry reid is headed in that direction. burgess everett, "politico" congressional reporter is on the phone to talk to us about this. mr. everett, they will meet behind closed doors. whose idea was this for the meeting and what is on the agenda? >> guest: i think it originated from senator mcconnell's office, the minority leader. i don't know, we haven't gotten any sort of agenda, a written agenda yet. i don't think we'll see one. i think it will be the opportunity for everyone to clear their mine and some sort of gang of ex-members if they go that route to stop the senate from pursuing a nuclear option and rules change. we'll look to see if there is a group trying to pursue some sort

of compromise. >> host: the last time this was talked about in 2005 when the republicans controlled the senate, a gang of 14 came up with some sort of compromise proposal. >> guest: right. >> host: is there a gang in the works right now? >> guest: not that i'm aware of yet. senators may have been quietly chatting over the weekend but they haven't had any face-to-face time. they will get that today when the senate comes into session at 2:00. this came up even more recently than 2005. it came up six months ago, carl levin and john mccain called a compromise some people have been derisively referred to as a gentleman's agreement and some don't think it helped the senate function at all. >> host: what was that agreement if. >> guest: some minor rules changes and kind of a gentleman's agreement between reid and mcconnell. reid said he would not two forward with the nuclear option to change the rules and mcconnell would work cooperatively to work with majority to process nominations.

each of them are saying you have gone back on your word. i don't know if i can trust you anymore. >> host: what does senate majority leader harry reid want to do? how does he want to change senate rules? >> guest: he wants to make it easier to confirm president barack obama's executive nominees and there's a very specific parcel of nominees that have been kind of -- after that immigration bill are controversial, especially those for the national labor relations board and consumer financial protection bureau which are going to be, recess appointments going to be heard by the supreme court this fall. republicans don't want to touch them right now. democrats say we need to get the guys and gals through or we're going to invoke the nuclear option. there is also department of labor, epa, export-import bank are the other nominees that the majority is trying to get through this week. >> host: some say, republicans already said let's move forward on these nominees. is the issue not resolved? >> guest: no, it's not resolved. they said let's move forward on

most of them but not the nlrb or the pfbb ones. mcconnell made a counteroffer. reid set up on a vote on votes for tuesday. mcconnell made a counteroffer did not include richard cordray for the cfpb and all the nlrb nominees that is the crux and sticking point. they need to get those, if the republicans allow up or down votes on those nominees that could actually diffuse the entire drama. >> host: how does this all work then? so they meet tonight and we'll see what comes out of that meeting if there is some sort of a compromise. if there's not, there are cloture votes on some of these nominees. then how would the senate majority leader put this on the books, the so-called nuclear option? >> guest: you know, the exact machinery for it, he has been very cagey about, you asked directly about this on thursday at the last media availability. he pointed to his head and said

it's all up there, but basically what would happen is they would use a majority vote to kind of overrule the, normally you have to use 67 senators to change the senate rules. they would use the so-called constitutional option to override that and lower the filibuster threshold on the executive nominations from 60 to 51. and i guess that would happen, as soon as these cloture votes are about to occur because there's, we don't believe they would get enough support to move forward on these cloture votes. so reid might go to the nuclear option. i assume this is tomorrow morning. >> everett -- burgess everett, excuse me, with "politico." we appreciate your time this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> again the senate gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. later today a rare closed-door meeting set for the old senate chamber.

that's scheduled at 6:00 p.m. eastern. last week leaders of both parties took to the senate floor to express their views on this topic. we'll show you some of that debate now, beginning with majority leader harry reid. >> madam president, i move to proceed to executive session and conduct calendar number 51. >> is there objection? no? >> question on the motion to proceed. >> the question is on the motion to proceed? all those in favor aaye. aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to individual. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. >> thank you, madam president. cloture motion is at the desk. >> clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. bureau of consumer financial protection, richard cordray of ohio to be director. the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion we the undersigned senators in accordance with provision of

rules 22, standing rule. senate move to bring to close the debate on nomination of richard cordray of ohio to be director of the bureau of consumer financial protection, signed by 18 senators as follows. reid -- >> madam president, i ask we not read the names. >> is there objection? without objection of the. >> i now move to proceed to legislative session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in in favor say aye? aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. >> so sorry to interrupt you. proper session, senate calendar 100. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. national labor relations board.

richard f. griffin, jr. of the district of columbia to be a member. >> september a cloture motion to the desk. >> clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to the close the dewasn't nomination of richard f. griffin, jr. of the district of columbia to be a member of the national labor relations board, as follows. >> i ask that the reading of names be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i move to proceed to legislative session. >> questions on the motion to proceed? all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed to say no. the ayes appear to individual. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. >> move to proceed to calendar number 101. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those, all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to individual.

the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. national labor relations board, sharon block of the district of columbia to be a member. >> i have a cloture motion, ma'am president, at the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion. we the you know signed senators in the accordance of with provisions rule 22 standing rules of the senate hereby move to close debate on the sharon block, district of columbia to be a member of the national relations board. signed by 17 members as follows. >> i ask unanimous consent the reading of names be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i now move to proceed to legislative session. >> questions on the motion? all those in favor say aye. aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. i motion is agreed to. >> i now move to proceed

executive session to consider calendar number 104. >> questions on the motion to proceed? all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do individual. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. national labor relations board, mark gaston pierce of new york to be a member. >> i have a cloture motion i would ask the clerk to report if the chair agrees. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rules 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of mark gaston pierce of new york to be a member of the national labor relations board, signed by 17 senators as follows. >> i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 of the senate being waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i now move to proceed to

legislative session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. >> i move to proceed to executive session for the calendar 178. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. export import bank of the united states, fred p. hocberg, new york, to be president. >> there's a cloture motion at the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with provision of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of fred p. hochberg of new york to be the president of the export-import bank of

united states. signed by 17 senators as follows. >> i nan news consent the reading of names not be necessary. >> is there objection? without objection. >> mandetory quorum requirement 22 be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i move to proceed to legislative session. >> question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. >> i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 99. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to individual. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. department of labor thomas edward perez of maryland to be secretary. >> i sent a cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of

rule 22 with the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of thomas edward perez of maryland to be as secretary of labor signed by 17 senator as followed. >> i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. >> is there objection? >> host: without objection. >> i asked unanimous consent the quorum on rule 22 be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i move to proceed to legislative session. >> question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> aye. all those opposed say number the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. >> i now move to proceed to executive session for calendar number 98. >> the question is at motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to individual. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> nomination. environmental protection agency, regina mccarthy of massachusetts to be

administrator. >> i sent a cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion. we the unsigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of regina mccarthy of massachusetts to be administrator of the environmental protection agency signed by 17 senators as follows reid, boxer, cardin, cans, leahy, carper, widen, murray, udall of new mexico, heinrich, sanders, white house, baucus, durbin, gillibrand, merkley and schatz. >> i ask the quorum under rule 22 be waived. >> is there objection? without objection. >> i move to proceed to legislative session. >> the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to individual. the ayes do individual. the motion is agreed.

>> madam president? >> republican leader. >> madam are president, i have a consent that i think that would set up these votes in a much more expeditious way than the way the majority leader is proceeding but first let me just say, these are dark days in the history of the senate. i hate that we have come to this point. we have witnessed the majority leader break his word to the united states senate and now our requests for a joint meeting of all the senators have been set for monday night, a time when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty. in obvious effort to keep as many of his members from hearing the concerns and arguments of the other side as possible. it remains our view that for this to be the kind of joint session of the senate that it

ought to be, given the tendency of the senate to have sparse attendance on monday night, to have this meeting on tuesday before it's too late. having said that, a more expeditious way to accomplish most of what the majority leader is trying to accomplish would be achieved by the following consent. i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, at 2:15 the senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the following nominations. number 104, that is pierce to be a member the nlrb. number 1 o 2, johnson to be a member of the in. lrb and number 103, miss amora to be a member of the nlrb i might say parenthetically, if owesthose nominees were confirmed coupled with two

nominees illegally appointed, whose illegal appointments continue to the end of the year, the nlrb would have a full compliment of five members and able to conduct its business. i further ask consent following those votes the senate proceed to a cloture motion filed on calendar 99. that is perez to be secretary of labor. and further, if cloture is invoked the senate immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. i would add parenthetically that would eliminate the post-30 hours, assuming cloture were invoked, on the very controversial nominee, perez to be secretary of labor. further the senate vote on the cloture motion filed on calendar 98, mccarthy, to be epa director. and if cloture is invoked the senate proceed to vote on the

confirmation of the nomination, also eliminating the 30 hours post cloture, if cloture is invoked on mccarthy. and i might add that the ranking member of the environment committee supports cloture on the mccarthy nomination, thereby it is reasonable to assume that cloture would be invoked for what a lot of our members, including myself, a very controversial nomination. i further ask that the consent, that the senate then vote on the cloture motion that was filed on 178. this is someone named hochberg, to be president of the export-import bank. again if control ture is invoked the senate proceed to an immediate vote on the confirmation of that nomination, again eliminating the 30 hours post-cloture. assuming cloture is invoked and i assume it will be. finally i ask consent that the following votes listed above the

senate proceed to cloture votes on the remaining three filed cloture motions. now before the chair rules what this allows as i indicated for the senate to work efficiently through a series of nominations in a quicker fashion than the majority leader has proposed. they would get their votes and there would not be a delay. this would only leave discussion and votes on the three remaining illegally, according to the federal courts, the three remaining illegally-appointed nominations. mr. president, that is my consent. >> reserving the right to object. >> majority leader. mr. president, no matter how often my friend rudely talks about me not breaking my word, i'm not going to respond to talking about how many times he has broken his word. that doesn't add anything to this debate we're having here. he can keep saying that as much as he wants. all we have to look back at the

record today. as to the caucus monday night, my members will be here. i don't understand, unless this is part of the overall pattern we've come to expect around here, to not do anything today. you can do tomorrow. mr. president, we're going to have a vote at 5:30. members are usually pretty good getting here for votes at 5:30. and i also, mr. president, am stunned by boasting about the ranking member, i mean, the committee suddenly say seeing the light. he will allow gina mccarthy to get a vote? isn't that wonderful? isn't that something to cheer about? he has held this woman up. he is the one responsible for 1100 questions to her. that is what is wrong here,

mr. president. now, this is so transparent what my friend has asked. he has said, he wants to approve two republican members to the nlrb. let's have those votes first. and only one democratic nominee. what does this mean? it means within a couple months the republicans have a majority on the nlrb. i don't blame him for wanting that. they don't like the organization anyway. dough don't like cordray's organization. so i can understand that the republican leader would like to get consent to create a republican majority on the nlrb but it is so obvious, i object. >> objection is heard. >> so mr. president we are going to have a caucus monday at 6:00. in the old senate chamber. we'll have a vote at 5:30. i would hope for something this important we'll have attendance. i know my caucus will be there.

and, and, if nothing is resolved there, which the way things have been going today likely it won't be, so we'll have a vote sometime early tuesday morning on these nominees. >> mr. president, the majority leader always reminds me can have the last word and i'm sure he can have the last word again. speaking for senator vitter, he did ask for a lot of information from the new perspective director of the epa. so did senator boxer. she asked for 70,000 pages herself. but he was satisfied with responses that he got. this is how the process ought to work. this is how it has worked for decades. you're trying to get answers to questions. you're trying to engage in some kind of prediction how somebody might operate in the future. what the majority leader has been saying all along he wants

the confirmation process to be speedy and for the minority to sit down and shut up. he believes that advise and consent means sit down and shut up. confirm these nominees when i tell you to. now, the reason he is having, taking a lot of heat over this because he has broken his word to the united states senate given back last january that we had resolved the rules issue for this congress. and i know for a fact even though, he may get his 51 votes, there are a lot of democrats are not happy with where you are. when they tell me that, the republican i expect they would be least likely to tell that to, i know what is going on here. they have been hammered into line. this has been personalized by

the majority leader. you got to do this for me. and what is astonishing here, saying you've got to do this for me because you have to help me break my word, go back on everything i said in my own biography just a few years ago. you got to help me look bad. you got to help me break my word, violate what i said in my own biography, create unnecessary controversy in the united states senate, which has done major bills on a bipartisan basis all year long and had begun to get back to normal. this is really hard to understand. and this is why my members are astonished at where we are. they're scratching their heads. saying who manufactured this crisis? we know who manufactured it.

the guy right over here on my left. so this is really a sad, sad day for the united states senate and if we don't pull back from the brink here, my friend, the majority leader will be remembered as the worst leader of the senate ever. the leader of the senate who fundamentally changed the body. it makes me sad. all my members are more angry. i'm more sad bit but it's a shame we've come to this. i sure hope all the democratic senators are there monday night. i'm certainly going to encourage my members to be there. it is high time we sat down and tried to understand each other because you, many members on the other side are hearing a different version from the facts that are largely unrelated to reality. so, mr. president, i know my friend, the majority leader will have the last word. he reminds me that on frequently

daily basis the difference between the minority leader and the majority leader, he gets the last word. i will yield the floor and listen to the last word. >> mr. president? >> the majority leader. >> no matter how many times he says it, he tends to not focus on what he has done to the senate. as i indicated earlier, there is lots of time for name-calling. but we know it is replete in the record as delivered this morning how i said there would be no filibusters. we followed the norms of the senate. only extraordinary circumstances. extraordinary circumstances have become because we're in session i guess. the only person that i know that thinks thing are going just fine here is my friend. the american people knows this institution is being hammered hard and he doesn't have to worry about me. , the heat i have taken.

i haven't taken any heat. i had a very nice caucus today. my caucus was very thoughtful. we heard from out of my 54 senators, we probably heard from 25 or 26 of them. attendance was nearly perfect. so, mr. president, i don't want him to feel sorry for the senate, certainly not for me. and i'm going to continue to try to speak in a tone that is appropriate. his name-calling, i guess he follows, i hope not, the demagogue theory that the more you say something, even if it is false, people start believing it. but, mr. president, it's quite interesting that he thinks that, that richard cordray, who no one, no one says there's a thing wrong with this man, former attorney general of the state, heavily-populated state of ohio, democrats, republicans said he is a good guy.

this man has been waiting 724 days. assistant secretary of defense, 292 days. monetary fund governor, 169 days. epa, 128 days. nlrb, two of them, 573 days. you have 15 of them. average time wait something nine months. so, mr. president, as far as reshuffling the votes as he wants them, that is a laugher. he wants to have a majority of this nlrb to be republicans? i don't think that is really a good idea. so, mr. president, we're going to have our caucus monday. i think it was a good idea. i tried to have them before. my friend has objected to them. that is replete in the press. but we're going to have this one. i'm happy to do that. my friend said the process works [laughter] the process works? the status

quote is good? i don't think so. >> mr. president -- >> republican leader. of course the majority of the nlrb would not be republicans. i mentioned to the administration on several occasions, send us up two nominees who are not illegally appointed. but we can't seem to get that done. i mean the taint attached to the two nlrb nominees, and to mr. cordray, who i agree is a good man and many of our members support, they were illegally appointed. but of course the agencies have not been at an disadvantage. they're there waiting. he may have been waiting to be confirmed but he is not waiting to do the job. he is in office. the two nlrb members, in office. the question is, do we respect the law? a federal court has said the two

nlrb members were illegally appointed. mr. cordray unfortunately was appointed on exactly the same day in exactly the same way. is the senate just completely lawless? do we not care what the federal courts say? i'm, i'm just stunned at, where we are. . .

>> that is the rationale for the nuclear option? that's why i say it's a sad day for the senate, a sad day for america. >> mr. president? >> the majority leader. >> illegally appointed. why did president obama recess appoint cordray and the two nlrb members? because republicans have blocked them. blocked them, blocked them, blocked them. now, we count cordray as only 571 days. that went on long before he got there. elizabeth warren is the one who set up this program. they said, no chance, don't even think of bringing her here. that's where we became -- we came up with cordray. so these big crocodile tears, you know, you have recess appointments because the president had no choice if he

wanted his team to work, and he said, oh, we would be happy to process them quickly. just like richard perez has been processed quickly, just like all these people who have been processed quickly. sorry, mr. president, sorry. so there's not a chance that we're going to let the nlrb be dominated by republicans. that one organization above all looks out for working men and women in this country, should not be dominated by republicans, and it's not going to be. so i repeat, this issue can be resolved very quickly. i have somebody out here at my statehouse. what happens if you get cloture on everybody? there's no problem. they can all vote against these people, they can vote against every one of them, but they on procedural, on procedural basis they're holding up votes on people who are well qualified and would be approved by the senate if they got a vote. so this is a little strange

deal. talk about martialing your troops to do something that's absolutely wrong, it's that. if they're so worried about the rules changes around here, it would seem to me they should approve three of qualified people that no one, no one suggests there's anything wrong with any of them. and why were they recess appointed? because the republicans forced president obama to do that. so, mr. president, there will be no further votes. next vote will be monday at 5:30. >> mr. president? >> the republican leader. >> on the issue of delay, i'm trying to avoid bursting out in laughter here. the two nlrb nominees were sent up to the senate december the 15th, 2011, before their paperwork got here. two weeks later the president recess appointed them. delay? their paperwork hadn't even been arrived, hadn't even arrived. the committee couldn't do

anything with them, and a couple of weeks later they were recess appointed. now, that's not my definition of a delay. by any objective standard. the core issue here no matter how much the majority leader tries to obfuscate and discuss other matters is he is prepared to break the rules of the senate , to change the rules of the senate for three nominees you were unconstitutionally appointed according to the federal circuit court in washington d.c. for that the majority leader proposes to use that option? it's a sad commentary on today's senate. >> the majority leader. >> the senate created by the republicans, mr. president. he keeps talking about the rule

change. mr. president, the presiding officer knows the constitution is pretty clear. it's clear there's one paragraph that says treaties take two-thirds vote. in that same paragraph, how many votes does it take to confirm a nomination? simple majority. that's in our constitution. since 1977 rules have been changed in this body 17 times. not like fancy things done by the rules committee, but right here in the senate. so we have three people who are qualified, and if the republicans want to avoid a -- obviously, they don't, what they want to do is continue. can you imagine, mr. president, the american people are looking at this and saying the republican leader thinks the senate's going just fine?

the status quo is good? look at any poll. the gallup poll did one. 86 president of the american people, why do they think things are bad? because of gridlock. not doing important things. sure, we were able to get a few things done, but i have been here a while, and we've done some good things this year, but we should be doing lots of good things, not focus on immigration and a farm bill that's passed twice, on a postal bill that we passed once, we haven't passed again. we talk a lot about werda, i'm glad we got that done. and i'm not going to denigrate my friend, the chairman of that committee, but that bill is a mere shadow of its former self of. because of what the republicans have done to make a mockery of what goes on here. all we want is for the president of the united states, whoever that might be, democrat or republican, to be able to have the team he wanted as contemplate inside that document

calls the constitution of the united states. that's what i'm asking. >> and that was senate debate from last week. the senate's in at 2 p.m. today, general speeches on the floor likely to center around the so-called nuclear option. changes to senate voting rules that would lower the threshold for confirming the president's nominees from 60 to a simple majority, 51 votes. senators from both parties planning to hold a closed-door, joint caucus meeting in the historic old senate chamber to discuss these potential changes. that's scheduled for 6:00. we'll be standing by in case senators choose to speak to media after the meeting there. and senate majority leader harry reid this morning spoke to the center for american progress action fund giving no indication that the issue would be resolved at that meeting tonight. we'll have a look at what he has

to say now. >> good morning, everyone. my name is mary tan den, and i am the president for the center for american progress and counselor for the center for american progress action fund. and i am here to say it is my distinct honor to welcome senate majority leader reid to cap action to discuss reform of the senate. we are really thrilled to have him here today to discuss this really important topic, this critical topic. the senate majority leader has really balanced the interests of the minority and the majority in passing sweeping legislation from dodd-frank to health care reform to the recent immigration reform. but it is the case today that inaction is the norm and action is the exception. and that's part of the reason why we're here today. let me actually just start with to describe someone who was here

last week to discuss the issue of the meaning of the inaction in the senate. of we had kathleen vonnitissen here, and let me just tell you her story. she is a baker, she's a baker from michigan, and she worked for a few years at a bakery. and she didn't have health insurance. and her husband had had a heart attack, and he had essentially, you know, she basically had to choose between paying for medication and paying her rent because her bakery didn't offer health insurance. it was panera bread. that's a large chain, but they didn't offer health insurance. so she did what you're supposed to do in these challenging situations, she talked with other bakers, they talked about the challenge of health care, and they organized. and they went through the whole process and were able to form a union. and she thought at the end of

that struggle, which was a struggle, that she'd be able to get health care. but what really has happened is that the company is fighting the determination in court, and while the nlrb originally ruled in her favor, now her case is stuck in limbo because the nlrb with, national labor relations board, doesn't have members on it, and the courts have ruled that, essentially, until it has members they can't do anything. so it's really the case that her courage, her conviction might be in vain because we cannot get simple action of confirming board members to a part of the government that has responsibilities. that's obviously not just her case. gina mccarthy at epa, there's widespread inaction on nominees because a minority in the congress, a minority in the senate refuses to do the basic function of governing. and so that's why we are so

excited to have senator reid here today to discuss this issue, why it's so critical. and i have to say that, you know, katherine, the numerous people who rely on elements of the federal government to work could not have a stronger champion than senator reid who, if anything, is a fighter and has been a fighter for progressive causes throughout his life and is a fighter for a really basic notion that the government should function, that it should work to protect people, that consumers should have a fighting chance against special interests. that's what's at stake today. that's what's at stake this week. and so i am, it is my great, great honor to have senator reid come to the podium. [applause]

[background sounds] >> thank you all very much for being here this morning. i know it's always appropriate to start your presentation by saying something funny, and i'm about the most unfunny person you've ever known. but i thought i would tell you something that happened if my family not long ago. as you know, i have five children. my youngest boy has five -- i'm sorry, four little girls, and they're beautiful little children. he was a gifted athlete, he was our entertainment until he was 22 years old, played on three national championship teams and university of virginia, and he was so looking forward to coaching his boys so they'd be just like him. but he's got four girls. so he's coaching them.

they're all very athletic. but his lovely wife and he decided it would be a good thing if their kids, those four little girls, had some responsibilities around the house. and be so they so the down with all four of them and said, okay, we're going to give you this much money every week, but you're going to have to do and outlined what they had to do. help with the dishes, pick up toys, help with the beds, make up the beds, just do a list of things that kids are always required to do. and it went just fine for three or four months. but ella, the next to the oldest, for a while just won't do anything. so her mom talked to my son, and she said when you get home, you're going to have to sit down and have a little talk with her. she won't do anything, and it's been that way for weeks. so my son sat down just the two of them alone and started what he thought would be the long conversation with little ella.

and he said your sisters are doing everything they're asked to do, you are basically not carrying your load. why? what's the matter? she said, dad, i don't need the money. [laughter] well, at least a few laughed anyway. [laughter] well, i appreciate very much for having an opportunity to visit with each of you on something i've worked on for some time now. john, i appreciate very much the work of having this organization. of for ten years, neera, you're doing a great job filling in for john. congress is extremely unpopular for a couple of main reasons. any poll you look at indicates that they're unpopular for two reasons. one, gridlock. gridlock, gridlock. two, not getting things done. and that's really true.

we, when i came to congress -- well, actually, first time i ran for the senate we were above 45%, approaching 50%, congress. not that way anymore. last gallup number had us at 10% and not going up, going down. so why is that? of course, we all know we need to pass legislation that does good things for our country, especially the middle class. flip on c-span, as i know some of you do, and what a do you see there the vast majority of the time? nothing. blank screen. quorum calls. so we're wasting time, hour after hour, day after day. trying to give you a picture of where we're coming from, me and my caucus.

lyndon johnson was majority leader for over six years. during that time he had to overcome one filibuster. i've been leader about the same time as he has. i don't know the exact number, but it's around 420 pily buster -- filibusters. so have things changed? yes, they sure have changed. now, everyone knows that under the constitution we have a responsibility to give advice and consent to the president. on his nominations. but all we have from the republicans is not advise and consent, we have on santorum and delay, and that's really -- obstruct and delay, and that's really the truth. now, remember my conservative friends always talk about the constitution. so let's use that as a frame for my presentation to you here today. the constitution is very, very

specific as to what requires a supermajority. vetoes, impeachments, treaties. in that same paragraph where the founding fathers talked about supermajority they mention presidential nominations. majority. majority. the founding fathers want an up or down vote, and that's basically what we've been crying for now for years. and i believe this whether it's one of the new bushes to be president, maybe jeb or maybe a new clinton, maybe hillary or maybe even the daughter. but whoever, whoever is president they should have the ability to pick their team. there's -- i feel very strongly about that.

many here have followed the washington nationals. great we have a team here. i've had a number of opportunities to visit with davy johnson. he's one of the great baseball heroes of all time, played on three or four national championship teams, second baseman to the baltimore orioles, won a pennant, won a world series. he's now here. he has been selected as manager of the year many times. let's assume that this year davy johnson has his team together, and he gets a call from major league baseball and they say, davy, i know you've worked hardt to put this team -- hard to put this team together. i'm glad to see that zimmerman's back, he's had the surgery, we hope he can throw better. we know he's been a golden glover, a silver slugger, and you can have him until sometime

the first part of june. and that contract you signed or very recently for la roach get him for a year, first base, you can have him, but it's going to be after the all-star break. how would that be for his team? well, multiply a hundred times, and you find what's going on here in washington. we have a situation where republicans have created gridlock, gridlock, gridlock. and it as consequence. it's not only bad for president obama, it's bad for the country. the status quo won't work. now, during the time we've been a country, during the time we've been a country until barack obama became president 20 executive nominees were filibustered. during the four years that president obama has been

president, he's already had -- i'm sorry, he's already had 16of his nominees filibustered. think about that. what they have done is just really unbelievable. and my republican colleague, senator mcconnell, on "meet the press" yesterday they asked him a logical question. they said what are you going to do with napolitano's replacement? and rather than say we'll move forward on that, have some questions but move forward on it, he refused to tell david gregory whether or not he would allow an up or down vote. think about that. what they have done is really untoward. american people need to feel that we as a senate are responsive to their challenges. they've carried this to the extreme.

i don't do committee work anymore, but i've sat for hours during committees. and during those committee hearings for a nominee what we do is you ask questions. sometimes it goes for a day or two, three days sometimes. but it's been traditional after those questions have been asked there may be one senator say, you know, could i send you a couple questions in writing? sure. you'll get answers back as soon as you can, yes. well, that has been carried to the extreme. perez, wants to be secretary of labor. put his way through school as a garbageman hauling garbage. they submitted him about 300 questions in writing. he had to respond back in writing. but the champion of this, gina mccarthy. long hearing on this. she had to respond to 1100

questions. 1100 questions. now, my friend, the republican leader, and others come the floor and say, yeah, but everything's going great. we approved this person 97-0, one person 98-0, another 100-0, but that's the whole point. they don't have anything -- there's nothing wrong with these people. there's nothing wrong with their qualifications. today simply want to stall -- they simply want to stall what goes on. those people that they voted 97-0, some of them we waited months. the nlrb folks that neera talked about today, they've been waiting fortune two we're -- more than two years. i had 15 on the calendar today, their average waiting time has been nine months. do they have an objection against richard cordray, his qualifications? of course not. cordray was a clerk for judge bork. cordray was a clerk for justice kennedy.

he was attorney general for the state of ohio. they have nothing wrong with his qualifications. they just don't like his job. today don't like someone -- they don't like someone whose job based on legislation we've passed and signed into law who takes a look for the consumer against the greed that happens on occasion in wall street. do they have anything personally against the two nlrb nominees? no. one of them was senator kennedy's counsel. the other was the attorney for the operating engineers. these are good people. today don't challenge the qualifications. they challenge their jobs. nlrb has been in existence since the great depression. it works. it protects workers. not union workers,ers. workers. isn't it interesting the focal point has been the last few months on all these people on

the secretary of labor and two nlrb folks? do you think there's something in that message to the american people? we're going to do everything we can to make sure business is okay, but we're not going to make sure that everything is okay with american workers. now, there have been hues and cries that what i and my caucus are trying to do is going to really hurt the senate. in the last 18 years, i'm sorry, the last 6 -- the last 36 years we've changed the rules by a simple majority 18 times. i've done et. it. we always do it. simple majority when things don't work. if you look at what those changes were, people are just trying to be vexatious and create jobs. we did this just a little over a year ago.

what had happened is after cloture had been injoked on one of those rare -- invoked on one of those rare occasions to stop a filibuster, some of the republican senators came up with this big, great idea. cloture is over with. and they would file motion to set aside the rules. well, it took a two-thirds majority. they knew none of them would pass, but they wanted my folks to vote on amendments that had nothing to do with the bill that cloture had been voted on. now, i put up with this for a while. they had two or three of them. finally, i don't remember the exact number, they had 15. takes huge amounts of time and was a waste of the senate's time. so we changed the rules. we said you can't do that anymore. that done by a simple majority. and that's all we're doing here. this does not affect lifetime appointments, substantive legislation. it allows the president to have his team, this president and those in the future, and that's the way it should be.

my friend, senator mcconnell -- and this is not, this is not mcconnell v. reid, this is my caucus is concerned about where this country is headed. but mitch has said, said -- i am not making this up -- he is the proud guardian of gridlock. those are his words. so i took action last week to force republicans to either allow these people to go through that and stop the filibuster, or we're going to have to change the rule. there isn't, as i've indicated, a single objection to the qualifications of any one of these people. and we need to move forward. we need to stop blocking this president and future presidents from having a qualified team that he thinks is what he needs. this is in the constitution.

this isn't about democrats versus republicans. it's about making washington work regardless of who's in the white house. i also think that it's clear that we should all understand that the senate is a unique institution. it was created that way by the founding fathers. its traditions are important, but also it's an evolving institution. it's always been that way. that's why we changed the rules 18 times over the last three decades. among those traditions is protection for the minority, and that's the way it should be. the power of an extreme minority now threatens the very integrity of this institution. as we know, frank lautenberg passed away very recently. he was a fine man, he loved the

senate. gina mccarthy, after her 1100 questions were answered, the republicans refused to have a single republican attend. so the only way to overcome that is all democratic senators of the committee had to be there. frank lautenberg was dying. i called bonnie, i said we have to have him here. and he literally on his deathbed came down here, unhooked the stuff that was keeping him alive, came down here from new jersey and walked in to make a caucus. even was there for the democrats in the epa committee. we shouldn't be doing stuff like that. that isn't what it's all about. you can't reward bad behavior over and over and over again. for the first time in the history of the country, they

filibustered the secretary of defense. this wild-eyed liberal from nebraska. a war hero, literally a war ear row who was commend -- war hero who was commended for his heroism who among other things on the battlefield saved his brother's life. i went to his office when he was here as a senator. he has a picture there of he and his brother on an armored personnel carrier in vietnam. and not only that, one of the senators questioned his loyalty to our country if a public hearing -- in a public hearing, they did that. john brennan, filibustered the director of the cia. so my efforts are directed to

save senate from becoming obsolete. to be relevant and effective as an institution, and to do that, the senate must evolve to meet the challenges of modern day america. this is really a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change. minor change. no big deal. remember, all we want to do is what the constitution says we should do. fill lu busters -- filibusters are not part of the constitution. that's something that senators developed on their own to get legislation to pass. now it's being used not only to get legislation stopped from passing, but to stop nominees. it's in a totally different place than where it should be. this is a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change. it's time for course correction that compels the two parties to work with each other instead of against each other. the gravity of the challenges facing our country demands that we do what's necessary to save

this storied institution, the united states senate. i love the senate, but right now the senate is broken and needs to be fixed. our vision of the senate that works again, a senate that's once again a responsive and effective advocate for middle class families, it really troubles me when my republican colleagues stand and say but we passed the farm bill. we passed an immigration bill. keep going. keep going. not much else. those are not things we should be saying, oh, we were able to do that. i mean, i am really proud of the eight democrats and republicans who work gd together to help us find a pathway to immigration. but that's what we used to do all the time. that's what we do. compromise is what we're all about. legislation's the art of compromise. that's what it's all about.

so i want the senate to work again. and with your support, i'm prepared to take whatever action is necessary to make that happen. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> so i'm just going to ask a few questions, and then we'll turn it over to the audience. so you referenced, senator reid, the issue, the fact that what's tying a hot of of these blocked nominees together from the consumer financial protection board to the national labor relations board to the environmental protection agency, labor, is that these are agencies that protect consumers. and they faced great opposition. there's also the issue which is, which was sort of new with the consumer financial protection

board which is that, you know, over 40 senators basically said they would not confirm, they were opposed to, basically, any confirmation. so do you think in some sense what we're facing is a new issue in which the senate minority is using the power of the filibuster to basically nullify the effect of laws themselves? because with the national labor relations board, consumer financial protection board it's hard to actually get them to operate properly when they don't have nominees or they don't have commissioners or directors. >> there are a lot of things that have happened since i've been here that have been pushed forward by republican presidents, republican congresses that i don't like. but it is -- we, we have not the ability, we shouldn't have at least, just was we don't -- because we don't like a law we

don't fill the positions to see if it'll work. the dodd-frank republicans, not a one of them, voted for it. hated the bill. but we did it because wall street had ruined temporarily -- thank goodness we're making our way back but not as much as i'd like -- las vegas, nevada. they don't like this. elizabeth warren came up with the idea that we need someone to protect the consumer. that's not an outrageous idea. but they don't like it because the consumer, i believe, need protection against wall street, and that's what this would do, and they don't like it, and they've done everything they can to stop it. i got a letter from can't remember 44, i think, republican senators. and it's the same, having the same issue with health care, with many other -- and, you know, the cordray issue is

really we solved a big problem. because it's so important we protect the consumer, we don't have to appropriate the money for that. that also drives them crazy. [laughter] that happens automatically. >> right. >> the federal reserve. >> and so do you -- there's, obviously, a lot of progressive groups have been pushing for filibuster reform for a long time and broadly speaking. why focus on nominees and my now essentially? -- why now essentially? >> because that's now where the big plug is. i mean, you can look at many different pieces of legislation and look at how the 60-vote threshold whether 60 could be changed to a lower number, that's something we could deal with later. but right now the 60 protects progressive groups and conservative groups. you look at the gun thing as an example. the gun legislation i so believe

in for background checks to stop people who have serious mental problems and are criminals, i believe in that very strongly. but i didn't believe in the fact that because they have some -- trying to be as nice as i can about this -- some crazy, absurd rule in idaho and utah that basically you can carry a gun any place you want -- >> right. >> i don't think that would be good to have somebody fly into las vegas armed to the hilt because of some law that they have in idaho or fly into st. louis -- i mean, so women who are very concerned about protecting their rights with just a simple majority. so i'm not anxious to change that. on judges i'm comfortable with our doing what we're doing. we will see what happens, but i am very comfortable with where

we are now, and i'm not trying to spread this to ore places -- other places. >> all right. so let's -- i i this we have a few minutes for questions. we'll start with the press, and if you could just identify yourself and your organization, that would be great. >> chuck babbington with the ap. senator reid, as you know, republicans have raised the specter of possibly using a simple majority vote when they have the majority which, as you know, could come fairly soon to open up yucca mountain for nuclear waste. is that something you're willing to accept? >> how silly, but i'll answer it. i mean, how silly. they are not about to have a 50-vote majority if they're in power or anybody else is in power. that is just a -- that bothered me about as much as the color of your tie today. [laughter] which doesn't bother me at all, okay? [laughter] so yucca mountain's --

>> you're saying that even if they had a majority, that they could not come up with 50 votes for that issue? >> but that's not the issue. if they get in, if they want to change rules by simple majority, more power to them. i think they would rue the day they did it. they're not going to do that. they're not going to do that. it's all, you know, the sky is falling. as they asked barbara mikulski who is as quick-witted as anybody i've ever known. they asked her last week, they said this is a slippery slope, and she said that's why they call them slopes. >> hi, senator reid, jeff -- [inaudible] with abc news. in 2005 you said that changing these rules would be a black chapter in the history of the country. it would ruin our country. and that you should not be able to willy-nilly change the rules of the senate. isn't this being a little hypocritical by changing the rules now? >> no, what it is is you don't

understand the right question. i wasn't talking about changing the rules for nominees. i was talking about changing the rules for judges, okay? a new era. i mean, we have now since then, as i've indicated, 400, approximately 420 times we've been filibustered. we have a situation where we have people who have been waiting on the calendar for nine months, two nominees for the nlrb has have been waiting for o years, cordray's billion waiting for two years -- has been waiting for two years. so it's a totally different world that we live in. and i don't -- of course, i wasn't the leader at that time, but myway, that's what i said. here's how i feel now. different situation. >> chris. >> senator reid, chris -- [inaudible] journal. i wanted to ask are you concerned by putting these in place that when the next president comes you'll be able

to create a situation where there's no need for bipartisan cabinets, where the sec could be stacked with republicans who are, you know, pro-campaign finance reform you're a democrat, basically making it difficult for any of the government to function? >> why don't you look at what's going on today rather than have some hypothetical in the future. the problem today is the president of the united states cannot get the people to work for imthat he wants. -- for him that he wants. that's what we should focus on. i mean, when it's gone so far that you for the first time in the history of the country you filibuster a secretary of defense, you instead of submitting as used to happen six or seven questions you now do 1100? jack lew is the secretary of treasury, we had to file cloture on him so he could be part of the international monetary fund. let's talk about the problems today not some hypothetical in the future.

and if people really have concern about that, let them go change the constitution. that's what the constitution says that for a presidential nominee it should be a simple majority. it's worked for a long, long time, and that's why during the time from george washington to barack obama you only had 20 filibusters of presidential nominations. >> a few more questions. go here, and then we'll go over there. >> hi, senator. jonathan weissman from "the new york times." you're having this meeting tonight in the old senate chamber, but it sounds like you've made your decision. so what is this meeting about tonight, and are you open to any kind of compromises that would let some of these or all of these nominees go forward with some proviso that the so-called constitutional option be taken off the table at least for now? >> simple solution. i mentioned it in my remarks. so easy. if the sky's falling and they

think it's falling, let 'em stop the filibusters on the seven i filed cloture on, and we would have up or down votes on these people and go on to the business of the day. now, that seems pretty simple to me. and it's also quite fascinating here, we're having a joint caucus. i tried too that in the -- to do that in the past. mcconnell won't let us do it. the only time we've been able to do it is when i came up with the idea to have john mccain in a closed session with our senators talk about his experiences in vietnam. and it was stunningly interesting. but we've tried to do joint caucuses. now no matter what reason there is for having one, we're having one. i think it's good. i hope that sets the tone for the future. but i repeat for "the new york times," if they want to, if they want to stop what's going on, don't filibuster. don't filibuster cordray, block,

hockberg, gina mccarthy, perez. that's a good way to stop all this. >> there was someone -- okay. yeah. go ahead. >> thanks, senator. corey bullard, "wall street journal." are you open to assuming this goes forward going further, later in the year? you mentioned gun control, are you open to potentially making this change for legislation as well? >> when you come here, i'm sorry you can't hear all the answers. i answered that question. i have no intent of changing the rule as to legislation. zero. just like i told this man from the national journal. same answer. same question, same answer. >> i think we're going to mix it up. are there questions from the public over here? right there. >> hello, james bradbury, university of colorado. so, senator, if this nuclear option is supposed to mitigate gridlock in the senate, what

other rules would you like to see changed in order to make the senate more effective? >> nothing right now. but remember, the senate is an evolving body. we've changed the rules in recent years 18 times. i gave you one example. i went back and studied the other reasons. same thing as this. somebody gets the bright idea -- i don't know if it was a democrat or a republican, i really don't know this -- the other 17 times something just to bring the senate to a standstill as we are now. the rules were changed. i'm sure it'll change in the future. >> other questions? is that a person in the blue in the middle? -- [inaudible] come back to press. we only have a few more minutes. >> senator, i think another interesting idea that's been proposed -- >> tell us where you're from -- >> i'm sorry, i'm alex -- [inaudible] from the university of southern california. >> hope you have a better football team than last year. that was a disaster. [laughter] that proves you can't buy college football players. >> senator, you're almost making

me want to switch to the other team. >> i'm sorry, what's that? >> you're almost making me want to switch to the other party. [laughter] but i'm really more interested in ideas of proposing to shift the burden to the minority to sustain a pily buster rather -- filibuster rather than the majority to overcome a filibuster. i'm interested in your views. >> jeff merkley and tom udall have suggested that, and that's something we can look at in the future. it's harder to implement than people think. but remember, we have deep traditions here in the senate, and maybe sometime in the distant future we can take a look at that. merkley and udall have spent untoward hours and hours working on this. i i admire what they've done. and remember, i want to say this, young man, to everybody here: this is not me marching down the road on this. my caucus is supportive of me because that's where they want to go to change this rule. >> i just also want to say as a

ucla bruin, i appreciate your remarks. we have time for two more questions. and right there. there's a, there's a mic coming to you. >> laura -- [inaudible] with bloomberg news. mcconnell has made clear that the recess appointments are what he's most concerned about, and you have the vote set up to start with cordray with a procedural vote tomorrow. are there any circumstances you would see delaying that? maybe to have additional talks? how ironclad is tomorrow? >> talks on what? talks on what? talks on what? if they have a proposal, bring it to me. but otherwise we're going to have a vote in the morning. if they have a proposal, bring it to me. easiest way to do away with this is to simply get rid of these filibusters. i mean, what logically, why would they hold up -- this is one of the most interesting things. they created these recess appointments. we didn't. they created them. they wouldn't allow us to have these people. what is barack obama supposed to

do? the nlrp goes out of business august 1st. it's gone, it's over with. and they're using, i've heard it, oh, you're doing this illegally. well, it's only happened because of them. the president wouldn't have recess appointed these people. now with these courts what they've done, they said you cannot have a recess appointment basically period. that's it. it's gone to the supreme court. we don't have time to wait and see what justice kennedy's going to do. maybe we should just call him. [laughter] >> one last question right here. >> thanks. thank you, senator, todd concern. [inaudible] with public radio. can you give us just on jonathan's question a little more specificity on how this might go this week? cordray is first. maybe you don't get all seven. maybe republicans let three or

with an agreement for four. is there wiggle room between seven and zero where this might be averted and, secondly, are you support i or not supportive of the possibility of a gang forming which would essentially circumvent you on this? that could easily happen with eight senators, and would you be supportive of that? >> there have been gangs forming on this issue for a while. we're where we are. my caucus supports where we we . i am not concerned about gangs. that's getting a little passe, frankly. >> is there wiggle room between seven and zero where if mcconnell gives you three of these nominees or four but not seven? >> no. >> it's seven or nothing? >> yeah. there's, they -- no one questions, excuse me, their capabilities, their credentials, their integrity. they're doing it because they're trying to hold up things. it's obstruct and delay. that's what's going on around here. and we want to make simple,

simple change. as i've said, it will apply to whoever's the next president, democrat or republican. it'll apply to barack obama. they should be able to have a team aboard -- now, does that mean they are going to be approved automatically? of course not. in the past democrats and republicans have worked together to stop too many knees from going -- knoll knees from going forward. didn't have to be filibuster. >> okay. i think that is, unfortunately, all the time we have today. thank you so much, senator reid, for being here and for a great discussion this morning. >> thanks, everybody. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated while the senator exits the room. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> majority leader harry reid from earlier today in washington saying right now the senate is broken, and it needs to be fixed. we are live outside the senate, the northeast side of the capitol where in about ten minutes we're likely to hear more from the majority leader and others as the senate gavels in at 2 p.m. eastern. they'll begin with general speeches this afternoon, senators expected to talk about the so-called nuclear option which changes senate rules, would change senate rules to lower the 60-vote threshold to end fill hi busters on certain nonjudicial nominations. senators from both parties plan to hold a closed-door, closed to camera joint caucus meeting today at 6 p.m. eastern. they'll be discussing those changes and how to proceed with seven of president obama's

nominations, cabinet nominations and other positions previously blocked by republican senators. again, that begins at 6 p.m. eastern, and that will take place in the old senate chamber. c-span took a tour of that room and looked at some of its history. here's a look. ♪ ♪ >> i would have enjoyed being in the old senate chamber on the day it reopened. a marvel of architecture and engineering, a marvel of american can-do spirit. it must have been such a

startling contrast to everything around it, everything else in the city so muddy and dusty. everything else in the country, a country where most of the people lived in hog cabins -- log cabins. this incredible temple to the legislative profession, the marble columns with imported italian marble caps, wall-to-wall carpet, luxurious drapery. it must have been just a stunning sight. >> architectural hi, the room is just spectacular. the artwork in it was just wonderful to have the portrait of george washington by rembrandt that's above the dais. it was there from the 1830s until 1859. it's george washington rising up into the heavens. it's sort of an apotheosis image of our first president. underneath him is the words "father of our country." the painting is often known as the porthole portrait because

washington isen cased in a porthole -- encased in a porthole of laurel and oak leaves and above him is the symbolic head of jupiter. of course, just like washington was a godlike figure. it's really a great symbolic image. it's become associated with the senate here in the old senate chamber, and then the eagle and shield above the dais. again. great symbolic sort of american icon here in the building, in this room right above where the vice president would have presided and where the senate would have met during that 1810-1859 period. >> william harry seward of new york, henry clay of kentucky, stephen douglas of i'll, hannibal handland of maine, daniel webster of massachusetts, luis cass of michigan, john c. calhoun of south carolina and sam houston of texas. that's just the beginning. and this was the very apex of the golden age of the senate.

when a modern visitor goes into that chamber, everything is gleaming, clean, and the air is fresh smelling. if you were to bring back a senator from the 1819 or 1830 be period, they'd probably double over if laughter. it just wasn't like that at all. this was like the floor of a stock market merchandise exchange just before the closing bell. it was the only place where people had a place to work. there was paper, paper everywhere. a senator's desk in the senate chamber was his office. this was no other place to go. -- there was no other place to go. >> imagine, no electricity, no furnaces. and then spitoons. you see some spitoons here as well. >> those pristine, clean, new carpets wouldn't have looked like that for very long. looking at those spitoons sitting in the senate chamber tells you a lot. every senator had a spitoon.

every senator proudly disregarded trying the hit the spitoon. as a result, there were patterns all over the floor of expect rant. >> you all know who charles dickens was? famous writer? once said if he dropped his moneybag on this carpet, he would not have used his glove to pick be it up. i can imagine it was pretty dirty. think of all the events, all the arguments and such that led up to the civil war took place in this room. >> this is the room where the senate became the senate that we know today. when the senate first moved in here, it was a pale reflection of its modern self. it was sort of the rubber stamp for the house of representatives. not a lot of major ideas came out of the senate of that early period. but all of a sudden 1819, 1820 the major issue before the nation became slavery. you see the great orators, the great thinkers who were in the house of representatives begin to decide the place for them to be is in the senate.

this is the forge on which the union was defined. is it a group of states, or is it something greater than the group of states? >> people used to line up at dawn to get into the senate chamber to hear daniel webster speak. he had this eloquent manner about him, and everybody felt even if it wasn't the greatest speech they'd ever heard, they could tell their children and and grandchildren that they'd heard the great dan yell webster speak at one time. he could speak for days op an issue, but they somehow were able to get to the nub of what the issue was. and we remember him today not for the length of the speeches, but for certain telling phrases. i speak today not as a northern man, not as a massachusetts man, but as an american. >> new hampshirely clay used -- henry clay used to sit up in the back of the senate chamber, and people said why didn't he, as he got more seniority, move to the front? i think henry clay never wanted to turn his back on any of his

enemies or friends, for that matter. clay really became synonymous with compromise. he, representing the west, was trying to reconcile the interests of the north and the south and was able to kind of keep control over the senate. people charged him with being the dictator, and he said i'm not the dictator, i'm just one of a number of senators. everybody knew that he knew as well that he was the dictator. whenever john c. calhoun came into the chamber, there would have been a buzz in the gallery. he was a dramatic-looking map. he'd resigned from the vice presidency to become a senator. he started as a nationalist, he came back as a sectionalist against anti-slavery forces and by people who wanted to change the southern way of life. in his last appearance in the senate chamber, he was too weak to actually deliver the speech that he had written, and he had to sit and listen as another senator stood and read it for him. he was dying of tuberculosis, so the man's life was just completely absorbed in the

united states capitol in one way or another at the time, and it would have been quite remarkable to actually see him in action. >> just a quick look at the old senate chamber, and that comes from our series the capitol of a couple years back. you can find that on our web site, go to c-span.org all the way down to the bottom, it's in past series. the reason we're showing that to you, of course, is senators will meet in a joint caucus this afternoon behind closed doors in the old senate chamber. at 6 p.m. the meeting being held to discuss how to proceed with president obama's cabinet and other positions blocked by republican senators. just a reminder, too, if you'd like to stay on top of comments about the proposed filibuster rule changes, a couple of ways for you to participate. facebook.com/c-span, also if you are on twitter, the hashtag we're using this afternoon and this evening is c-span chat. senate's gaveling in next, we'll hear some general speeches and

likely aerofrom the majority leader -- hear from the majority leader and minority leader right out of the chute. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. shepherd of love, you lead us -- shepherd of love, sustainer of our lives and superintendent of our destinies. we honor your name. lord, in these turbulent times, we continue to look to you, our helper, as you lead us beside

still waters, restoring our souls. help us to trust you even when we don't understand your providential movements, as we find joy in your presence each day. thank you for your constant love and for your reminder that in everything you are working for the good of those who love you and are called according to your purposes. guide our senators, keeping them from deviating from strict integrity as they strive to live worthy of your love. we pray in your sovereign name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 15, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable timothy kaine, a senator from the commonwealth of virginiai, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 124. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the matter.

the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 124, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965, to extend the current interest rate for undergraduate federal direct stafford loans for one year, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks, the time until 5:30 will be equally divided and controlled. at 5:30 there will be a roll call vote. there will be a live quorum requested, and senators should be advised that that may not be the only vote. we may have to have some more votes before we start our joint caucus, which is scheduled for 6:00. i hope there will only be need for one vote, but we should know by 3:00 or thereabouts. but we could have several votes i look forward to the joint

caucus, mr. president. at this time i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: if there are quorum calls, mr. president, during this time, i would ask that they equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i ask that the quorum be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call be lifted. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about the consumer financial protection bureau and the renomination of rich cordray to serve as its director. years ago i began working on the idea for a consumer finance agency because our consumer credit system watts badly broken. the laws were inconsistent, they were often arbitrary. the basic rules changed for the same kind of product like a

mortgage depending on what kind of company sold it. people got cheated. and as we know, in 2008 reckless and dangerous mortgage lenders and wall street traders who made money off those mortgages nearly brought our entire economy to its knees. in 2010 congress passed the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. the consumer protection farm was the cfpb, designed as a watchdog to keep credit card issuers, mortgage lenders and student loan marketers from cheating people. there was a lot of negotiation over the structure of this new agency. hearing after hearing, markup after markup, floor vote after floor vote. but now the same big bank lobbyists are fighting the same fight and using the same tired old talking points about the consumer agency that they were

using years ago. you really have to wonder just how much money they are making fighting this fight over and over. but now let's go ahead one more time and talk about the facts. congress built in many features to the consumer agency so that it would have strong oversight. and let me share just a few examples of that. the cfpb is the only agency in government that is subject to a veto from other agencies over its rules. the only one. the cfpb is the only banking regulator that is subject to a statutory cap on its funding. the only one. the cfpb director is legally obligated to produce regular reports to congress, to testify before congress regularly, and to comply with audits. and, mr. president, the cfpb has

now testified more than 30 times before congress. 30 times. in addition, the cfpb is subject to all the regular constraints in our system of government that constrain every agency, the administrative procedures act, judicial review, and so on. and of course there's the ultimate oversight. congress can overrule any cfpb regulation. now since the agency has become law in 2010, there have been two major developments. the first is that director cordray has done an excellent job. he's won praise from consumer and industry groups and from republicans and democrats for his balanced rule making and his measured approach. small institutions like community banks and credit unions, the ones that didn't cause this crisis, think he's been fair and effective.

and other institutions that want a fair marketplace, those that don't want to make a profit by cheating their customers, they like rich too. and, mr. president, the agency is working. it's already forced credit card companies to refund nearly $500 million that they tricked consumers out of, and a complaint center is giving tens of thousands of people a chance to fight back when they're cheated. the agency has helped out military families, seniors, students. it's helped a lot of people. the agency has become the watchdog that so many of us fought for. and rich has surpassed even the high expectations that i had for him. two years ago when i stood next to him in the rose garden as the president nominated him for the first time to the cfpb. now there's been a second development since 2010 as well.

the need for certainty has intensified. it's been nearly five years since the crisis, three years since the passage of dodd-frank. the banks need to know for sure who is in charge and what rules apply. they need to know that everyone will be playing by the same rules and exactly what those rules will be. and here's an example. both lenders and consumer groups have praised the cfbc. b's new mortgage rules. now it is time for everyone to know that these rules and not the unpopular default rules that are in dodd-frank, that the new rules replaced, that the new rules are the law. that helps everyone. the american people deserve a government that will hammer out good rules, that will enforce those rules, and that will get out of the way so that markets can work.

they do not zev endless -- they do not deserve endless political disputes and the uncertainty caused by repeated filibusters of qualified and proven nominees. now, mr. president, i'm new to the senate, but i don't understand why this body accepts a system where this kind of political stalemate isn't going to end in more government or less government but just in bad government, government that lacks consistence circumstance lacks clarity, lacks pr predict bilityd, that honest business and hardworking families need to plan a future. and i don't understand why we would let an honorable public certificate vangtsz like rich cordray get stuck in this nonsense. i don't understand when everyone says rich is tear riffic why we

can't just vote on his appointment. you know, i know that some republicans and some lobbyists think that rich's appointment, if they filibuster it, that they're somehow going to be able to shut down the work of the agency. they think they can shut down the agency and protect the big banks from any meaningful consumer rules. well, mr. president, they can use all the slogans they want, they can talk about things like accountability, but outside the halls of this congress in the fancy lobbying offices and washington, no one wants more fine print and more tricks and traps. no one thinks it's okay to cheat regular people and to cut special deals for giant banks. and no one wants to take cops off the beat so that big banks can break the rules without being held accountable.

so let me be clear to those who think this filibuster will shut down the work of the new agency. let me be crystal clear: irk the consumer financial protection bureau is the law and it's here to stay. do your dirtiest in obstructing the confirmation of the new director, but the agency will keep on doing what it does best -- fighting for the american people. we fought to get this consumer agency. we fought the big banks, we fought their army of lobbyists, we fought hard and we won. now we have a strong and independent watchdog to stop the banks from cheating families. we're not giving up now. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that nate converse, max trent be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, i also have some comments and statements to make regarding filibuster reform and nominees. i ask consent that i be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. harkin: mr. president, i want to take the floor to talk about these critical nominations that the senate is currently considering. in all of the talk about these nominations, about the politics of recess appointments and everything, one thing that has been missing is a real consideration of who are these people? let's bring it down to the personals. who are these people? what have they done? what could they do to serve our country? we seem to have forgotten that all of this chaff that's out there and all the arguments that are going on as to what we are supposed to be doing to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to presidential nominations. as i understand it, we're supposed to look at the qualifications of the candidates, determine if they are fit to serve, and beyond that, that's it. well, the answer with all of the nominees before us is an

unqualified yes. they are qualified and they are fit to serve, and the president should be allowed to put together his team. that should be the end of our task. we should confirm them all today or tomorrow, i guess, when they come up and move on to the many other important issues facing this body. i'm going to talk in a little bit about -- just about the whole filibuster issue itself, but first i just want to talk a little bit about one of the first of the nominees that's up, and that's our -- that's the president's choice to be our secretary of labor, tom perez. without question, tom perez has the knowledge and experience needed to guide the department of labor, one of our key cabinet posts. through his professional experiences, especially his work as secretary of the maryland department of labor licensing and regulation. yes, he was the -- basically the

secretary of labor for the state of maryland, and he developed a very strong policy expertise about the many issues that confront american workers and businesses. he spearheaded major initiatives on potentially controversial issues such as unemployment insurance reform, worker misclassification, while finding common ground between workers and employers to build sensible, commonsense solutions. at one end of the support of business community and worker advocates alike. to quote from the endorsement letter of the maryland chamber of commerce, -- quote -- "mr. perez proved himself to be a pragmatic public official who was willing to bring differing voices together. the maryland chamber had the opportunity to work with mr. perez on a ray of -- an array of issues of importance to maryland, from unemployment and work force development to the housing and foreclosure crisis.

despite differences of opinion, mr. perez was always willing to allow all parties to be heard, and we found him to be fair and collaborative. i believe that our experiences with him here in maryland bode well for the nation." end quote. maryland chamber of commerce. mr. president, tom perez has dedicated his professional life to making sure that every american has a fair opportunity to pursue the american dream. most recently, as the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the department of justice, he has been a voice for the most vulnerable and he has reinvigorated the enforcement of some of our most critical, our most critical civil rights laws. he has helped more americans achieve the dream of homeownership through his unprecedented efforts to prevent residential lending discrimination. he has stepped up the department of justice efforts to protect

the employment rights of service members so that our men and women in uniform can return to their jobs and support their families after serving their country. as the senate author of the americans with disabilities act, i am particularly pleased with mr. perez's long history of leadership on the history of civil rights issues. while at the department of justice, he has helped ensure that people with disabilities have the choice to live in their own homes and communities rather than only in institutional settings and to receive the supports and services to make this independent living possible. like any leader whose cheer has involved passionate and visionary work for justice, tom perez's career has been one of making difficult decisions, management challenges. he has been the target of a lot of accusations and mudslinging and misperceptions, but we have looked and i have looked carefully into his background

and record of service. i can assure my colleagues tom perez has the strongest possible record of professional integrity, and any allegations to the contrary are totally unfounded. again, mr. perez appeared before our committee, was willing to answer any and all questions. those were at the committee, those that submitted letters, he has answered more than 200 written questions. he has made himself available to any senator who wanted to meet with him. so he has been most accommodate ing. and i can say that they have provided all the access -- the administration has provided all the access that people have wanted to his personal emails. in fact, this administration i can say from my experience over the last 29 years has gone further in providing access to

even personal materials of tom perez than any president has ever done before, any administration has ever done before. so again, he has been thoroughly vetted. he has the character, integrity and expertise to lead this cabinet and the senate, and the senate should vote on it. when i say the senate should vote on it, we should vote on it with a majority vote. but no, no, mr. perez has been filibustered and held up to a 60-vote threshold. now, we know that mr. perez has well over 50 votes, the majority, but because my friends on the republican side are stonewalling this, he may not have 60 votes, but why should it take 60 votes, i ask. why should it be -- shouldn't it be a majority vote up or down? the same is true for our

nominees for the national labor relations board. again, these are three exceptionally well qualified candidates. mark pierce has been a board member since 2010, chairman since 2011. he was previously a union side attorney in private practice. before that, a career attorney at the national labor relations board. richard griffin is former general counsel of the operating engineers union and again a former career attorney at the nlrb. sharon bach served as deputy assistant secretary for congressional affairs at the u.s. department of labor, and before that was on our help committee. she was the senior counsel for chairman kennedy when senator kennedy was chairman of our committee. and again, she is a ten-year veteran of the nlrb. again, i -- i have yet to hear one senator question their qualifications. question their qualifications. indeed, even the ranking member

on the help committee conceded at the hearing that these candidates are exceptionally well qualified, that he admired their qualifications and their distinguished backgrounds. they've been thoroughly vetted. they've met with any senator who asked. they've answered more than a hundred written questions each. they've come before our committee in a public hearing. not typical for all nlrb nominees, i might add. they produced every document requested, answered every question they've been asked. so, again, if we concede they're all exceptionally well qualified, thoroughly vetted, why can't we vote on them up or down, majority vote? yet some time ago my friend senator graham when speaking about the senate's role in the nomination process said -- quote -- "our job as i see it is not to say what we would do if we were president. our job as the constitution lays out for us is to advise and

consent by a majority vote, by a majority vote, to make sure the president is not sending over their brother-in-law or sister-in-law or other unqualified people." end quote. so no one on these lists is any's brother-in-law or sister-in-law, i mied add and everyone is exceptionally well qualified. again, if we're doing our constitutional duty, we would confirm all of these nominees today and tomorrow nominees tomorrow and move on to our legislative work. why aren't we do that? well, because my friends on the republican side are hijacking these nominations and this nomination process to try to make changes to laws they know they could not change through regular order. so a single senator, a lot of times, or handful of senators might hold up a nominee not because the nominee is not qualified but because they want

some changes made someplace else. that they don't feel they can get through the regular order of business in the congress. for example, my friends on the republican side they don't like the national labor relations board. so what do they do? they can't repeal it, so they make it inoperable. make it inoperable by not letting us confirm nominees. in fact, one of my depletion announced his intention to filibuster the nlrb nominees six days before the nominations were announced. six days before. in fact, went on to say that inoperable, an inoperable nlrb would be good for the country. if that's the way they feel, offer amendments here to -- to defund it, to do away with it, repeal the law, but then to hold up qualified nominees, to

carry out the law, the national labor relations act is the law of the land. the national labor relations board is constituted under that law. to carry out its functions. and so to hold up qualified nominees because they want to change the law, again, is to try to get something done they couldn't otherwise do through the regular order. again, this level of obstructionism is unprecedented in the nomination process. repealing laws by fiat is not and was never intended to be a part of the senate's advise and consent function. a senator's dislike for a particular law or a particular agency certainly was not intended to prevent qualified and dedicated people from answering the president's call to serve their country.

and, again, it's the american people, not only the nominees but the american people who suffer from these unprecedented abuses of the process. the laws that these boards and agencies and departments enforce are important laws. designed to protect people. and when the system breaks down or in this case, intentionally undermined, real people are hurt. now, take the example of the national labor relations board. they have to have a quorum of three members to act. if there are fewer than three at any time the board cannot issue decisions and must essentially shut down. now, the board currently has three members, but chairman pearce's term expires next month. at that point the national labor relations board would be unable to function unless we confirm additional members. now, keeping the board open is

vital to employees, employers, and our economy. without the board, workers cannot seek justice if they are discharged or discriminated against for say talking with colleagues to improve their working conditions or for joining or assisting a labor union, or for organizing a labor union. there are no laws out there that -- the only avenue available to these employees to file a grievance and to have their grievance heard and adjudicated is to file a charge with the national labor relations board. without it, they have no options at all. so at the nlrb, the national labor relations board, if they can't function, workers effectively don't have any rights. yet my meeting said an inoperable -- my republican colleague said an inoperable nlrb good for the country, imagine that, leaving workers without any forum, without any

recourse to have their grievances heard. again, the same i can say the same is true of the consumer financial protection board. again, it was created, as we know, part of the dodd-frank act, the simple idea in mind, consumers deserve to have a watchdog looking out for their best interests when using financial products and services. from mortgages to credit cards to student loans to payday loans. so with the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, consumers now have that cop on the beat looking out for their well-being. now, mr. cordray, who has been chosen by the president to head this agency has carried out his mission admirably but if republicans have their way, he'll never be confirmed, never. and not only will they lose his leadership, but the ability to adequately oversee these financial services and financial

products, and to protect american consumers. so by refusing to confirm mr. cordray and if i'm not mistaken, i believe his nomination has -- is over 500 days, if i'm not mistaken, 500 and some days he's been held up. so by refusing to confirm him, they're using, again, the republicans are using this nominations process to thwart the intent of the dodd-frank law. and that really brings us to the point. the crux of what is going on around here. that has been in the press so much lately, that we're going to have an unprecedented caucus of the democratic senators and republican senators out here in the old senate chambers at 6:00 p.m. tonight, to air these grievances. as we know, the majority leader has laid down last thursday a

number of these nominees. filed cloture on them. will bring them up tomorrow. if the republicans continue to filibuster, the majority leader has made it clear his intention to change the rules of the senate using 51 votes to provide that nominations for executive branch positions are not subject to the filibuster rule. so that's what we're talking about here. we're talking about the nullification of laws already on the books through the abuse of the senate's power to advise and consent to nominations, nullification. read your history books about nullification. one of the issues that we knot the civil war over. could states nullify on their

own, federal laws. well, what we're seeing here are the republicans saying we can nullify the essence of laws or what boards are supposed to do by abusing the advise and consent clause of the constitution. it's appalling, and something has to change. mr. president, i first took this floor on this issue in 1995. i think i have it here someplace. yes, here's the congressional record, january 4, 1995. that was an interesting time. the democrats had lost control of the senate. republicans were now in charge. and i, along with senator leeb and senator -- lieberman and senator pell and senator robb from the great state of virginia, proposed a change in the rules that wouldn't end the filibuster but it would keep the

filibuster as it was kind of intended, as a method whereby the minority could ensure that they could amend or offer amendments on legislation. see, the right of the minority should be to offer amendments, not to have then adopted, but to offer amendments wand to have them voted on. and secondly, to make sure that the filibuster could be used to slow things down but not to be used to stop something. that's what i proposed on january 4 of 1995. i said at the time if we don't change -- i said it's getting worse. 1995. it's getting worse. i said i believe in the long run it will harm the senate and our nation if this pattern continues. and i went on to talk about the rising tide of the filibusters. i said clearly, this is a process that's out of control.

1995. we need to change the rules, we need to change the rules, however, without harming the long-standing senate tradition of extended debate and deliberation and slowing things down. then i went on to talk about -- when i laid that amendment down that proposed rule about how dysfunctional this place was becoming. if you think it was bad in 1995, you should see what it's like now. never in my wildest dreams did i think in 1995 that 15 -- 18 years later the senate would come to this point where we simply can't do anything. unless we have 60 volts. unless you have 60 votes. we now have a system whereby 41 senators decide what we do here.

essentially that's what they do. 41. and through the use of the filibuster, a handful of senators can really thwart the will of the senate. 18 years later. well, mr. president, there has been a lot said about dith nominees -- different nominees and what's going on here, there's been this accusation and that amization. -- action glaights. you -- accusation. you got to caught through the fog and the haze. i referred to it in 1995 as sort of of like the fog of war. you got to cut through it. there is only one question we need to ask ourselves and one question the american people should ask themselves. should a nominee, a person

selected by a president, any president, democrat, republican, i don't care, any president, should a nominee -- a person selected by that president to be a part of his or her team after thoroughly vetting, after a thorough committee hearing, after making sure there are -- there's nothing cerrably wrong with this person, they meet the qualifications, they've been thoroughly vet pedestrian, the question is should that person have an up-or-down vote on the united states senate with a majority vote, or is it going to require 60 votes, 60 votes. again, the constitution of the united states very clearly points out there are only five times when the senate needs a supermajority to act. things like impeaching the president, expelling a member, adopting a treaty, joining a

treaty -- approving a treaty, things like that. in all other things, the constitution envisions a simple majority vote. that's the real question here. there is no other real question before us. now, mr. president, before i yield the floor, i just want to address an issue that has come up regarding the national labor relations board nominees and i want to set the record straight. i take the time to put this in the record. there have been accusations made here on the senate floor -- i shouldn't say accusations. there have been sort of stipulations, you know, comments made that two of these board members are serving illegally, that they were illegally put on the board by president obama. now, that would be sharon block

and richard griffin. now, let's look at a little history here. they were appointed by the president in january of 2012 as a recess appointment because the republicans would not let us vote on them. and since we needed a national labor relations board to function, the president gave these two people a recess appointment in january of 2012. they have been serving since that time. a case was taken, the canning case was taken to court. they were taken to court to decide whether or not the president had the authority to appoint them as recess appointees. the d.c. circuit court issued an opinion, and the reason they used was contrary to any other

court reasoning in the past about recess appointments. the d.c. circuit said that, no, the president could not make those appointments. and, furthermore, the president can only make a recess appointment during the intervening times from one congress to another. no other court has ever held that. now there was another court that agreed that the president couldn't make these recess appointments, but they didn't go that far. they just said that what the president did was not a recess, when he did it was not in a recess. other courts, 2nd, 9th, 11th sector courts have all -- 11th circuit courts have all decided these things dimple in -

differently in the past. what we have is a position by one court, a d.c. circuit, taking a position never taken before by any court. you have another court, the third circuit that narrowly defined the president's power. then you have all the other courts that are basically all over the place on this in the past. so what happens? now this case goes to the supreme court and the supreme court will decide this during the 2013-2014 term. so sharon block and richard griffin are on the nlrb. they took an oath of office, an oath of office to carry out their responsibilities. now, some of my republican friends are saying they should resign. they should get off the board because they're serving illegally. they're not serving illegally

until the supreme court has made a final decision. i said before the contention that some of my friends on the republican side is like alice in wonderland. first the verdict and then we have the trial. i don't know what the supreme court will decide. don't know. now we have had precedents in the past. there's a long-standing nlrb precedent when the agency faces a split in circuit court opinions. when the d.c. circuit rule in laurel bay vs. nlrb that the nlrb needed three members to have a lawful quorum to act -- again, this was contrary to the decision of other circuits -- the two-member board, consisting of republican peter shomber and democrat wimla leeland continued to issue decisions until the court was heard in the supreme court.

the supreme court said they need more than two. you need at least three people to make decisions. now, the two-member board during that interim time issued decisions in hundreds of cases after the d.c. circuit's adverse ruling. yet not one republican senator called on either member to resign. and so what happened? after the supreme court issued its decision and the court was now had more than -- the board, i mean, had more than three members, they went back and looked at these decisions. and if there were still open contentions, they reviewed them and issued another decision. now, some of the decisions were accepted by both sides, and people moved on. those that weren't were redecided by the board, including the two people that had served on that board during that interim period of time. so, again, we have a recent

precedent -- and this was just within the last five years, if i'm not mistaken. yes, five years. we have a recent precedent that demonstrates that both block and griffin are acting appropriately by remaining in place, and that the nlrb is acting appropriately by continuing to issue decisions pending the resolution of this issue by the supreme court. they cannot and they should not resign because they took an oath of office to fulfill their duties. and they must fulfill that oath. after president obama made these appointments, each new board member took an oath of office promising to fulfill their duties as a member of the nlrb. i just want to clear that up. they are not illegal. and we await the supreme court's decision on this. and i have no idea how they're going to decide because there's been a split in the circuits. as i've shown, this issue has

come up before where we had a case split in circuits, two board members continued to issue decisions. no one here asked them to resign. and this was in the last five years. no one asked them to resign. but now for some reason my friends on the republican side want to deny, to deny the president his choice of people to serve on the nlrb. two of those people -- ms. block and mr. griffin -- let's say, let's say the supreme court says, yeah, the president couldn't appoint people during that recess appointment. well, okay, we're not talking about that now. we're talking about an appointment that's going to take place right now. and he should be allowed to have who he wants, as long as they are thoroughly vet and they're

qualified. and like i said, no one has questioned their qualifications. so the president should have the right to have his nlrb board put in place now. and the question of whether or not decisions that have been made in the last year and, what, five or six months, those decisions, just like the ones before in the laurel bay case, in that case, in the laurel bay case, they went back and revisited those and issued their decisions. the same thing can happen here. so don't let anyone tell you that these nominees are illegal. that is absolutely not true. people may think it's true but it's not true. so, mr. president, i keep hearing that, well, now there's overtures from the republican side to make some deals, to make a deal on not having the vote

tomorrow on doing away with the filibuster rule on nominations. i've heard all kinds of things floating around this deal here and that deal there and we've got a little deal here. since i took the floor in 1995 as a member of the minority, i might add, to propose a change in the filibuster rules, since that time this issue has come up several times since 1995. every time there's always a deal. there's always some little deal made so we don't fix what's wrong with the senate. we just sort of paper it over and move on. i hope that doesn't happen again. every time a deal was made, it was papered over, things got worse. every single time they got worse. they might have been okay for a little bit, and then we go right back into our old ways again. right back into our old ways.

the old ways won't work any longer around here. they just won't. i hope that the only deal that is struck is that the republicans agree with -- that we all agree that any president should have his or her right to put their team in place by a majority vote of the advise and consent of the united states senate. thoroughly vetted, committee hearings, answering questions, yes, but an up-or-down vote with a majority vote in the united states senate. that is the only deal that will get us out of this trap we find ourselves in. it's the only thing i think that will reassure the american people once again the united states senate is going to function. it's going to do its job. it's not going to be thwarted by a handful of people, or one or two or three or four people, and

that we can actually move this country ahead and let this president, the next president who may be a republican, yes, let that president have his team. i said that in 1995 as the minority. i've said it in the majority. i've said it in the minority and i'll say it back again in the majority. so i hope tomorrow we finally put an end to this nonsense of the filibuster on nominations, at a bare minimum, i would like to see the filibuster changed even more than that. but at a minimum, get rid of the filibuster on nominations to the executive branch. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. harkin: i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent this this request be agreed to and that this request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i speak today recognizing i've only been a member of this body about six months and a couple of days. i'm hardly an expert on senate rules, procedures and precedent, but this much i do know. the rule change that is being considered this week is more far-reaching and more significant than has been advertised. this rule change was described this afternoon by the majority leader as a -- quote -- "minor change; no big deal." it is a big deal. it has the potential to change this institution in ways that are both hazardous and unforeseen. we'll discuss these changes

later today in the old senate chamber. i think it's appropriate that we should meet there. this hasn't been used for official senate business in over 150 years. it gives added perspective to the gravity of what is being considered. the majority leader noted today that senate rules have been changed 18 times in the past 36 years by a simple majority vote. there needs to be a qualifyer here, a very big qualifyer. this rule change will allow for the first time in senate history majority-imposed cloture. that is not minor. that is a big deal. it is said by the advocates that it will only affect the president's executive branch nominees. that may be true initially but once a simple majority has been used to impose cloture for executive branch nominees, why can't it be used for judicial nominees that have a lifetime

tenure? why not use it for every day legislation? but even in the unlikely event that this rule change remains confined to the president's executive branch nominees, it would not be a minor change or one that could be described as no big deal. let me give just one example. i hope that it gives some of my colleagues pause as they consider this rule change. currently under consideration by this body is the president's nominee to head the environmental protection agency. this agency has broad reach across the country. its regulatory authority extends to power generation and air quality, a heavy-handed approach on these issues in particular, has the potential to put a stranglehold on arizona's economy. with only 15% of arizona's land privately owned, e.p.a.'s influence is phag ni feud by consideration footprint the federal government has in the state. the president's choice to head the e.p.a. is an important

choice and the senate's advise and consent role is vital. after reading some of the media reporting on the president's pick for this position, i initially had some heartburn. however, after meeting in my office with the president's nominee, discussing issues unique to arizona and receiving assurances we could work collaboratively on these issues, i felt comfortable with the president's choice. on the whole, this has been my experience with the president's nominees. now if this rule we are to consider were in place, would i have received a visit from the president's nominee? no. i served in the house of representatives for 12 years. not once did i receive a visit from the president's nominees during the nomination process. why is that? it's not because they didn't like me. it wasn't because i served in the other body or they have some aversion to the other chamber.

no. it's because the house has no role in advice and consent. this is precisely the position that nearly half of the senate will be in in perpetuity with regard to executive branch nominees by the end of this week if this change occurs. let me repeat that again. this is the position -- senators will be in the same position as house members are you, in you happen to be in the minority here, with regard to executive branch nominees. the house has no role in advise and consent. and if a bare majority can be used to invoke cloture on an executive branch nominee, there is no reason for them to come see new your office, to talk about what they're doing, talk go what their philosophy is. like i say, in most cases, you feel comfortable after that. and after assurances that you can work sla collaboratively one issue, then you can move on and vote for the nominee in most cases, but that won't happen if

this rule change occurs. if my maiden speech, i said the following, "the senate is a body governed largely by consensus the party holding the gavel is one a short leash. bringing even the most noncontroversial releases to the senate floor requires the acquiescence of the minority. over the past decade, both parties holding the gavel have chafed under this arrangement. both parties have considered change the rules. both parties have wisely reconsidered. the house has rules apoppet for the house. the rules of the senate, however frustrating to the party that happens to be wielding the golf, are appropriate for the senate." mr. president, it is my sincere hope that this body can realize its potential and that whatever behavioral changes need to be made are made within the longstanding rules of the senate, rules that have served this institution and the country

very well for more than 200 years. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quoarp quorum quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president, i would ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. we're today here debating the issue of rules, and i've listened to this debate about the senate rules, and the word broken gets tossed around a lot. broken agreements, breaking the

rules to change the rules. those are the sideline comments, and they miss the real point because what is broken is the senate itself. i've said for a long time the senate is a graveyard for good ideas, and the shovel is unprecedented abuse of filibusters, of delay and obstruction. it all adds up to one thing: broken. we call for changes in the senate rules at the beginning of this congress. we shouldn't have put in place a talking filibuster and other changes -- we should have put in place a talking filibuster and other changes, but we didn't. so we have this tyranny of the minority, where the minority governs. just the situation that our founding fathers feared. too often too obvious the senate is still a grav graveyard for gd ideas anded bodies just keep piling up, especially with executive branch nominees.

in january the two leaders agreed and i'm quoting here from what they said on the floor, to work together to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances." the minority leader said on the subject of nominations, "senate republicans will continue to work with the majority to process nominations consistent with the norms and traditions of the senate." that was the agreement, and it has not been kept. the only extraordinary circumstance has been continual obstruction, and it all began very early on. for openers, we saw the filibuster of chuck hagel's nomination, the first time a secretary of defense was ever filibustered. but this is part and parcel for president obama's cabinet secretaries. by way of comparison, looking at

other presidents, not one of president carter's cabinet nominees was filibustered. president h.w. bush, zero. president reagan, one. president george w. bush, one. president obama, four and still counting. i'm old enough to remember the era when my father was secretary of interior in the kennedy administration and johnson administrations. when i joined the senate, i told my dad when i went home one of the weekends, "we can't get executive nominees in place." the president and the cabinet secretaries don't have their teams in place. he said, "tom, i had virtually my whole team in place in the first two weeks." imagine that -- imagine if the whole team for the department of interior or any other department for that matter was confirmed in the first two weeks. agencies could function, our government could do its work.

instead, the president's nominations are ambushed by filibusters. confirmation now almost always requires 60 votes, contrary to the historical practice of the senate. and, more importantly, contrary to the explicit simple-majority requirement in the u.s. constitution. this is not the traditions and norms the republicans committed to. it is anything but. still, that is what we have seen; one nominee after another blocked and key leadership posts left unfilled. americans thought they spoke with a clear voice last november. no doubt, they now wonder. and why wouldn't they? the will of the majority is drowned out by a small minority. people in my home state of new mexico want to know, americans want to know who is minding the

store? the answer in too many cases is no one. we still don't have a secretaryy of labor. the national labor relations board is an empty shell. the senate has failed to confirm a full five-member board and general council. two of these nominees are republicans, even though they couldn't get through. this has real impact for 80 million americans who rely on workplace protections, for the rights of workers and theent teg grit of the collective bargaining process. some believe this is a good thing, that we toss out the enforcement of labor law in this country. i don't share that view. but it isn't just workers who are left hanging; leadership positions at other vital agencies remain unfilled. the consumer financial protection bureau, the environmental protection agency, the center for medicare and

complaid medicaid services, the federal election commission, these are important jobs, important work for the american people, affecting the environment, consumers, health care, and even our elections. earlier this year we debated gun safety legislation. republicans argued that we don't need new laws, that we just need to enforce the existing laws. unfortunately, the agency responsible for enforcing many of those laws -- the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives -- has not had a senate-confirmed director in seven years. why? because republicans do not want the a.t.f. to function. many of these highly qualified americans get tired of having their lives put on hold because of partisan obstruction. rather than continue to languish in a dysfunctional system, they

withdraw from consideration. one such example was don johnson nominated to head the justice department's office of legal counsel. johnson was a respected law professor and former top assistant in the office of legal counsel in the clinton administration, but republicans blocked her nomination. in 2010 after her nomination was stalled in the senate over a year, should i withdrew. another example is peter diamond. in 2011, he withdrew as president obama's nominee to the federal reserve board. diamond's nomination was blocked because a small minority of senators questioned whether he was qualified. i tend to believe he was, as he won the nobel prize in economics the year before. it makes you wonder why anyone would subject themselves to a senate confirmation. people who want to serve their country, ofng at a significant

pay cut from their private-sector careers, but, no, they will be subjected to a partisan fight that they may have nothing to do with their qualifications. so months and years go by, work is lift undone, with no one at the helm of major government agencies, and that is why the senate is in crisis. that is why we are here today. the american people deserve better than this. we need a government that does its job. that's not possible without leadership. congress's approval ratings remain in the correctly spvment al-- --in the cellar. why? because of a failure to get things done, even allowing the president to select his own team. find 60 votes or find someone else or leave the position empty -- this is the status quo, and it must change. it is time for us to act.

it is time to restore the confirmation process. restore it to how it has worked for over 200 years. and doing ow so is not breakinge rules to change the rules. they have been changed before, and it's often done by a simple majority, when the minority is abusing senate procedure. as senator merkley pointed out last week, it has been done at least 18 times since 1977. and contrary to the reerchtion' dire warnings, making these changes has never led to the death of the senate. in fact, the republicans themselves made a strong argument for such changes back in 2005. they were up in arms. why? because ten judicial nominations had been blocked. ten, now mind you -- ten that. name seems quaint now. but it's -- it was enough for the republicans, and they were very clear about it.

that's what the republican policy committee said in 2005. i want to read to you what they said at this time. quote -- "this breakdown in senate norms is profound. this is now a risk that the senate is creating a new 60-vote confirmation standard. the constitution plainly requires no more than a majority vote to confirm any executive nomination. but some senators have shown that they are determined to override this constitutional standard. exercising the constitutional option in response to judicial filibusters would restore the senate to its long-standing norms and practices governing judicial nominations and guarantee a minority does not transform the fundamental nature of the senate's advice and consent responsibility. this approach, therefore, would be both reactive and restorative.

restore the senate to its long-standing norms and practices. it would be difficult to state the case more clearly. this just isn't about the rules. it's about the traditions and norms of the senate and their collapse under the weight of filibusters. i know the winds can change, positions can change, neither side is 100% pure on this. both sides have had their moments of obstruction and, no doubt, their reasons at the time. but i don't think the american people care much about that. that. they don't want a history lesson. they want a primer, and they don't want a primer on parliamentary procedure. they just want a government that works, that gets things done, period. i came to the snare senate in 2509, my position on this has not changed since then. the senate needs to do its job. and it's missing in action. when we plop to change the rules at the beginning of the quang

quonk, we were very clear. we called for a talking filibuster. if you want to hold up legislation, you should have to stand here in this chamber on the floor and make your case. we did not intend to trample on the legitimate rights of the minority, and we were willing to work with these rules no matter if we were in the majority or the minority. i do not believe the constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee. no matter who is in the white house. i say that today, and i will say that if i am in the minority tomorrow. a republican president may have nominees i disagree with. most likely so. when you the people elect a president. we only have were unpresident at a time. and they give him or her the right to select a team to dorch. if those nominees can qualified, a minority in the senate should not be able to block them.

-- on either side of the aisle. oversight, yes, review, yes, but not block because you don't like their policy or promise. the law they are committed to enforce. this is not advice and consent. this is obstructio object and d. n. new mexicans want a government that works, the american people want a government that works, and they're tired of wraiting. thank you, madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, thank you very much. there is no group of individuals than i hold in higher regard that be our nation's veterans. they have dedicated their lives to serving our country. among our secret rans, i have special add -- veterans, i have the special admiration for members of our greatest generation who served during our nation's darkest hours and liberated the world from the forces of tyranny. following the attack on pearl harbor, more than 16 million americans answered the call to serve our country and more than 400,000 husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers and daughters

never returned home. more than 200,000 kansans served during the war, including general dwight d. eisenhower, future u.s. senator bob dole, who will celebrate his 90th birthday on monday, along with my own 97-year-old father at home in plainville, kansas. during the dedication of the world war ii memorial here in our nation's capital, senator dole described the greatest generation this way -- and i quote senator dole -- "on distant feels and fathomless oceans, the skies over half the planet and in 10,000 communities on the homefront, we did far more than avenge pearl harbor. the citizen soldiers who answered liberty's call fought not for territory but for justice, not for plunder but to liberate enslaved peoples around the world. among those citizen soldiers was a young kansan named richard seitz. when world war ii began, dick was attending classes at kansas

state university, but by the end of the war, he had successfully led his battalion through some of the fiercest fighting on the -- of the war in the battle of the bulge. our country lost a great individual, a man, a dedicated soldier, an american hero who lieutenant general dick seitz recently passed away. general seitz was born in 1918 in leavenworth, kansas, and at an early age, he showed great interest in serving his country in the armed forces. in high school, he was the cadet commander of his school rotc unit and he received the american legion cup as an outstanding cadet. as a young man, dick attended kansas state university and while a student, he accepted a commission as a second lieutenant in the u.s. army. while spending a year away from k. state to earn enough money to finish his degree, dick was called intuitive duty in 1940. during infantry course at fort

benning, dick witnessed the original parachute test platoon and volunteered to become a paratrooper. he was part of the 6th jump school class -- sixth jump school class ever held by the army and became one of its first paratroopers. general seitz rose rapidly through the ranks until at the young age of 25, he was a major and he was given command of the 2nd battalion of the 517th parachute infancy regimental combat team. showing great potential at this young age, dick was soon promoted to lieutenant colonel as the army's youngest battalion commander, he led his men through many historic combat operations in europe. during the battle of the bulge, dick's battalion and a regiment of the 7th armored division formed what became known as task force seitz. their mission was to plug the gaps on the northern slope of the bulge every time the germans tried to make a breakout. during the battle, some of the bloodiest fighting in world war

ii, dick's battalion went from 691 men to 380. years later, when asked about the worst day of his life, dick quickly identified january 3, 1945, during the battle of the bulge, when his unit came under heavy artillery fire and 21 of his men were killed. before shipping out to europe and while still a student at k. state, dick began dating his first wife, the former betty merrill. was dick was called up for active duty, betty continued her studies at k. state, graduated in 1942 and joined the red cross n.1945 she was stationed in holland where she read that dick's battalion was heavily engaged in fighting. determined to see him, she drove by herself from holland to the front in belgium and managed to find his battalion. she wasn't allowed to go to the front lines, where dick was, but her trip put them back in touch and six months later, they were married in france with one red

cross bride's maid and 1,800 paratroopers in attendance. dick spent the next 33 years by betty's side before her passing in 1978. today they raised one son and three daughters and traveled the world as dick continued to serve his country. among his many command posts were the 2 pped air wor know aie division. and the 82nd airborne division which he led in detroit and washington, d.c. in 1967 to quell riots. an airborne historian, dr. john devall, said dick was -- quote -- "an airborne pioneer and one of the fellows who set the standards for what the airborne was all about." that standard continues to be the standard the paratroopers follow yet today. they have bigger airplanes and more complex weapons but standards were set by them. we have lost a great soldier in dick seitz. during his army career, which included nearly 37 years of

active duty, dick received numerous awards. because of his great courage and his her heroism during world wa, dick was awarded the silver star, two bronze stars and the purple heart. despite his many accomplish ments in the military, one friend -- accomplishments in the military, one friend said, "he remained humble and sincere, often embarrassed by any fuss made over him. he was the kind of person you wanted to be. he was always concerned for others above himself." as a soldier and commander, dick's philosophy was always to take care of his troops. throughout his career, he served as a mentor to many other soldiers and leaders in the ar army. retired brigadier general and former senior commander at fort riley, don mcwilly, said lieutenant general seitz showed to me and the entire 1st infantry division what it is to be a soldier, a statesman and a gentleman. very few men come along who can live as all three. dick seitz certainly did. i will miss him not only because of our friendship but because

other soldiers will not have opportunity to learn as i did. our army, community and nation has lost a treasure. in 1975, dick returned to kansas upon his military retirement and three years later his wife betty passed away. in 1980, he married virginia crane and together they spent the next 26 years actively involved in the local community until her passing in 2006. dick was a mentor of mine, a friend and someone i greatly respected. he not only served our country but also his state and his community. dick settled in junction city, kansas, following his retirement but he never really retired from serving. he frequently visited fort rile to greet de -- fort riley to greet detrying and returning units from iraq and afghanistan no matter the day or night. he was on the boor of th board y scouts.

most recently, general richard a. seitz elementary school was named in his honor in 2012. dick was well-known to the students and staff because he regularly visited the school. during his visit, he would talk with the students about what it meant to be a proud and great american. and his message was always to respect the teachers and be a learner. his family and friends have described him as a gentleman, compassionate, respected, full of integrity, gracious and giving. he was truly a remarkable individual. his daughter patricia said this about her father. "he was my role model, an individual who had great wisdom, great sense of humor, always interested in others, always looking for ways to help others succeed." dick lived each day to its fullest and his commitment for his fellow man served as an inspiration. senator dole had these words to share about his comrades in arms, and he said this, again quoting senator dole -- "we were

just ordinary americans who were called on to meet the greatest of challenges. no one knows better than a soldier the futility of war. in many respects, the ultimate failure of mankind. yet, there are principles worth fighting for and evils worth fighting against. the defense of those principles summons the greatest qualities of which human beings are capable. courage beyond measure, loyalty beyond words, sacrifice and ingenuity and endurance beyond imagining. i would say that is a fitting description of my friend, lieutenant general richard seitz. you know, today in the senate when we look for role models, when the american people look for something different from washington than what they usually get, we can look to our military men and women, to our soldiers, to people like general seitz. not one individual volunteered or was drafted to serve in the military who did so for the purposes of republicans or democrats.

they did it because they believed that america was a great place, was worthy of protecting what would take care of their families and its future generations, and richard seitz was that kind of servant, something we can learn from this week. i extend my heartfelt sympathies to his three daughters, patricia, katherine and victoria, to his son rick and the entire seitz family. i know they loved him deeply and will miss him very much every day. i hope to be at the funeral services honoring general seitz on monday, and i ask my colleagues and all kansans to remember the seitz family in their thoughts and prayers in the days ahead. madam president, i yield. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: