a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the cordray nomination. the yeas and nays. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to tkhaepbg their -- to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 66. the nays are 34.

the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that senator stabenow be recognized for up to 3 minutes and that i be recognized for up to 5. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i appreciate my friend from ohio yielding for just a moment. i just wanted to indicate as it relates to moving forward on the

farm bill, i want to congratulate the house for sending their version of the farm bill to us this morning, so we now have it. and tomorrow it would be our intent, senator cochran and i, to go through the motions that it takes to be able to send back our farm bill and ask for a conference committee. so i just wanted to let all the members know that. if there is a concern, i would appreciate members approach me directly or senator cochran directly, because this is an opportunity for us to move forward and to actually put together a bill that affects 16 million people in this country that work in agriculture and everyone who counts on the great work of our farmers in order to have the healthiest, most affordable food system in the world. so it is our intent tomorrow to move forward with that and

welcome, if there is any questions or concerns from members, we'd be happy to work with them. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i thank the chairwoman of the agriculture committee and for her work. this is legislation that saves taxpayers literally tens of billions of dollars through -- while strengthening the safety net and provides adequate revenue and nutrition for literally millions of people -- children, seniors, people on disability, people that work in low-income jobs. that's also important in this agriculture bill. madam president, i ask that my remarks -- those remarks be placed in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: for years leading up to the financial crisis the biggest banks and lenders created new ways to make record profits off of consumers. they made predatory loans to working-class families. they created prepaid cards with exploitive fees. they gave out student loans to

first-generation college students with interest rates sometimes as high as 20%. today millions of consumers are still trying to recover from these unscrupulous practices while companies keep looking for new ways to increase their profits at the expense of these consumers. congress created a consumer financial protection bureau to protect americans from consumer fraud and abusive fees and products. i thank the presiding officer today for her role in this before she came to the united states senate. more than 700 days and nearly four weeks since its creation -- more than 700 days since its creation, american citizens are now just getting to vote for consumer watchdog, the head of the organization. because of the cfpb consumers can now decipher credit card applications -- the presiding officer: order

in the senate. mr. brown: confirming richard cordray as the director was the right thing to do. we know where he stands. whom he stands for as a strong advocate for families and small businesses. no one doubted richard cordray's qualifications and temperament for the job. this is the first time in american history where one party refused to confirm a nominee because they didn't like the agency. a terrible precedent set which thankfully a number of our colleagues understood as we discussed last night that this was important to move past that. richard cordray served -- the presiding officer: take your conversations outside, please, senators. mr. brown: richard cordray served as ohio state solicitor, represented the u.s. government before the supreme court. he has been elected the attorney general and the state treasurer of ohio. he's received bipartisan accolades in support from ohio's business and consumer groups. let me share a bit of a letter written by a republican member of congress from my home state,

representative steve stibers. rich has proved himself hard working and pragmatic. if you take the time to evaluate rich's character and disposition, you'll find him to be an individual who listens to your opinion and seeks mutually acceptable solutions. unquote. representative stibers is right. under cordray's leadership the bureau earned praise from industry and consumer groups alike for the rules that it's come up with. it has already recovered millions of dollars for consumers from credit card companies, from credit repair companies and others. that's why consumers won a victory today and should be happy that the two-year process that has confirmed richard cordray is finally coming to an end. we can now move forward. i thank the president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 196 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 196, to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the 113th congress or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when

the senate completees its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, july 17, 2013, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the majority leader be recognized following the remarks of the two leaders, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 178, the hochberg nomination and the time until 10:00 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. pron brown tomorrow at 10:0:00 a.m., there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the hochberg nomination,. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order, following the remarks of senator thune. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota.

mr. thune: madam president, yesterday a letter was sent to majority leader harry reid and minority leader nancy pelosi in the house of representatives. i want to read just a few quotes from that letter. it says, and i quote, "when you and the president sought our support senator the affordable care act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. sadly, that promise is under threat. right now, unless yo you and the obama administration enact an equitable fix, the affordable care act, which some of us refer to as obamacare, will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits but destroy -- destroy -- the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the american middle class." the letter goes ton say, "since the affordable care act was

enacted, we've been bringing our deep concerns to the administration seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. as you kno both know firsthand,r persuasive argument arguments hn met by a stonewall by the white house and the pertinent agencies." this is a letter that was, as said, sent yesterday to the leaders here in the house and the senate. i want to go on and quote just a few more passages from at that letter. "we have a problem. you need to fix it. the unintended consequences of the affordable care act are is he voor, perverse snibs are already creating nightmare screening that i remember yows. first, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. numerous employers have gowner

cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation and many are doing so openly. the impact is twofold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits." the sort of summary of the letter at the end be, madam president, says, "on behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the affordable care act that will destroy the very health and well of being of our members along with millions of other hardworking americans." and so, if you look at this letter and the tone of the letter, some of the things, the statemenstatementstatements tha, it talks about destroying the health benefits of employees. it talks about nightmare scenarios being created by perverse incentives in the affordable care act, and it just goes, as i said, before, if you

read this, you would -- says, "the affordable care act will shatter not only our hard-earn health benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the american middle class." now, that letter, madam president, if you were huangdering who sent it you might think it was coming from the national federation of independent business or perhaps the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce, or some business group that obviously has major concerns and issues with the implementation of obamacare." but at that letter, madam president, came from mr. james hoffa, who is the general president of the international brotherhood of teamsters. it was cosigned by joseph hanson, the international president of the afcw. major union organizations, madam president, who are very concerned about obamacare and

its implementation of what it is going to mean to the health care benefits that many of their employees -- their members already enjoy and also what it will do to wreck the 40-hour work week that is, as they describe it the backbone of the american middle class. and so, madam president, the list goes on of those who have deep and abiding concerns about the adverse and harmful impacts of obamacare, as it gets up to that implementation stage that we approach the 1st of next year. now, as we know, last week the administration announced that they were going to delay the implementation of the employer mandate, which many of you i think, received that news -- it was welcome news because we have argued that many of the penalties that are associated with the legislation and its implementation are going to be very harpful to job creation -- harmful to job creation, to economic growth in this country, that you're going to see more and more employers starting not only to not hire people but

actually to reduce the size of their workforce. in fact, a survey of employers around the country suggested that 40% of them were in fact doing that. they were not hiring new people and that 20% of employers in this country were actually reducing -- they were laying people off -- because of the concerns about the mandates included in obamacare. and so you have the administration react to that by saying, okay, listen ... we've been listen towing. w-- listening to you. we hear you. we're going to delay the obama mandate, if employers don't offer a government-approved health plan with lots of bells and whistles and things in it, things that they couldn't -- didn't believe that they could afford. sand and so -- and so you get the one-year temporary relief from that. but i think the question that has to then be asked of the administration, if you're going to provide relief from the employer mandate, what about everybody else? what about all the other americans who are going to be

impacted by this and harmed by this? what about the individual mandate, where you've got 6 million americans who are, when it's fully implemented, going to be faced with a tax of about $1,200? you've got all kinds of families across this country who are seeing, because of the higher taxes and many of the mandates associated with the legislation, already higher premiums? in fact, when the president took office, he promised that he was going to reduce premiums for families in this country by $2,500. well, according to the kaiser study -- and they track premiums -- since the president's taken office, health insurance premiums for families in this country have actually increased by $2,500. so when the president made the argument that he would lower insurance premiums for families in this country by $2,500, just the opposite has happened. and we've seen premiums actually go up. and i think premiums are going to i continue to go up as this becomes implemented and becomes

ultimately the law of the land. now, a lot of my colleagues on the other side have said, well, why do you guys keep complaining about this, it is the law of the land? in fact, it is the law of the land, which i think begs the question, is, why the administration is not enforcing it? why is the administration then delaying implementation of obamacare, at least as it pertains to the -- the employer mandate? well, i think there are a lot of obvious reasons for that. they got tired of hearing about the adverse impacts it was having on the economy and having on jobs. we saw the jobs number from the month of june and the number of people who had been pushed into part-time jobs was actually in the month of june up by 322,000 individuals. so in other words, what you're seeing is a lot of people who previously were full-time worker, want to work full time in our economy but are being pushed into part-time jobs. why is that happening? well, because, at least one of the reasons, i would argue, is that under obamacare, the

requirements that apply to employers apply to full-time workers. so if you're not -- if you don't have full-time workers and the law defines that as 30 hours a week, so you don't have people working 30 hours a week, you're not covered by the mandates in the legislation. so what were many employers doing? well, many employers were then cutting the hours of their employees to get under that 30-hour threshold so they wouldn't be hit with these costly new mandates. well, what does that mean for the average family in this country? it means that fewer and fewer people have full-time jobs, higher take-home pay, more and more americans are having to do part-time work, probably finding two jobs, two part-time jobs to help pay the bills. that is a -- a -- a crushing effect on an economy that is already struggling to recover. and a lot of people, madam president, who i would argue want to get back into the work force are trying to find full-time work and are being met with resistance from employers

because employers are having to deal with these costly mandates that are included in the affordable care act. and so it's had -- if you look at the -- the -- the effect, the net result so far of obamacare, which, again, we've mentioned this many times here, 2,700 pages in terms of legislation, 20,000 pages of regulations -- in fact, the number -- the size of the stack of regulations is now 7 1/2 feet tall, so it's about a foot taller than i am. and just last week, another 606 pages of regulations were issued in terms of the implementation of this law. but can you imagine, you know, average americans trying to comply with 20,000 pages of regulations, or, for that matter, businesses who are trying to comply with that? there is so much uncertainty associated with this law and the impact that it's going to have and fears about the impact that

it's going to have, and nothing is being done to -- to make that any easier for most americans. it was made easier for employers last week when the penalty for the employer mandate was delayed by a year. we believe that if you're going to delay the employer mandate for a year, you ought to delay the implementation of this law for everybody. and not just do it for a year, do it permanently. let's start over. let's do it the right way. it didn't take a 2,700-page bill, it didn't take 20,000 pages of regulations, it didn't take a government takeover of one-sixth of our economy, to try and challenge the problems in our health care that we have today. and yet that was the solution that our president and colleagues here, our democrat colleagues, here in depress cams came up with. and as a consequence of that, we've got higher taxes, we've got higher premiums, we've got fewer jobs and we've got lower take-home pay for many americans. i just want to point out in items of the issues of premiums,

madam president, that even the administration has acknowledged that some people are going to see their premiums rise under the health care reform law. there are estimates from the society of actuary study that was released in 2013 that show the state of ohio, current average costs to cover medical expenses for an individual health insurance plan to be $223. based on the proposal submitted to the department, the average to cover those costs in 2014 under obamacare is going to be $420. representing an increase of 88% when compared to -- and this is the study of actuaries -- their study. so an 88% increase in the state of ohio. and that, of course, again was in the individual health care market. there have been studies done that suggest that the federal health care law, the affordable care act, or, as i said, obamacare, could nearly triple premiums for some young and healthy men.

the premium for a relatively bare-bones possibly for a 27-year-old male, nonsmoker in the individual market would be nearly 190% higher. and so i don't think we -- manufacture the people who are -- many of the people who are going to be impacted of this have seen the full impact of this yet, but when it is fully implemented, there are going to be lots of other impacts on premiums, adverse impacts on people in this country, especially in the individual market. and as i mentioned earlier, we've already seen significant increases in premiums in the -- with regard to families. so if you look at this thing and you sort of assess where we are today, not too far from -- just a few months away from the -- what's alleged to be the full implementation of this -- of course, now with the exception of the employer mandate -- i think you can come to one very simple conclusion and that is that the result of this has led to fewer jobs, it's led to more

people being pushed into part-time jobs as opposed to full-time jobs and lower take-home pay for middle-class americans. it's led to higher premiums. we're already seeing the effect of that with regard to premiums that are being paid by families and those who have to buy their insurance in the individual marketplace. we know there are lots of higher taxes in the legislation. and if you look at the impact on many people who provide health care services, the medical device manufacturers have a a big tax they're dealing with. pharmaceutical companies, health insurance plans, you can go right down the list. all of those new taxes are going to get passed on, in many cases passed on to people who are not high-income earners but middle-class americans who are just trying to keep their heads above water and continue to keep health insurance coverage for their families. these are the real-world impacts, madam president, of obamacare as we know it today and that is why i think you see,

even organizations that are very sympathetic to the president, fans of his agenda, people who worked very hard to get him elected into office and the labor unions in their letter make that argument, that they worked very, very hard, they walked the naishedz, they did all the grass-roots organizing to get the president elected. and here they are reacting to the affordable care act, to obamacare in the same way that i think most americans are. and that's why you consistently see public opinion polls that are very negative toward the law. in fact, there was a rasmussen survey here recently that said 55% of americans disapprove of the law; 39% are in favor of it. but a significant and decisive majority of americans believe that this is going to be bad for them, bad for their own personal situation, finances when it comes to covering their families but also bad for the economy and bad for jobs.

so higher premiums, higher tax taxes, fewer jobs, more part-time jobs, fewer full-time jobs, lower take-home pay. that is what we today know as obamacare. there is a better way, madam president. we could go back and start over, do this the right way, step-by-step, incrementally, deal with the challenges that we have in our health care system -- and there are many of them -- but it didn't take a massive takeover of one-sixth of the american economy, a massive new government program, 2,700 pages in legislation, over 20,000 pages in new regulations in terms of the implementation of this to solve the challenges that we have in our health care system today. there is a better way. i hope that the -- the feedback, if you will, the response that the president and his team are getting, not only now from those people who were opposed to it --

many of us were arguing when this was being debated in the united states senate that this would be the impact. we talked about the impact on premiums because of the mandates, the new taxes. we talked about the taxes. we talked about the impact on the economy and jobs and pointed out that this was going to have an adverse, harmful impact on -- on the ability of our economy to create jobs and to get that unemployment rate down and to get people back to work in this country. many of us were making those arguments, and many of the organizations who were opposed to the legislation were saying the same things. well, now you have those who were actually endorsing and in favor of the legislation coming out and saying that it would shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits but destroy, destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class. perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. that's what's included in the

letter that was submitted yesterday to the leaders here of the congress, written by major labor organizations in this country. these are not right-wing conservatives, right-wing republicans who are reacting this way to obamacare. these are allies of the president who have realized and come to the conclusion that this is incredibly problematic, not only for them and their members or their employees of a lot of companies out there with regard to the current health care benefits that they already have, but also what it means for the 40-hour workweek and what it means for the take-home pay for middle-class americans across this country. we can do better, we should do better. it's not too late, and it's never too late to do the right thing. i hope that as more and more of this anecdotal and empirical evidence comes forward about the implementation of this legislation that we will do that. madam president, i yield the

floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

appointed according to a majority decision, and the district court of the district of columbia. a couple of weeks ago i renewed the conversation with the vice president and suggested the way out of the problem seemed to be heading our way. send up two nominees. i'm pleased the administration is going send up two nominees,

senator alexander has been in discussions about how to process those nominations in the health korea, and we anticipate that the regular order will be followed hearings, mark yums, and the like. and there will be an effort made to get them up for votes before the august recess. we are also moving forward to reach an agreement on the way to process the additional nominations the majority is interested. the understanding is that none of our rights, will be waived. 60 vote threshold on controversial nominees will have to be achieved, so in a sense, that's the regular way that we handle business here in the senate. we're please that the majority decided not to examiner the -- exercise the nuclear option. i would say about our meeting

last night, it struck me that it was unique in the sense, first of all, that everybody was there on a woip basis. it went on for three and a half hours, as you know. almost everybody was able to say who chose to say something was able to say what they thought. i thought was good for the institution for us to be talking to each other rather than at each other. i think it lead to a constructive outcome an opportunity to get back to normal. we had actually had prior to this blowup pretty good year from a senate point of view and the sense that we had followed the regular order on three major bills. members have been able to have multiple amendments and bills at the end of the day like the farm bill and immigration controversial measure ended up passing the senate. that's the way we used to do business around here. and hopefully we can continue to operate that way in the balance

of this year. thank you. >> i'm imlad that six months after senator mcconnell asked the white house to withdrawal these controversial nominees who were unconstitutionally appointed they have decided the -- the white house decided to take the nuclear trigger out of senator reid's hands and withdrawal the nominees. i'm glad we are where we are. more importantly, i think it gives us an opportunity to now pivot back to the people's business, and to deal with the things that my constituents and texas and i think people around the country are concerned about. that's slow economic growth, high unemployment, how do we get america back to work? how do we deal with the evolving train wreck that is obamacare? that's in the words of a chief architect, the democrat member of the senate finance committee. what is the next step?

if you are for obamacare or against it. it's failing before our eyes. what are we going to do to make sure the american people have high quality access to affordable health care? that's the business we ought to be about. >> well, i like my colleagues am pleased that the democrats decided to pull back from a move that would have been very instructive to the workings of the senate, and like my colleagues, i hope now that we can focus on the peoples' business and the things that people across the country care about. i think the democrats like to have these discussions about process. it stracts -- distracts people what is important across this country. it distracts people from their policies which are harmful to jobs in the economy. most americans care about jobs in the economy. if you listen to any public

opinion poll just about more than anything else. the democrat policies with regard to the issue have given us this chronic high unemployment, sluggish growth, and lower take home pay for most ordinary middle class americans. just this week on sunday, senator reid went on morning talk shows and said obamacare has been wonderful for america. wonderful for who? you've got lots of families that are seeing their premiums go up by as much as $25 00. you have lot of people across this country who are having more difficulty getting access to health care. you have lots of people across this country who are worried about their jobs, 40% of the employers have said they are not going to hire people. another 20% said their going to cut employees as a result of obamacare. yesterday you have the major union leaders in this country come out with a letter saying it would shatter their employee's benefits and create nightmare

scenarios. the words they used. the impact of obamacare on the people they employ. it's really a train wreck. i can see why the democrats would rather talk about something, but the fact of the matter is these policies are harmful to many americans. we are pleased, actually, that the president decided to delay for a year the employer man dpait. -- mandate. we agree that we need to have a permanent delay for all americans so that other americans besides those who small businesses that are impacted by the employer mandate are going to be harmed by the effect of bureaucracy have -- obamacare have some relief as well. >> i'm pleased that the democrats decided to not break the rules to change the rules. you saw senator reid on the morning talk shows on sunday talking about this issue, but you also heard him make a statement that obamacare has

been wonderful for america. he may not have yet have had a chance to read the letter that senator thune came from. it came from jimmy hoffa and the teamster union. it was specifically to nancy pelosi and senator reid. the letter they sent to them says you promised us. you promised us if we like what we have we can keep it. we know it doesn't looks like it's the case. a lot of reservations. they mentioned the fact it's undermining the fundamental of a 40-hour workweek in the united states. and we have seen that in small small businesses around the country. we have seen it in communities, school districts, which are consulting back -- cutting back employee hours to less than 30-hours per week because of the mandate and the unintended consequence of the health care law. the health care law unralphing. we need to repeal it and replace

it so the people can get the care they need from the doctor they choose at lower costs. hopefully we can focus on student loans and other things that need to get done and need to get done this month. i served in the house. i like the house. i like the house a lot better in the majority rather than the minority. there's a constitutional purpose for the senate, and one of those purposes is to represent the rights of the minority in our society. the right of another point of view in our society. every state, big and small, got the same number of votes. jefferson, and adams when they weren't agreeing on much else. this is a long time ago, this is in the shadow of the constitution writing itself said that you should never let the senate become a body that doesn't honor the rights of the minority because that's an important part of the process designed in the institution. hopefully we can maintain that

process the right of every senator matter. that the part of the process protected by the senate continues to be so we don't just rush from one side of the spectrum to the other as you can see the house do, and the house does by design. part of the skin was the senate would not let it happen without an appreciation for all of the right of the discussion. hopefully the senate this week preserved that for awhile longer. yeah? >> reporter: are you confident you have -- [inaudible] they had had an extraordinary -- this has no such rule at all. you have your right, senator reid has his. it seems really temporary. >> well, i think it's a step in the right direction that the majority has chosen not to exercise the nuclear option.

we feel good about that. i think they feel good about it. so i think that crisis has been averted. we still will be dealing with controversial nominees in the way that controversial nominees inevitably have produced a great debate. and all of the options available to the minority remain intact. i think if you look at the nominations of this administration, many have been noncontroversial. the new secretary of transportation, the secretary of state, but the runs that generated controversy generated controversy. i think our reaction will depend upon the quality of the mom anyway -- nominees and how froaferl controversial they are. >> what do you think about the timeline on the nominees? you are asking basically -- [inaudible conversations] >> i think i already indicated

what we anticipate having on the floor of the senate sometime before the recess. are two new nominees. we anticipate being able to vote on those before the august recess. >> reporter: what -- [inaudible] did you have with senator mccain when he was negotiating the deal and is senator mccain basically go around you to cut the deal? what did you -- [inaudible] >> well, a will lot of senators over the weekend, senator mccain among them were involved in discussions. we talked to each other, they were talking to others. i think this was a poffle senators on our side. senator mccain, senator corker, senator hogan and others who were interested in not giving up on the prospect of working this out. i also think that last night's

discussion was critical. as i said earlier, let me repeat it, we had a situation where a huge number of senators on both sides addressed this issue. senators actually had to listen to each other. i think the arguments that were made by my members obviously swayed at least some other the other side maybe there was a solution to this short of pulling the nuclear trigger. a lot of my members were involved in this over the weekend, last night. they were all helpful. senator medicare mccain was helpful, senator corker, and senator portman and others. >> reporter: do you feel because of last night's discussion there's less of a chance of them being back in a situation like this? did it simply help to get out of this particular -- >> you are asking me to answer hypothetical. i don't know. i do think inspite of the best efforts to rain on an outcome

here -- [laughter] i congratulate you for your best effort to try to snatch victory defeat from the jaw of victory. i think i'm safe in saying a high level of colleague yolings on a bipartisan basis was achieved as a result of last night. you can pick at it if you want to. i think it was an important moment for the senate. coming on the heels of the fact that we did three fairly significant bills this year on a bipartisan basis. there were open for amendment. that's pretty extraordinary in the last couple of years. so put this down as progress in the right direction and the best possible atmosphere to go to the balance of the year when we have much tougher issues to deal with down the road. thanks a lot.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> one of the people i learned to listen to and listened to closely is barbara mccull sky. we came to the senate together, we served in the house

together. here is the advice she gave all of us a few minutes ago. direct quote, colleagues, no gloating. maximum dignity. so that's where i'm coming from. we had a final caucus here was very good we are basically done everything but dotting the i's and crossing the t's to have seven qualified nominees receive a vote for nlrb. full functioning nlrb. it would have gone out of business at the end of this month. it won't go out of business. but this is necessary -- not just about these nominees. this must be a new normal. qualified executive nominees must not be blocked on

procedural super majority votes. i am here -- i've been here a long time. i know, there will be times when they feel they must do cloture. i accept that. we'll be able to work our way through that. the first cloture vote say it is all. richard cordray what a good man. he called me this afternoon after having waited, waited, and waited. here is a man who is so well qualified. university of michigan honor student. studied a couple of years in england university of chicago school of law. that's why this very, very brilliant man was able to go to work for the judge. we had a long conversation what a good experience it was for him. he clerked for justice kennedy. what has he done already?

what has the agency done already? already they have collected for the american consumer $500 million half of billion dollars because of credit card companies cheating consumers. that's what that agency does. tens of thousand of people now every day have the opportunity to call a hot line and get information how they think they have been cheated. military families are getting their homes back that had been foreclosed upon illegally. $6 million recently returned to people from when they bought cars. that's the vote we just had.

so we know that president's democrat or republican deserve an up or down vote, and that's the area we're working toward. to be very, very clear, we think, i believe because of what is gone on the last few days including the joint meeting we had last night, there's a feeling around here. feelings don't last forever. i understand that. they're not sacrificing their right to filibuster, we saddam -- damn sure aren't fill filibustering our rules to change the rules if necessary. i'm confident won't be but i want to make it very clear. i'm encouraged by the discussions we've had over the last few days. both sides understand each other better. we have taken great strides that

used to define this great institution. it was really a good day for ed markey to come to the senate, and to come to this caucus the senate should be a place where we engage in spirited debate and get things done for the american people. i'm hopeful this agreement will prove a major step toward achieving that goal. there are lots and lots of people that deserve credit for progress we have made in focusing how the senate does the work very well. i asked two of my junior colleagues to give you their opinion as to what happened last few years. first of all, tom udall after he completes his remarks. leader reid, thank you very much, senator, great to be here

with you. first of all, let me tell you about last night, because i think that set the stage for what we saw happen here. senator reid, as we call him, leader reid, played a true leader role in that three and a half hour meeting last night. first of all, it was structured in such a way it was senator to senator. but senator reid was tough and resolute and stood up and said remember about half hour, said, "remember we are going to vote tomorrow ." what flowed out of that meeting. what flowed out of that meeting is the as a result we have dead. -- today oop iom proud of that result. i think it moves us forward. these agencies can now do their job. they play very important roles if the american people. i think it's a good day when we

have very well qualified people take over in agencies and be able to do their job. my father, senator reed had the opportunity to get to know, and they had a great visit before he died used to tell me that one of the most important things he felt as secretary of interior in order to get his job done was to have his team in place. it happened in two weeks. he always said get the team in place. he had his team in two weeks. we have today given the president a team so he can move forward with his agenda. i think that is a tremendously important. the other issue that i just wanted to taunt a second what senate reid mentioned at the end. this isn't meant in any way as a threat.

but we're hoping what this is laying the ground work for is a positive for positive things to come. and so we're looking at moving in that direction, but the reader has not given up his right to work and change precedence if the situation comes around to that. we're all going stand strong, but we're also going to work with each other to see we make it a more positive place in the u.s. senate. i thank you very much, leader reid, for allowing me to be here and standing with you today. [inaudible] >> it's a pleasure to be standing here with these two partners. tom udall, when he came in to this body, we came in together. immediately began noting how important it was that we have a regular process to restore the function of the u.s. senate, and

certainly for now what in several years we have been working toward a senate that is not at this dysfunctional point it is right now. .. >> now we have a very significant moment, really a milestone on the path to restoring the functionality of the senate. we have an agreement that says that these important executive

positions will get an up or down vote. that is extremely important. and it's important because this makes a real difference in people's lives. the national labor relations board is the referee for both the employer and the employees for fairness in labor negotiations. that's extremely important. the consumer financial protection bureau really isn't fully in place until we have a confirmed director. in a few hours from now, we will have that confirmed director. a cop on the beat fighting predatory practices that take advantage of working families. if you believe in family values, you've got to believe that predatory practices that strip wealth from families rather than creating wealth are simply wrong and must be countered, and we will soon have an agency fully equipped to be that cop on the beat. you know, it's said that jefferson and washington were in conversation, and washington described the senate as a cooling saucer for the tea. this is often invoked to say

that the senate is different from the house. it's deliberative. and, of course, once described as the world's best or most significant deliberative body. but we haven't had a cooling saucer. we have had deep freeze. and this event today is a significant moment in ending the deep freeze and putting us back onto a path, a functional path to take on the big challenges that america expects us to address. thank you. >> we'll take a few questions. >> leader reid, yesterday you said that a change in the rules was necessary to restore the senate and that the time and the history dictated this change. you've not changed the rules of the senate, nothing actually changes after these seven nominations, so what have you done? >> we got a yes, and i think i should take -- yes.

>> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand. >> a lot of your members in your caucus have wanted to change the rules on the filibuster feeling that they just don't work anymore. what change inside the room that people, people like senators merkley and udall, who have been in favor of changing the rules decided this was a better course? >> well, i think you have the answer already, and that is the purpose of all this is not a question of changing this rule or that rule. the focus of what we've done, the three of us and others we've worked on, is to restore the ability of the senate to function. and, you know, i've been here a long time now. i know how the senate used to work. these two men with me have had a lot of experience in government. they know how the senate should work. they're students of what's been happening in the senate, and we've been able to publish that. does -- accomplish that. does that mean it'll last forever?

i don't know about that. but we have a good feeling with the democrats and republicans. i think we should, as senator mikulski said, not gloat, but just be dignified about it. we have a new start for this body, and i feel very comfortable with it. i'm, i don't know how i could be happier. you know, we also have a few things we want to get done. student loans, we have talk in our caucus, we're very close to getting that done. we've had an energy bill we've been trying to get to for a number of years, we've got an appropriations bill, we've got an issue that i can never remember the name of that senator tester pushes really hard. we've got a lot of things we need to do. and don't forget, everybody, don't forget immigration's still ahead of us. it's a big, hard bill. and we need cooperation over here if we're going to get something done in the house, and

we're going to have cooperation here on immigration. we've got -- we've not lost anything on immigration, we've gained and a multitude of other issues. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> [inaudible] does this mean that you'll be open to more joint meetings? >> um, as everyone knows here, i tried to do the joint meetings, and for reasons we need not go in here, they weren't done. we are doing -- we are going to do more meetings, and we're going to do them on a periodic basis. we need to have a subject to talk about, but i can envision a number of things we can be doing that would be extremely good to get us together and talk to each other rather than talk about each other. i think it would be interesting if i had, excuse me, i haven't asked them yet, but i think george mitchell, democrat, trent lott, republican, i think that would be a great opportunity for our caucus to talk about how

they view the senate. so we're going to have more joint caucuses, we're going to try to, i repeat, try to talk to each other than past each other. >> senator, can you talk about -- senator, on the floor you talked about senator mccain breaking his rule and in the process -- [inaudible] could this have been done without him? [inaudible] >> maybe. [laughter] john john mccain and i have worked together for a long time. i've worked with him 31 years. and we've had some pretty difficult times together. but in the 31 years we've worked together, there is no one i have ever worked with that is more a man of his word or person of his word than john mccain. so maybe we could have gotten it done without him. i've answered the question.

>> [inaudible] >> uh-huh. >> you confident you'll get up or down votes on the three nominees for the d.c. circuit court? >> we'll take those one at a time. we're talking about executive nominees. we, those are going through the process, and we'll see. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i could give you a few others. but, you know, we're going to take these one at a time. we feel comfortable where we are. i think there's a way of moving forward. i think there's a good feeling here in the senate. the best feeling we've had in a real long time. and that's how we get things done. we really, that's how we get things done. this was a very, very difficult issue for a lot of people. and the one thing i always had going for me, i always had going for me is i had the votes. and there's no need to do any more than what we've done.

we took yes for an answer, which a lot of times around here it's very hard for people to do that. >> senator reid -- >> one more, one more question and -- >> when do you expect the vote for -- [inaudible] >> when are we going to have a vote on the new secretary nominee, tom perez? i don't know for sure because postcloture there's a lot of time. what we're going to do is at the right time we will vitiate cloture on all nlrb nominees and, hopefully, as early as late next week or early the following week we will move all five at the same time. and then, so we should be able to get perez in the next day or two. >> senator reid -- [inaudible] organized labor at all? >> during what period of time? [laughter] >> during these negotiations or today? >> i've -- >> [inaudible] >> i've had a call or two. okay, thanks. >> senator, you mentioned -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> today the senate voted to confirm richard cordray as director of the consumer financial protection bureau in a 66-34 vote. he's been serving as the head of that agency ever since his recess appointment in january 2012. before the final confirmation vote, senators discussed his nomination and several other presidential nominationing waiting -- nominations waiting for their votes in the senate. this begins with senator jeff merkley of oregon. >> i thought we'd just make a couple of comments regarding the activities of this chamber a few minutes ago. we voted 71 votes in favor of closing debate on the nomination of richard cordray as director of the consumer financial protection bureau, the cfpb. now, the cfpb is vested with the

responsibility of protecting consumers from predatory financial practices. now, we all discovered in the runup to the great recession just how important this protection is. of we had many, many crazy predatory practices on credit cards, we had, we had fees that came out of nowhere and shifting time periods from month to month in terms of when the payments were due and even shifting destinations of where the credit card payments got mailed to all so fees could be racked up on unsuspecting consumers. and certainly we found out in mortgages how important financial protection is. because we had starting from 2003 forward a booming industry in predatory teaser rate mortgages where the mortgages were 4% for two years, and then they were changed after two years to 9%.

now, you would think most would-be homeowners would look at that deal and say that's not a good deal, but here's what happened. they went to a mortgage broker, and the mortgage broker said i am your financial adviser. now, mortgages have gotten very complex and very thick and there's lots of fine print, so you are paying me to sort through and find the best deal for you. and so our first-time home buyers, they trusted their mortgage brokers, and unbenopest to the new home -- unbeknownst to the new homeowner, those brokers were being paid kickbacks called steering payments. they were being paid special bonuses outside the framework of the deal in order to steer the customer, the unsuspecting first-time home buyer into a predatory loin when the

first-time customer actually qualified for a prime rate, fixed-rate mortgage. well, those mortgages, those predatory mortgages proceeded to be put into securities, those securities were thought up by financial institutions across america and beyond because the folks who were buying the securities understood that in a couple years the interest rate would go way up, and they'd make a lot of money off those securities. so this was a system rigged against the first-time home buyer, against the home buyer who wanted to start their journey to owning their piece of the american dream. well, those predatory practices should never have been allowed. some here will remember, they will remember that the responsibility for consumer protection was vested in the federal reserve. but what happened in the federal

reserve? well, the federal reserve carried on with its responsibility on monetary policy, but it's put its responsibility for consumer protection down in the basement, down in the basement of the building. they locked the doors. they threw away the key. and they said let the market be the market. and they abandoned, they abandoned our consumers across this country. that's why we need a consumer financial protection bureau. that doesn't have a conflict in its mission. it's not obsessed with a different mission such as monetary policy. finish we need a bureau that says new predatory techniques will pop up, and we will try to end them. payday loans that can charge 350-550% interest on unsuspecting citizens. we need to have a bureau that looks out and says we need to find a way to stop the practice

in which online payday lenders get your bank account number, and then without your permission do a remotely-generated check and reach in and grab the funds out of your account. all the list of predatory practices is endless because the human mind is endlessly inventive. so we have an important bureau, but an important bureau that cannot do its job unless there is a director to run it. now, it is two years ago that richard cordray was nominated to head the bureau. he's been waiting to get cloture on his nomination and in a subsequent vote for two years. he's been an interim, if you will, appointee during that period of time, and by all accounts from everything i've heard of folks in this chamber, doing a very, very good job. working very hard with the great technical details of the financial world to find a fair

and solid way forward. and so the fact that his nomination so long delayed is not a reflection on him personally, in fact, many senators who have opposed allowing the vote to take place have come forward and said it's not about him personally, it's about the consumer financial protection bureau. 43 senators in this chamber wrote a letter to say they would oppose any nominee, any nominee for the consumer financial protection bureau. it was a bold attempt to change back to a situation where there was no one to fight for consumer protection in this nation. for our citizens. today we end that drama in favor of fairness for american citizens. in favor of taking strong action against predatory mortgages and predatory practices of the future. and in eight hours we will be

voting up or down on his nomination. as we should have long ago. but let me shift gears here and say that the vote we took today is symbolic of much more than just the important function of establishing an effective consumer financial protection bureau. the vote we took a short while ago is central to ending the paralysis that has generally haunted this chamber. now, that paralysis is something new. in the time from eisenhower's presidency to ford's presidency, there was not one, not one filibuster of an executive nominee. and president obama's four and a half years there have been 16 such filibusters. so if we talk about the norman

tradition of the senate, the norman tradition of the isn't is a reasonably, timely up and down vote. that is the tradition. and it's a tradition that fits with the constitution. the constitution calls for a supermajority for treaties to be confirmed, but it only embeds a simple majority requirement for nominations. and there is reasons behind that. because our founders envisioned three co-equal branches of government. they could never, never have envisioned that it would be okay for the minority of one branch to be able to deeply disable another branch, be it the executive branch or be it the judiciary. so the vote we took today is part of a larger conversation about ending the paralysis and focusing on the challenge of executive nominations getting timely up and down votes. >> will the senator yield for a

question? >> are oh, the senator -- yes, absolutely, senator from illinois. >> madam president, i'd like to address a question to the senator from oregon through the chair. first erik thank him -- first, thank him for his leadership. he's been a singular force in the senate to have us reassess the rules of the senate to make certain that they are serving the needs of our nation. and i thank senator merkley for his leadership, and i know that he felt a great sense of satisfaction with the vote that just was cast on the floor, a vote which 71 senators voted to end cloture, invoke cloture, i should say, and end the filibuster on the nominee to head the consumer financial protection bureau. as the senator from oregon knows, this bureau has been controversial since its inception when we passed the dodd-frank finance reform bill after the tragedies and scandals of wall street. there were many who did not want to see us create a consumer

protection agency. yet we did. it was the brain child of one of our current colleagues, senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts, who before she was elected thought this was an important agency, literally the only consumer protection agency in the federal government. but it wasn't welcomed by some quarters, particularly some financial institutions and others. but i think it's noteworthy at two levels, and i'd like to ask the senator from oregon to respond. first, it's note worthy that though it took two years, in that two-year period of time this consumer financial protection bureau has proven its worth. i'm working now on the exploitation of our military by for-profit schools. holly petraeus, the wife of general petraeus, works for this agency, and she has really focused her efforts on military families and the exploitation of the g.i. bill by these schools. i think every american would agree that those who are guilty of it should be held

accountable, and this investigation is underway by this agency, and now richard cordray is there to head it. i think that's important, and that's why this vote was important as the vote on richard cordray's nomination will be in just a few hours. but the second point is a larger, global point about the senate and perhaps congress. we have in a very brief period of time, in one month, seen two very significant votes in my estimation. the first was on the immigration bill where 68 senators voted for the immigration reform bill, 14 republicans joining all the democrats. it was a breakthrough, and most of us feel it was a first time that we have seen in a long time, senators of both political parties hammer out an agreement that was reflected in the vote on the floor. 14 republicans, 54 democrats. now we have the second evidence of bipartisanship with the vote that was just cast.

71 who came forward, some 17 republicans and 54 democrats, if i'm not mistaken, voting in favor of ending cloture. the point i'd like to get to in this long question, seems to me -- and i would say, ask the senator from oregon for his reflection on this -- it seems to me that the key to getting things done on capitol hill these days in a fractured political nation is bipartisanship. not just in the senate chamber, but in the house as well. that they have to reach beyond the majority party -- in our case, democrats, in their case republicans -- and start thinking about how we put things together on a bipartisan basis that have a chance of passing and ultimately becoming law and solving the problems facing our nation. so now when it comes to consumer protection, with a bipartisan vote, we move forward. just a few weeks ago when it came to immigration reform, we had a bipartisan vote and moved forward. so i'd ask the senator to not only reflect on this institution in the early vote, but on the current challenges we face

politically and how these votes reflect on those. >> i'd say to my colleague from illinois that, indeed, these are key milestones on a journey where the journey is to restore the functionality of this senate so that it can take on the significant issues americans expect us to take on. now, the path forward is not yet one without obstruction, so we have these two important milestones. one of going forward on immigration. a second of going forward in terms of putting a functioning consumer financial protection bureau fully together. and we've had some other recent moments that fit this pattern including passing the farm bill out of this chamber for the second time, passing the water resources development act that would fund enormous amount of infrastructure across this country to help provide both water supply infrastructure and

water waste treatment infrastructure. these are good moments. but we also are reminded that the path is not clear completely. for example, at this moment we should be in the middle of a conference committee on the budget. of now, the senate passed a budget, and the house has passed a budget. but the conference committee is being filibustered by this chamber. and so that is an evidence of the model we're trying to break which is unexplainable to the american people. and folks back home want to know why can't we get a bill on the floor of the senate to address the sequester? because fewer kids are getting into head start. fewer kids are getting their inoculations. title i schools are not getting their funding. and, of course, this is a lot of concern within the military world about our national security for the programs that are being compromised. so there's a lot -- but we couldn't get the bill to the

floor of the senate because it was filibustered. and so we have important milestones to grab hold of that are presenting a vision of the restoration of this senate as a deliberative body. but we are going to have to work together in this bipartisan fashion you speak of to continue on this road. >> thank you, senator. >> madam president? >> senator from oregon. >> thank you, madam president. i appreciate my colleague from illinois emphasizing the important role of bipartisanship in making this chamber work. his question gave me an opportunity to talk about what has just transpired as an important victory. an important victory for this chamber in its deliberations. important victory for people across america, families working to have their financial foundation solid rather than torn asunder by predatory

practices. in this journey, this effort to pursue a senate that can again function as a deliberative body, i wanted to take this moment and thank my colleague, tom udall. tom udall and i came into the senate together. tom udall immediately recognized that the senate needed to address its internal functioning because we were becoming more and more paralyzed. he proposed before this body that we have a conscious debate every two years about how to adjust the rules and to make this senate chamber work much better. because we're not only being paralyzed on executive nominations, but we have the paralysis on judicial nominations, and we have this terrible paralysis on legislation with a few important exceptions that we have just talked about, my senator, my colleague from illinois and i just spoke about.

so i want to thank tom for his work to help motivate this body to take on these issues and to restore the functionality. i have been pleased to be a partner with him on this, on this journey, and i know it's a journey that is not yet done. but i do thank my colleagues across the aisle and on this side of the aisle for the very frank discussions last night in which for three hours we bared our hearts, if you will, about what is working and not working in this chamber. that, too, was an important moment in this journey to make the senate work. and to -- so i applaud the spirit that came into the chamber today that resolved the two-year standoff in regard to having a functioning chair of the consumer financial protection bureau, and it has set the tone, hopefully, for changing dramatically the partnership to restore the

function of the senate going forward. thank you, madam president. [inaudible conversations] >> madam president? >> senator from vermont. >> thank you. madam president, i am glad that an agreement has been reached in which president obama will finally get senate confirmation votes on his appointees for the consumer financial protection board, of the department of labor and the heads, the head of

the environmental protection agency. this agreement, as i understand it, will also provide that the's new nominees for the national labor relations board will be rapidly confirmed. that's a step forward. >> [inaudible] >> but while this agreement addresses the immediate need for the president of the united states to have his cabinet and his senior of staff confirmed, this agreement today only addresses one symptom of a seriously dysfunctional senate. the issue that must now be addressed is how we create a process and a set of rules in the united states senate which allows us to respond to the needs of the american people in a timely and effective way.

something which virtually everyone agrees is not happening now. the united states senate, in my view, cannot function with any degree of effectiveness if a supermajority of 60 votes are needed to pass virtually any piece of legislation. and if we waste huge amounts of time not debating the real issues facing working people but waiting for, quote-unquote, motions to proceed hour after hour after hour when nobody is even on the floor of the united states senate. so the good news is that i think the nation is now focused on the dysfunctionalty of the united

states senate and the need for us to have rules or a process which allows us to address the enormous problems facing our country. when people ask why is it that congress now has a favorability rating of less than 10%, the answer is fairly obvious. the middle class of this country is disappearing. real unemployment is somewhere around 14%. the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. millions of people are working in jobs which pay them poverty wages. tens of millions of people today lack health care actually we have the -- while we have of the most expensive and wasteful

health care system in the world. the greatest planetary crisis facing our nation and the entire world is global warming. we're not even debating that issue. now, madam president, the united states senate is a very peculiar institution. it is peculiar in the sense that any one member, one of a hundred, can come down here on the floor and utter two magical words which bring the senate to a complete halt, and that is i object. i will not allow the senate to go forward. which means the whole government shuts down. i object, i object, and what we have seen in recent years -- especially since president obama has been elected -- is an unprecedented level of i object,

of olds, of -- of holds, of a variety of mechanisms which bring the functioning of the united states senate to a halt. and all of this takes place at a time when millions of people can't find jobs, at a time when kids are graduating college deeply in debt and millions of others are now choosing not to go to college because we're not addressing the issue of higher education. it takes place at a time when our infrastructure, our roads and bridges, roads and bridges and airports and rail systems are crumbling. when our educational system is in need of major reform, when the gap between the people on top, everybody else is growing wider. the american people perceive that this country has major problems which must be

addressed, and what does the united states said it'd do? we are sitting here waiting 30 hours for a motion to proceed to see if, in fact, we can vote on a piece of legislation which requires 60 votes and time and time again we don't get those votes. now, madam president, when votes come up, i would like to win, be on the winning side. that's natural. everybody would. but what happens here -- and the american people by and large don't fully understand it -- we don't vote on issues. what happens with the debate ceases because we don't get motions to proceed. so we don't vote on a jobs program, we vote on whether or not we can proceed to a jobs

program to create millions of jobs. we don't vote on whether we can keep interest rates for college students or borrowing money low, we vote on whether we can proceed to have the vote. and what we have seen now in the last several years is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and of filibustering. between 1917 and 1967 there was a more or less agreement in the senate that a filibuster would only be used under exceptional circumstances, and in that 50-year period there were only some 40, 45 filibusters in a 50-year period. when lyndon johnson was majority

leader in the late 1950s, in his six-year seven your as -- tenure as majority leader, he had to overcome a filibuster on one occasion. since harry reid has been majority leader in the last six and a half years, he hasad overcome over 400 filibusters or at least requirements for 60 votes. the amount of time we are wasting is unconscionable. and furthermore, what the american people don't know is that time after time after time we are winning. we have the votes to win, and aye shown that -- i've shown that on very important issues. in terms of one major issue just as an example. right now, madam president, rather tragically we have a

situation as a result of the disastrous citizens united supreme court decision that corporations and billionaires can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on elections. and as bad as that is, what is even worse they can hide their contributions, not make it public. well, guess what? the united states senate by a majority vote said that's wrong. if you're going to huge amounts of -- contribute huge amounts of money into the political process, the people have a right to know who you are. we have a majority vote on that issue. we couldn't get it passed because we needed 60 votes. the american people know that our tax system is enormously flawed. you've got, you have major, major corporations, general electric and other corporations,

that in a given year after making billions of dollars in profits pay zero in federal taxes. legislation was passed on the floor of the senate by majority which begins to address that issue. but we didn't have 60 votes. we provided emergency relief to senior citizens who serve years ago were getting no colas with social security. we had a majority vote, couldn't get 60 votes. we had a majority vote to say that women should be paid equal pay for equal work. majority of senators said that. couldn't get it passed. so what we have seen in recent years is reasonably good legislation getting a majority vote, but we can't get it passed because time after time after time we need 60 votes.

so what we are operating under now is a tyranny of the minority. the american people go to vote, they elect obama president, they elect a democratic senate. people who campaigned on certain issues, these people go forward trying to implement their campaign promises, they can't do it because we cannot get 60 votes. so once again at one point in senate history from 1917 to 1967 the filibuster was used very, very sparingly, only under exceptional circumstances. since that point have democrats -- and i speak as an independent -- have democrats abused the system? have they been obstructionists? there there are times when they have been. but since 2008 what has happened

is the republicans have taken obstructionism to an entirely new level. virtually every piece of legislation now requires 60 votes. and virtually every piece of legislation requires just an enormous amount of time. what do we do? what do we do? my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have made the point that the senate is not the house, and they are right. in the house there are 435 members, and majority rules. the majority has a whole lot of power, the minority just doesn't have all that much power. and people have said we to not want the senate to be like the house, and i agree with that. the senate should not be the house. senate members should be guaranteed the rights to offer amendments, not be shut out of the process whether you're in

the minority or the majority. you should have the right to offer amendments. there should be thorough and lengthy debate if a member of the united states senate wants to stand here on the floor be and speak -- on the floor and speak hour after hour to call attention to some issue that he or she feels is important, that senator has the right, in my view, to do that. and if that debate goes on for a week, it goes on for a week. senators whether in the minority or the majority have the right to call attention and to debate and to focus on issues that they consider to be important. but at the end of that debate, there must be finality. there must be a majority vote. 51 votes should win. so the concept that i support is what is called the talking filibuster. minority rights must be

protected, they must have all the time they need to make their point. but majority rights must also be protected. if democracy means anything, what i learned in the third grade was that the majority rules. not the minority. and what is happening many our country is not only enormous frustration about the very, very serious economic and environmental problems we face, there is just huge outrage at the inability of congress to even debate those issues. for example, i am a very strong believer that the minimum wage in this country must be significantly raised. it's now about 7.25, i would like it to go up to $10 an hour. and even at $10 people working 40 hours a week will still be living in poverty.

but we have got to raise the minimum wage with. my strong guess is that if we don't change the rules, despite overwhelming support in this country for raising the minimum wage, we will never get an up or down vote here on that issue. because republicans will obstruct, demand 60 votes, filibuster the issue. if my republican friends are so confident in the points of view that they are advocating, bring them to the floor, let's have an up or down vote. let the american people know how i feel on the issue, how you feel on the issue. but let us not have issues decided because we couldn't get 60 votes for a quote-unquote motion to proceed. nobody in america understands what that's about. you want to vote against the minimum wage, have the guts to come up here, vote against the minimum wage. you want to vote against women's rights, come on up here, make your say, vote against women's

rights. you want to vote against global warming? vote against global warming. but let us at least have the debate that the american people are demanding. so, madam president, let me just conclude. by saying that i am glad the president will finally be able to get some key appointees seated. i was a major, and i -- mayor, and i know it's terribly important that if you're a chief executive, you need to have your team around you, and i'm glad that he will get some key appointees. but let us understand that what we are doing today is dealing with one very, very small part of an overall problem which is the dysfunctionalty of the united states senate, and i hope having addressed the immediate crisis that we can now go on and address the broader issue, and that is making the united states senate responsive to the needs of the american people, having

serious debate on serious issues, and let's see where the chips fall. >> mr. president, we are, after a required amount of debate, we are going to move forward with the cordray nomination which has been held up for some period of time. i would like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle who have engaged in this debate and discussion. i would particularly like to the thank all of my colleagues last night who engaged in a maybe long which is our custom, but i think productive discussion of the many of the issues that separate us, particularly this impending possible, what many of us believe the crisis in the history of the united states senate. and i want to thank both our leaders, senator mcconnell and

senator reid, and so many others who have been actively engaged in the conversations that have been going on. i look forward to the vote as soon as possible on mr. cordray. i thank all of my colleagues for an evening that i thought was very important in our relations in the united states senate. >> the majority leader. >> mr. president, we are, we may have a way forward on this, i feel fairly confident. but it's, as you know, that's why we need the time. so, um what we're going to do is go into a quorum. i think everyone would be better, would be well advised if they didn't talk about a lot of substantive matters. if you want to talk about senator markey, that's fine. but we have a few is to dot

and ts to cross, and i need my -- i have to speak to the vice president. we're going to have the phone call with durbin, schumer and murray, so everything's doing well. now, mr. president, i will say that i hope that everyone learned the lesson last night that it sure helps to sit down and talk to each other. stand and talk, whatever it is. it was a very, very good meeting. it lasted four hours. people were still as highly engaged at the end of that four hours as they were at the beginning. so i think we see a way forward that will be good for everybody. and i, there are a lot of accolades to go around to a lot of people, and i certainly appreciate my wonderful caucus. one of my senators told me this morning -- and i don't mean this

to, something like this will give a person a lot of humility. that senator said to me doesn't matter what you ask me to do, i will do it. so i would hope that we, this is not a time the flex muscles, but it's a time i'm going to tell one person and no one else how much i appreciate their advocacy, their persistence. i'm trying to think of a word, and it's hard to find. i said do you know who it -- a

lot of people. he does it at his own peril. and so everyone, we're going to have caucus today, we'll explain in more detail the direction we're headed. i think everyone will be happy. everyone will not be, oh, man, we got everything we wanted. but i think it's going to be something that is good for the senate. it is a compromise. and i think we get what we want, and they get what they want. not a bad deal. i note the absence of a quorum. >> madam president, during the debate on the budget dr. coburn and i offered an amendment.

that amendment would create a separate and independent inspector general within the consumer finance protection bureau. we introduced this amendment because thanks to a quirk in dodd-frank, the consumer finance protection bureau is the only major federal agency without its own inspector general. and i think people know i tend to rely a great deal on inspector general within the bureaucracy to be an independent check to make sure that laws are followed and to make sure that money's spent according to the law. now, dodd-frank created the consumer finance protection board, but it did not create a protection board specific inspector general. instead, because dodd-frank is

funded, or funded the protection bureau through the federal reserve, this consumer finance protection bureau ended up sharing an inspector general with the federal reserve. this has created a problem. right now the consumer finance protection board's inspector general has a split role. he serves as both inspector general for federal reserve and for the consumer finance protection board. i believe this creates a great deal of confusion and, obviously, a bureaucratic battle for resources. in fact, the inspector general's already had to create two separate audit plans. he also has had to hire employees that can oversee both the federal reserve and the consumer finance protection board. the end result is an office

split by two very important but very different priorities. dodd-frank created the consumer finance protection board within the federal reserve in order to fund the bureau without having to come to us on capitol hill to get congressional corporations. that's a problem but not a problem i'm going to deal with right now. so we had a marriage of conveniences. the consumer finance protection board and within the federal reserve. but that board's function is very different from the federal reserve. despite this, years after dodd-frank was passed this unique situation remains. my concern is that if you have one inspector general trying to cover two different entities, the end result is that neither gets fully overseen.

in other words, we don't have adequate checks within the bureaucracy to the make sure that laws are abided by and that money is spent according to law. since the passage of the inspector general's act of 1978, congress has believed that each department and each agency needs its own independent inspector general. this has been a long item standing finish longstanding, bipartisan position. currently there are 73 inspectors general in every single cabinet level department and almost all independent agencies. even small independent agencies like the federal maritime commission and the national science foundation have their own inspectors general. in each of these agencies, if each of these agencies have their own independent inspector

general, shouldn't the consumer finance protection board? particularly since this board doesn't have to come to congress for appropriations, you don't get appropriations oversight and since even some of their decisions can't even be challenged in the courts. now, we're in this situation the majority has opposed common sense changes like this to the consumer finance protection board. during the budget debate when dr. coburn and i introduced the amendment to create a consumer finance protection board-specific inspector general, the majority would not allow it to be brought up for a vote. the position i heard over and over was that the majority did not want to relitigate in any way dodd-frank. i did not hear any concerns

related to the merits of this proposal. our amendment wasn't about relitigating anything. it was about creating accountability and oversight at the consumer finance protection board and doing that through an independent inspector general just like 73 other agencies so have that sort of checks and balance. because the consumer finance protection board is funded directly by the federal reserve, there are few, in -- if any, oversight checks on the board. that makes independent inner general even more -- inspector or general even more important. right now it seems to me since we don't discuss dodd-frank are are -- very often and we don't

have legislation related to it, we don't have opportunities to amend, this nomination of mr. cordray now before the united states senate is really the only tool the senate has to create transparency and accountability within the consumer finance protection board. as we consider this nomination, i hope we will remember that and consider the senate's role in overseeing the consumer finance protection board and what steps we can take to make the consumer finance protection board more transparent and, hence, more accountable to the congress and in return, in turn to the american people. i yield the floor, i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy be events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and weeks on become tv -- books on booktv.

you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site and join in the conversation on social media sites. >> at today's white house briefing, spokesman jay carney told reporters that the president supports senator harry reid's position on senate filibuster rules; that is, that the rules should be changed so that executive branch nominees can be confirmed with a simple majority vote. the briefing happened before the senate's confirmation of consumer financial protection bureau director richard cordray. >> is quiet. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here, as ever, for your white house briefing. i do not have any announcements or discussions of my weekend for the top, but i will -- and, therefore, i will straight to julie. >> thank you. does the white house support this deal that's emerging in the senate to move forward on some

of the president's nominees? >> let me say a couple things. one, any agreement that there might be between senators has yet to be formally announced, so we will not get ahead of such an announcement if and when it comes. we have worked very closely with senator reid, and we have made clear our support for senator reid's position in this because we share, the president shares his frustration over the obstructionism that we see from republicans in the senate when it comes to the confirmation of the president's nominees. and we would be glad to see a resolution that results in the speedy confirmation of the president's qualified nominees to the these positions that have been at issue. and that includes rich cordray at cfpb, it includes gina mccarthy at epa and tom perez at labor and others.

so we won't have, you know, a full comment on an agreement that is yet to be announced, but we hope there is one. we simply hope that there's a resolution that allows for the confirmation of the president's nominees which is why we supported all along senator reid in his approach to this matter. >> senator mccain who has been quite involved in this process says that he spoke with vice president biden and dennis mcdonough over the past few days about this. can you tell us what the white house's role was in trying to break this impasse? >> the white house was not involved in negotiating. the white house provided information and answered questions. when it came to working with senate republicans including, of course, senator mccain who, again, as i understand it based on what we've seen deserves significant credit for his efforts in trying to find a resolution here, a resolution that allows for, hopefully, the speedy confirmation of the president's nominees. but this has been, this solution

that has been sought has been one that has been sought and negotiated by senators. and our position has been to communicate with and work with senator reid and other democrats on this issue. but the negotiating between democrats and republicans has happened between senators. >> also edward snowden has applied for temporary asylum in russia. has the white house reached out to the russians since he filed his application and for any general comment on -- [inaudible] >> there are regular communications between the u.s. government and the russian government on a host of matters including this one. i don't know that there has been, there have been any communications today, but there may have been certainly not out of the white house that i'm aware of. but our position on this remains what it was and is quite clear which is we believe there is ample legal justification for the return of mr. snowden to the united states where he has been charged with serious felonies.

and, you know, it should be clear when we see discussions about what, you know, or the suppositions or discussions about the idea that mr. snowden is somehow being persecuted. he is a united states citizen who has been charged with crimes, and under our system of law he should be afforded every bit of due process here in the united states, and he should return here to face trial, and that's our position. and it's the position we've taken in our conversations with the russians and with other governments who have had an interest in this or which might be transit points or end destinations, potentially, for mr. snowden if that were to come about. but our interest has always been in seeing him expelled from russia and returned to the united states. ..

he has been charged with three felony counts related to the leaking of classified information. and for those reasons, you should be returned to the united states. effective the matter is, our messages been clear and consistent with every government in this regard. and mr. snowden has all of the rights that every american citizen charged with a crime in the united states has, and he should be returned here where he

can stand trial and take advantage of those rights. so that's the conversation were having with foreign governments, that's the conversation were having with their russian counterparts. >> the president is scheduled to go to russia for an international summit in september. could russia's decision on snow and impact the president's decision to ascend -- attend that summit? >> the president intends to travel to russia in september for the g20 and summit, and i don't have any further announcements with regard to that troubled. >> moving back here, senator gillibrand is legislation on sexual assault in the military is gaining supporters, including senators crews and paul. the chairman of the committee responsible for the military has a separate bill.

people in the military question whether you should bypass the chain of command on that issue. does senator gillibrand bill contain anything that the president thinks would be useful in addressing this problem, -- the problem? how does he think we should go forward of this? >> well, first of all, as the president said earlier this summer when he met with secretary hazel, chairman dempsey commander senior civilian and military leaders, sexual assault is a crime. it is shameful, and it is disgraceful. and nowhere is our response will -- responsibility, rather, greater than in the military. women in it is to afford to serve our country must be protected from this devastating crime, and offenders must be appropriately held accountable. the men and women serving our nation deserve nothing less. and those who engage in sexual assault a dishonor in the on that they wear. now, when it comes to propose solutions to this continuing problem, we are open to consideration of any ideas, and that includes proposed

legislation. and we will work with congress and we will work with the department of defense on ways to deal with and improved the prosecution and prevention and victim support when it comes to sexual military -- sexual assault in the military. >> as commander-in-chief could the president back a piece of legislation that the military appears to have concerns about? >> well, we'll work with them the -- congress on proposed legislation. we haven't taken a proposed -- position or seen specifics legislation, but we will review any idea that addresses this problem, and we will work with the congress and we will work with the defense department to move forward because it's an issue that is of great concern to the president. >> can we just skip to egypt for a second? >> sure. >> the renewed violence and reports of seven more deaths. when the u.s. envoy, ambassador burns, was there apparently

groups -- major groups on both sides of the issue, the pro-morsi and protest groups declined to meet with him. what message does parents have for the egyptians in this sort of turbulent environment? >> well, first of all, the deputy secretary burns met with a number of people from a variety of groups, and yell the round table with political activists. and this round table included representatives from the free egyptian party, the egyptian social democratic party, and the april 6th movement. so that was a pretty broad representation. and timrod, i think which is one of the parties to you're referring to, was invited to the round table, but did not attend. stay would have more information about that. our interest in this visit and in our communications in general is to speak to representatives of all groups and factions and

parties of of the egyptian people. and we urge upon them of peaceful effort toward reconciliation as opposed to polarization. and we have made that clear to the current government. we have made it clear to the current government and the military every want to see maximum restraint exercised by the military, and we won all sides to refrain from violence because we believe that that is the only path for free to resolving this crisis and moving toward a restoration of democratically elected civilian government. jessica. >> first, just following upon egypt. it's been almost two weeks since the unrest began. does the president. the messages he is conveyed in the others in the administration have conveyed to leaders there are not being heated? and would he like to see more from the leaders there? >> well, when we have seen violence, we have been very clear that we condemn the violence. we have been very clear that we

will -- we believe all parties need to move towards reconciliation and with from polarization, that a transition back to a democratically elected civilian government requires the participation of all groups, that there should not be arbitrary arrests and detentions , especially arrests that target specific groups. and those messages are being communicated daily. and we're monitoring the progress being made -- and, in some cases, the lack of progress being made -- in egypt as we engage with the egyptians from across the board. our interest is -- and we try to make this clear -- not in the success or failure of an individual or a party, but in the success of the process, a democratic process that allows for all egyptian voices to be heard and represented and that allows for peaceful reconciliation and negotiation and compromise. and i take your point that it's

been two weeks, but i can also say it's been two weeks. and the path towards the future of egypt that we all hope for and that we believe the vast majority of egyptians hoped for, which is a peaceful and democratic future that allows for the fulfillment of egypt's enormous potential economically and culturally and politically, is not an easy one. and it has not been for a long time. but it is an important one, and it's one that we support. in every conversation we have, we make our position clear. we make clear that we don't favor groups year or individuals or parties. we favor a process that is peaceful and that has as its foundation reconciliation rather than polarization of serious. >> and i have a quick question on snowden and then panama. does the president believe the russian government's claim that

cut the russian president has absolutely no say in whether snowdon is granted asylum in russia? >> we have had discussions with russian government about our belief that he ought to be expelled. >> but on the russian president question? >> well, he is the president of the country, and we believe that the government obviously has a role to play here, as we make clear when we expressed their disappointment in the government's role in allowing for the press conference, if you will, with a human-rights organizations -- if only to make clear that the russian government has an opportunity here to work with us through the normal channels to expel mr. snowdon. because it is in our view, as well as the view expressed by russian leaders, including the president, that this should not be something that causes long-term problems for u.s.- russian relations 55 those relations are very important and they see the countries engaging on a number of important issues, both economic and security-related issues.

and if we want to continue that relationship unimpeded by this issue. and we believe there's a way to move forward here that allows for mr. snowdon to return to the united states and be afforded all of the rights and protections that he, as a citizen of this country and a defendant in court, and joyce, and for russia to resolve the situation that they have been dealing with now for three weeks. >> and then, on panama, does the u.s. have any more clarity now on what was on the north korean-flagged vessel, where it was headed and for home? >> i just don't have any more information on that at this time. if we give more, we can answer those questions. but i don't have anything yet, anything more than we've provided thus far. >> on mr. martin, which

continues to be a subject of national discussion, when you look at what's being said on the internet, on cable, especially from african-american parents, there seems to be a deep concern and sentiment that the children are less safe today than they were before this verdict -- that there deeply concerned that the law does not protect him black males as much as to protect everybody else. the president, as an imf -- as an african american parent, does he have anything to say to those parents, reassuring them in any way about whether are not the law is going to step up to protect their children? and this is regarding their sentiments being expressed. >> i appreciate the question and i think it -- i will take it in pieces. when the president spoke about this in the early days, he made a very personal statement that i think goes to some of what you're asking about, and that is

that if president obama had a son, that that sun would look like mr. martin. and i think that in saying that he was reflecting in a personal way his understanding of the pain that the parents were experiencing a and and obviously have experienced ever since, and pain that their experience in the wake of the verdict. the president also said in his statement on sunday that he understands that passions have been running high in general in response to this case, and in particular in the wake of the verdict. but it is also the case that a court heard this case and a jury has spoken, and he echoes the call for calm reflection that the martin family made in the wake of the verdict.

probably, on the issue of boss -- and again, i need to know it's without reference to this specific case the president's views on issues like racial profiling. have been well known. it's something that he worked on in the state senate in illinois. but when it comes to this case, which obviously the justice department is continuing to look into, or not going to get out ahead of that and we're not going to comment on any particular. right now, the president views this as a tragedy, the loss of a young person, for his family, for the community and for the country. and it's a reflection of the tragedy that we see daily when we see young victims of gun

violence lose their lives. and he urges upon all communities to examine what we can do to reflect upon and to reflect upon what we can do to bring our communities closer together, to consider what we can do to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening in the future, and to reduce gun violence in general, and to look at our laws and examine whether those laws that we have served to reduce gun violence or, in some cases, inadvertently make the problem worse. and that's been his view, and that's why he pursues and continues to pursue common-sense measures to reduce gun violence. >> if i could just change to immigration briefly. the president this morning made -- had several interviews with local hispanic stations. did he express any more concerned than he has, or any other knew strategy's about how to move along immigration

reform, which does, according to many pundits, seem to be stalled? >> well, i've won't get ahead of the broadcasting of those interviews. it would be fair to this is organizations that did interview the president earlier today. i think it's fair to say that immigration and the practice of immigration reform was discussed. it is a topic very much in the minds of a lot of people across the country and certainly one that is getting a lot of attention here in washington and it is one the president is very focused on. and let's review where we are. a bipartisan majority -- significant bipartisan majority passed landmark legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, legislation that meets all four principles that the president laid out two years ago and has reiterated ever since when it comes to a broader security and an earned pass to citizenship and making sure everyone plays by the same set of rules when it comes to

holding our businesses accountable and improving our streamlining of our legal immigration system. that is no small victory. but it is not the ultimate victory here, which would see the passage of comprehensive immigration law by the congress -- and built by the whole congress and signed into law by the president. so there's a lot of work to do. the president believes that this will happen, or that it should happen because there is such an unprecedentedly broad coalition that supports it. so this is a choice here, when it comes to house republicans who are dealing with it now. this is a matter of volition. they can move forward in support of proposition that has the backing of business and labour, faith communities and law-enforcement communities, republicans and democrats, a measure that does significant good for our community, including reducing the deficit -- so there is much in here for

conservatives to like. or they can choose to block it. but the choice really is theirs. and the president is confident that the american people and all the stakeholders who want to see this move forward will, in the end, prevail upon lawmakers to do the right thing, which is to pass comprehensive immigration reform that meets the standards that the president laid out. >> so right now is the strategy of staying out of the process, is that still the right strategy at this point in time? >> well, let me say a couple of things about that. one is, we have approached this strategically with an eye toward getting it done and getting it done in a way that meets the standards set by the president. the idea that we're staying out of it is a fallacy, and has been

forever. we wouldn't be where we are if the president hadn't been reelected and made comprehensive immigration reform on -- one of his top priorities. we wouldn't be where we are with a bill that passed the senate with bipartisan support if it hadn't been for the role of the president -- which is not to diminish, because it was vital, the role played by that bipartisan group in this at the craft of the legislation that the principles the president said. because the president knew all along that the only way this would happen is if -- would be if there were substantial bipartisan support for it. so we look at this at every step of the way through the prism of what's the best approach we can take to ensure that it gets done. but it's an active approach in all cases, and that includes speeches and with the addresses and interviews it includes phone calls and meetings with lawmakers and stakeholders. and it includes direct and constant consultation with lawmakers as they move toward on

this important piece of business. eight. >> jay, i want to follow on jammed with the morgan case. after the beer summit, there was talk year, back in 2009, that it was sort of a teachable moment on race. the present made comments after that saying he thought it was a friendly to muffled conversation and some progress had been made. some my question now is do you feel similarly that this is a teachable moment for the country right now? >> the president put out a statement in response to the verdict, and i think that his words on this are the best representation of how he views it and what he hopes will come from a commodes is the sort of peaceful reflexion and conversation by communities across the country. and that conversation is taking place in private and in the public sphere on a range of issues. so i don't -- i would simply say that these conversations and it this reflection is taking place

in a lot of communities across the country, and that's a good thing in the president's view. >> that conversation includes -- the attorney general will be at the naacp annual convention today in florida, very close to the court house where the trial went down. it back in 2009, the attorney general said at one point in a speech that we're a nation of cowards when it comes to race. and i think he meant that we year -- people are not always frank and it honest about it, it's a difficult conversation. based on what you just said a moment ago, using to think this covers is and is happening. having made progress? are we in no longer a nation of cowards and, in his words? >> well, again, when obviously refer you to the department of justice and to the attorney general for an examination of statements by the attorney general's. but i would say that this president believes and he has long believed that this is a conversation that we have to

continually have. and he said that in the past and said it repeatedly. sun not going to make an assessment about where we are on that continue on. there's no question that we've made enormous progress. is no question that we still have progress to make. and that's a broad statement, not a specific statement about the case, but a statement about where we airs a country as we move forward and make progress on this issue. >> less spam briefly, want to ask you about the irs. washington times as a story today same effect treasury department's inspector general is doing our part or mysteries of some kind where there are allegations that various political candidates retarded improperly with on its feet, that government officials may have looked at their tax records improperly. some of the state's back to 2006, said it would have been a bushel administration. it is not clear so far whether these were democrats or republicans were targeted, i want to make there as well. my question is, how confident are you, as these various things trickle out there, that some of

these problems -- again, my collected 2006, they may be systemic -- how confident are you by the president and danny were full, now in place, can perform the irs? >> the president has a lot of confidence. he's made it clear from the day he started his intention to examine the practices of the past and to make that necessary corrections where they're needed. with regards to that story i think -- and i appreciate your filling in all the caveat is. i think one that i read -- it was hard when you get to the bottom of the story -- was both the examples that the site happened prior to is a ministration, and even before that the site, three of them were deemed inadvertent. and i think a senate republican was saying it's not indicative of anything broad. but any problems is a problem that obviously needs to be looked at. and that's a general statement, not one with regards to this

report, which of all the red but i don't know much about. so i'm sure there when it comes to the president's confidence, it is strong. and he is pleased with the performance we've seen so far since he has taken over. peter. >> jay, i want to ask you about the health care reform act very quickly. and number of restaurants and low-wage employers recently have said that their increasing their staffs blessed by hiring part-time employees as opposed to full-time employees. in the act, right now the 30 hour per week markets were full-time is set. i'm curious if that's a concern to the president, that 30-hour mark, where some people are lowering the number of hours to get to their employees are hiring employees for a limited number of hours on the -- if it's only one that the white house would consider any change, in keeping with some other changes taking place in terms of -- >> well, i would say broadly that if you lack of the economic data, the suggestion that the dca is reducing full-time

employment is believed -- belied by the facts. so what to be a see a allows is the agenda for individuals who could not, prior to passage of the affordable care act, for insurance, to get insurance. and it provides subsidies for those who need help in affording it. and it is this business is in an effort so that they can provide insurance to their employees. and again, the broader data here does not reflect that assertion. i don't have a specific response to the store your siding, but i think the date is very clear on this. >> the 30-hour limit, though, is that one that the white house has any plans to, or is even considering -- >> again, not ever response to your specific story here. what i can say is that the data reflect that there is not support for the proposition that businesses are not hiring full-time employees because of the affordable care act. >> that 30-hour limit, that wasn't for my story. part of the question was from the story.

let me ask you a separate topic correctly that been making headlines urinary -- and you may not have any particular news to share with us today -- but given the headlines that have surrounded governor bob macdonald in recent weeks in the scandals that allows women in his community, does the present any intention to visit virginia in any form to support the candidacy of the democrats and embrace, terry mcauliffe? given the fact in each of the last nine state territorial elections have voted for the party opposite the president, this would be history making election. >> nothing the president has already appeared supportive terry mcgowan lice can this seat. >> and asking about going forward here. >> of, i don't have is his announcement to make, but he certainly supports the democratic candidate in that race. april and then mayor. >> jay, in the aftermath of the verdict this weekend, i'm asking you about next at -- a couple things on the steps. when it comes to racial profiling, as you just talk to jim about, looking back at the

statement that he made in 2007, he said he was very proud of the past the first racial profiling legislation in illinois. and if i'm correct, and also involved videotaping interrogation. if he was hands-on and has an knowledge of this, is the white house looking at ways of possibly talking to states to review their racial profiling loss and things of that nature in the aftermath of what happened? >> again, i want to hesitate from commenting on this in no way that ties it directly to any specific case. i would simply went out that the president does have a history and the issue and as long opposed racial profiling. and he did, as you noted, worked successfully to pass legislation in the illinois state senate that enjoy bipartisan support on this issue. i don't have any process to announce today a billing for except to say that the president worked on this in illinois, and he worked on it as a united

states senator, and believes it's an issue worthy of consideration and action. >> csn kaj if i'm understanding you, or the of consideration but action is -- >> well, i'm simply stating that that has been -- long been his view because he's opposed to it. >> all right, and then -- and leslie, says you can't talk about the next steps, bill clinton that is attempting to -- conducted the race initiative and it was found that we can really legislate against the heart. it's a hard issue. do you think, at this point, with the feelings, the emotions that are going on in this country from everywhere, to include stevie wonder, who -- a friend of the president, who has just decided not to perform in florida anymore -- de think it might be time to have conversations about race? >> well, the president does believe we should have an

ongoing covers is about in our communities and churches and in the public square. and the president, as you know, has spoken about the issue of race quite prominently in the past. but if you take a step back, there is something else here that's important, and because your question when he talked about efforts in the past to address these issues, and that is that everything the president stands for has as its focus the need to expand the middle-class, the need for us as a country to make sure that opportunity is available to all americans. and that is the foundation of his economic agenda. it is the foundation of everything he does to try to move this country forward. it's why he ran for president and why he ran for reelection. and that opportunity, if broadly shared : power this country and move forward. it is what is made as great in the past and it is what will make us great continually in the

future. so the focus of his economic agenda has been in making the middle class more secure, and providing opportunities for those who aspire to the middle-class to attain the status. and that is the focus of his economic agenda, it's the focus of his education agenda, and it is the focus of his vision, and has been for a long time, when it comes to a feature of this country. and i think that goes to the part that there are -- we have to address these issues in a number of ways, and that includes conversations at every level, but it includes taking concrete actions that improve the lot of american people and improve and expand the size and security of the middle class and that's been his focus ..

>> senator gillibrand attempted to pass similar language through the senate armed services committee earlier this year, but the measure failed. senators ted cruz, barbara boxer and chuck grassley also participated in this news conference. >> barbara, when she comes. don't trip on that. good morning.