hearings, yet we recently raced through hearings on nominees to the d.c. circuit court of appeals plus a number of district nominations. in fact, in the last few weeks, we have held hearings for 14 judicial nominees. that's not very far behind the entire output of the year 200 2005 -- seven hearings and 18 nominees. again, we have already exceeded that number -- 11 hearings and 33 nominees. the bottom line is that the senate is processing the president's nominees exceptionally fairly and that's the best way to get the job done. president obama certainly is treated more fairly in the first year of his second term than senate democrats treated president bush in 2005. it is not clear to me how allowing more votes and more hearings than president bush got in an entire year amounts to -- quote -- "unprecedented delays

and obstruction." the presiding officer: all time for debate has expired. mr. grassley: i ask people to sphroart this nomination. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent for 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: i believe we should act quickly to reduce the number of judicial vacancies. 11 of the 12 current judicial nominees before the senate reported by voice vote on the judiciary committee, republicans and democrats voting together. there is no reason why we couldn't consider all 12 today, along with mr. chen. if we work together, then we can fulfill the needs of the federal judiciary. have the yeas and nays been ordered? the presiding officer: they have not. mr. leahy: i request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has every senator in the chamber voted? does any senator in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 97, the nays are zero and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. under the previous order, there will be ten minutes for debate only with the senator from

maine, ms. collins, controlling eight minutes, and with two minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 1243. a senator: madam president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. mr. reid: madam president, have everyone sit down and shut up, okay? it's unfair. senator collins has something to say, it's just not polite. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators will take their conversations from the well. the senate will be in order. the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, the senate

will shortly decide whether or not to invoke cloture on the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill. we have spent nearly two weeks debating this bill and working through approximately 85 amendments. we were making progress, we even had a vote on a nongermane amendment which clearly would have fallen to a point of order had one been raised. so no one has been shut out of this process. chairman murray and i have repeatedly encouraged senators to come to the floor, file and bate their andment to improve the bill that we reported. it has been an open and transparent debate thus far, a

return to regular order, something that i have heard virtually everyone here urge us to do. nevertheless, some senators are intent on preventing this legislation from moving forward despite the fact that this bill is not the final version of the transportation and housing appropriations bill. it is only one step in the process but an essential step, one that will allow the senate to move forward and eventually negotiate with the house of representatives to decide on a top line and to further improve the bill. now, a considerable number of my colleagues have advocated for the house funding level of $44 billion and have opposed the senate bill, but i would like to

point out that not one of my colleagues has offered a specific amendment account by account to reduce the funding levels program by program in this bill to meet the $44 billion level in the house bill. i personally offered an amendment that said that in october, if we find that we have preached the top line of the budget control act -- if we have breached the top line of the budget control act, that we would go back to the appropriations process and we do the bills to -- and redo the bills to meet that top line. and i would also point out that just yesterday, the house leadership was forced to pull its thud bill from the floor due to lack of support. now, some republican members thought that the spending levels

were too high, but it's surely significant that a -- a substantial number of republicans felt that the bill as written was far too low and would hurt our homeless vet -- veterans, would delay repair of our crumbling infrastructure, and would slash the community development block grant program to the lowest level in history, to below the 1975 level, when it was first created by president ford. so let me point out that the numbers in the house bill were not realistic and that is one of the reasons that it failed. the numbers in our bill are not unrealistic. they are too high. they would come down in conference. the president's request was

artificially low due to several budget gimmicks and scoring differences. we took care of those gimmicks. we have an honest bill that is before our members. let me give you just one example of a gimmick that was in the president's budget. his request for the section a, project-based rental assistance, is insufficient to fully fund the 12-month renewal contracts with private owners. we're not going to be throwing people out of these subsidized apartments after 10 months in the year. so senator murray and i added funding to more accurately reflect what was needed. theafeneeded. that was over a billion dollars of difference. there was a difference in the scoring by c.b.o. and o.m.b. and we have to go by c.b.o.

that accounted for $1.8 billion. now, it is disappointing to me, madam president, that we have not gone to conference on the budget because we would not be in this dilemma. we would have agreed-upon allocations that would guide the appropriations process. but in the absence of that, what is wrong with proceeding with this bill, with cutting spending in it, if members have -- have amendments that they wish to offer to cut spending -- and there are a few that have been offered. but as i said, none that bring it down to the house's level in an account-by-account manner. i'm still hopeful that we will be able to pass this bill and start bringing other

appropriations bills to the floor before the end of the fiscal year, because forcing the government to operate under continuing resolutions is irresponsible, it ends up costing more money in the long run, and it's wasteful because we continue to fund programs that are no longer needed. because we're just continuing current law. so i urge my colleagues to think very carefully about this vote. it would be so unfortunate if we go home to our constituents in august and are forced to tell them that we're unable to do our job. we should pass -- we should continue working on this bill. we should invoke cloture. this bill undoubtedly would have been reduced in conference had we been allowed to move forward.

i do want to thank many of my colleagues for working with us as we tried so hard to advance this important legislation. i'm particularly grateful to chairman murray for her bipartisan approach and collaboration and for working so closely with me throughout the process. and finally, i would be remiss if i did not thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. they have worked night and day on this bill. i will put all of their names in the record. i know my time is expiring. but, madam president, let's do the right thing, let's proceed to end the debate on this bill, take care of the rest of the germane amendments and proceed to final passage and ultimately

to conference with the house. let's show that we mean it when we say that we're committed to full and open debate and returning to the process that used to serve us well. thank you, madam president. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i want to echo what my good friend and partner on this bill, senator collins, just said. like all of us, when i go home to my home state of washington, i don't hear a lot about -- from my constituents about partisan politics. they don't ask me which party's up or which party's down. they don't care about the political games and certainly not who's winning or losing them. the vast majority of people i talk to when i go home ask me what we are doing here in congress to create jobs and get this economy going again. they ask me what we are doing to break through this gridlock and the constant manufactured crisis and make sure that this country, this economy is working for them and their families.

they tell me that they want democrats and republicans working together. they want us to get into a room and put politics aside and put our country first and find some common ground and get something done. madam president, that kind of work is far too rare these days, though many of us are fighting to change that. i'm very proud that the transportation bill that we are about to vote on today does just that. this bill isn't exactly what i would have written had i done it on my own or what senator collins had done on her own. i ask for 30 second seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: this is a bill that is a compromise that reflect the deep cuts we set in the spending levels of the budget control act. it reflects the best ideas of both sides. so i urge my colleagues to move past the obstruction, get over the gridlock, let's show the american people we can work for them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: i want to commend the senior senator from maine for the extraordinary amount of work she and her staff have put into this bill, but regretfully where we are is cloture on this transportation bill will be viewed as a question of whether or not we intend to keep the commitment we made to the american people two years ago this month to reduce $2.1 trillion in spending over the next ten years. the house of representatives is marking to a $91 billion-a-year lower figure which reflects the law. and i believe that if we invoke cloture on this bill and move forward, it will be widely viewed throughout the country that we are walking away from a commitment we made on a bipartisan basis, that the president signed just two years ago that we would reduce

spending by this amount of mon money, $2.1 trillion, over the next ten years. so regretfully, i would strongly urge my colleagues to keep the bipartisan commitment we made two years ago and to vote "no" on cloture on this bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 1243, a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous con sernght the mandatory -- by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 1243, an original bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies

for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 43. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the senate standsness recess until 2:00 p.m.

recess:. >> the senate had recess for a joint caucus meeting. senators coming back and about an hour or two eastern to debate the nomination of samantha power for u.s. ambassador to the united nations. that vote should be about 4:00. let's take you live back to capitol hill. harry reid speaking with reporters. we join that coverage. >> there are a number of senators who have broken we here who are trying to do the right thing.

so chairman bernanke up one of our republican president who has served republicans and democrats now valley league, respectfully and with great recognition of the good job that he is done. he has said as early as this week, as latest this week i should say, sequestration is earning our economies. by at least a percentage point. i mean, how much more do they need to hear? now, my friend, the republican leader, down on the floor, waiting against regular order which he has called for in years past. senator collins, if nothing else, was shown no respect. how far did she work with valiant patty murray? to get this done. i can't understand why republican leadership over here

would twist arms to derail a bipartisan bill that create jobs all over america. we will go a little out of order today. senator murray. >> well, what happened just now is that the senate republicans chose gridlocked over jobs. they really chose a obstruction economic growth, and they chose political games over commonsense investment. the day after the house republican transportation housing bill included, and proved that sequestration can't even pass the republican house, senate republican leadership threw a tantrum, and they said it's my way or the highway. and boy, does their highway have a lot of potholes. the senate transportation bill is about creating jobs, investing in families and

communities, and laying down a strong foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth. it is a bipartisan bill. i worked very closely with senator collins to write it. six republicans voted for it in committee. we have an open debate on the senate floor as senator collins said, and we have votes and we accepted amendments from both sides of the aisle. so i am extremely disappointed. and i'm angry that republican leadership thought back against members of their own party, and forced a filibuster. and i think a lot of people across the country are watching this and they are disgusted. there are people like ron, who is here with us today. ron depends on the investments from this bill for his job. he knows that without them, not only would he be out of work, but the communities he works in will pay the price as well. without these investments,

traffic is going to be worse. our bridges are going to be less safe. our trains, our airports are going to continue to decline. our most vulnerable seniors and families and veterans are going to be less secure and could end up homeless. and the economy is going to suffer. now and over the long term. that's what the senate republicans have voted for when they filibustered this today. those of us who supported this bill are going to go home to talk to our constituents about how we are fighting for jobs, bipartisan problem-solving and economic growth. and the republicans who filibustered this, they will have to go home and explain to their constituents why they prefer partisanship and obstruction. i hope that the time back on that we're going to have will convince republicans to come back to the table. join us in a budget conference to resolve these conflicts. help us replace this damaging

sequestration and work with us to invest in jobs and the economy. that is what the country expects. that's what we ought to be fighting for spent both senator durbin and senator schumer said it would be appropriate to share the appropriations -- >> this has been a sad 48 hours for the american people. this shows exactly why washington is not working, why we have not lowered our unemployment rate, why we are not improving their public safety on highways and bridges, and are failing to meet our compelling human needs in housing for the elderly and the disabled and the disadvantaged. today, and united states senate, through strong arms tactics, the other party was leaned on not to

vote for allowing the transportation housing bill to move forward. what does that mean in plain english? they say we're not going to vote for it because we don't agree with the overall budget that appropriations is using. they are using -- which they voted for this spring and an overwhelming vote. they say the want a new topline, but then they object instead, senator murray who chaired the budget committee to go into conference to be able to get a new topline. a topline comes from the budget committee. the appropriations committee does the bottom line. subcommittee by subcommittee. now, if they want a new topline, they ought to get off the rhetoric, get off their holds come and get off of everything

else and let murray and the budget committee go to conference to get that new topline. as the chair of the appropriations committee, i'm willing to negotiate on a compromise, but i want to do it in the regular way we do it. the budget committee gives us the topline, and we will -- subcommittee. i marked up, my allocation as the chair based on what the senate agreed to and in an overwhelming vote this spring. so where does that leave us? it says essentially senator mikulski, no matter how hard you worked on a bipartisan basis with both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome for regular order, we are not going to approve one appropriations bill. what is that? are we back to gridlocked? are we back -- where does that

leave us? well, i'll tell you, it leaves us with a higher jobless rate, not needing a compelling human need, and not needing the needs of public safety when our highways and bridges. senator murray and senator collins, if the transportation subcommittee did an outstanding job. they put more money in inadequate infrastructure from federal highway, capital improvement programs, new start in transit programs, investment in rail, particularly new tracks, new equipment t and what would that mean? it would mean that we would be able to improve public safety, and put people to work in construction. roughly 61% of the jobs directly created -- 61% of jobs are created by investing in infrastructure. particularly in the construction

industry. you're going to hear from some of the people who work in that every day. we had a bill that would have put people to work, fix bridges and highways, improve public safety. it would've gotten a america moving. it would've gotten america working, and we should do the same. let's follow regular order and let us also try to get america moving and working again. >> first, want to thank senator reid for allowing me to follow senator mikulski. quite difficult task. standing behind us are some men and certainly women in the building trades industry. what are they looking for? they are looking for jobs. they want a paycheck to take home to their families.

and they want to rebuild america so the 21st century is an american century. that's all they're asking for. it's not unreasonable. so the american people -- that's what the american people asking for, jobs, fair treatment for working families and the vision to great a growing economy in this country. what you just saw on the floor of the united states senate was an effort by the republicans to kill that dream. it was a job killing strategy. what a sharp contrast. susan collins stood up there in a real profile in courage, clear eyed, looking forward, and said it's time to come together on a bipartisan basis to move this country forward, to create jobs. i was so proud of her. and i was waiting to see what would happen next. you know what happened? standard mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, came up. he was looking for but he was looking over his shoulder, looking over his shoulder for rand paul, the libertarians, the most extreme conservatives in the republican party.

he wasn't looking forward. he was looking over his shoulder to find where john boehner was stand. john boehner was looking to see where the tea party was standing. that's the problem with this republican party. you saw one profile in courage looking forward to lead this country, and the rest of them slinking back into the shadows. that's the sad reality. it's a reality these workers will have to take home. it's something that has to change, and the only way it changes is when the american people speak up and say we are sick and tired of playing games in washington at the expense of american jobs and working families. this is a sad day. patty murray, thank you for your leadership. barbara mikulski, thank you. if this means that the republicans will not let us bring up and pass one appropriations bill this year, shame on them. they have stopped us from the conference committee to agree on a budget never. now they're stopping the spending bills that will move america forward. a little earlier today we have defense appropriations bill in

our appropriations committee. if disney were not going to pass a defense appropriations bill, i just guarantee you, you will see -- you'll see in the lives and the features of military families across america. you will see it in america's national defense. it's time for this republican party to stop looking over its shoulder and look forward. >> thank you, senator durbin. and let me thank senators mikulski and murray for their leadership on these spending issues. now, for decades, democrats and republicans agreed it's up to the federal government to fund infrastructure that our economy and our workforce depends on. both parties always stepped up to provide funding for roads and bridges, to promote economic developer in our town. this was never a partisan issue. but all that comes to a screeching halt this week, as republicans abandoned their responsibility to work in a bipartisan way to create jobs

and improve infrastructure. the hard right conservatives in the house demanded steep cuts, cuts so steep that there moderate republican colleagues couldn't go alone. and here in the senate, we had six republicans supporting this bill in committee. we had 19 voting to bring it on the floor. and then with mitch mcconnell, watchful eye in the well, they all were arm twisted into voting no. against what they believed in. it's sad that senator mcconnell is in a position where he feels he has to whip against the bill like this one. so there's been a tug-of-war going on in the republican party, for months now. some in their party want to find common ground and compromise, while others want to stop every single government program dead in its tracks. it's my way or the highway, they

say. well, today it's their way. no funding for highways. at times working with the other side feels like the middle east peace process. there's no one to negotiate with. and what we are seeing in both houses is a death dance. the republican party on fiscal issues is falling apart before our very eyes. they can't pass fundamental bills, because the hard right group has used political power but is so far off the deep end that republicans can't go alone. it's an amazing moment, the hard right conservatives won the day on this bill. hundreds of thousands of americans who could've had a good chance at job paying, at good paying jobs lost out, and the republican party continues to tie itself on fiscal issues because they are so far over,

that the american people won't go along with them, and many in their party either won't go along with them or have to be forced to, greeting their teeth. >> -- creating their teeth. >> i want to introduce someone who really knows firsthand what the investments mean that we have tried to pass today and the lives of workers and their families. ron is an iron worker, he's been one for 32 years. he's worked on jobs here in maryland, virginia and the district of colombia. he knows what these investments mean. he knows what a blocking this bill from passage means, and he wants to say a few words to all of you. ron? >> thank you. appreciate hearing my voice here for a minute. you know, i'm not a speaker. i don't have any notes or a script to read off a.

i'm not going to tell you staff. one and is a third generation ironworker in this country. build many of the establishments in the city that we visit and frequent every day, my family, and a lot of members of my family. and what i'm here to express his frustration. it's beyond any understanding of a person like me how we can't find common ground on issues like infrastructure and transportation. i mean, you guys look at youtube and read a newspaper. we've got bridges falling down around us. and the numbers are astounding to me. i'm not up on those numbers as you read, it wasn't 7000 bridges. it was 70,000 bridges. it wasn't my family the collapse on that bridge in minnesota. it wasn't my thumb in the collapse on the bridge in washington. it didn't hit home with me on that. with public safety and all the other areas that this affects,

but what does happen is i've been working in this down for a long time, and there are peers of mine in midlife are losing health care. you know, they are losing personal possessions like homes and you know, they are not going up in life. they're going down and their hard-working people. they are hard-working people. this, i do know this, that i believe are bridges in this country by the american civil and just raided are bridges as overall in this country as a d. is a d okay? it's not okay. we need common ground. we need to get this stuff moving ahead. and there's a lot of people that are affected. i'm not interested in the wrestling that's going on in these rooms and the arguments. what i'm telling you is what it's doing, it's affecting people like me every single day and our life.

and you know what? we need a voice. we need to get hurt. it's getting old, real old. we need some help and we need to be heard now, not, not two years from now. not three years from now. now. it's time now. i appreciate you guys, you know, just giving us. thank you very much. >> well said. >> questions? >> i wanted to ask you a question given -- [inaudible] tax reform. he is big and large it about taxes. i want to know how far democrats want to take that tax reform. you want to take corporate only or are you also interested -- >> we will have to have significant revenue, carried. i support the finance committee and what they're trying to do, but my message to everyone, including my members on the finance committee, tax reform but it has to great revenue, significant revenue. >> are you interested -- you

said you will raise some revenue but you also want to lower some individual rates this summer. >> when it is all over and done with, significant revenue. we start with senator murray's number in the budget committee. that's a good starting point. whether we wind up there, that remains to be seen. significant revenue. >> [inaudible]. not able to get together that i've had some of these appropriations bill. what does that mean for tax reform, something that is so big? >> unless the republican party becomes functional once again, you know, this year, colleagues, we all have a record. we passed 27 bills, the lowest in the history of this country. 27 bills. now, the speaker says that that's no indication of a publishing much. his zenith is how many bills you delete.

well, zero. 27 to zero. by any calculation, the republican dominated tea party driven people are really hurting our country. these guys back here, they're not interested in whether a democrat does something, or republican. they have jobs they want, good jobs. if i look at nevada, our construction industry is really hurting. it's that way all over the country. you know, the economy is picking up, but with a little bit of help from republicans here in congress, we would have a dynamic congress once again like we had in the clinton years were it created 23 million jobs, reduce the deficit. but we are here slugging it out on nothing, because they are

incapable of acting, even someone like senator collins, who tries to be fair. they didn't even give her the dignity of recognizing the work that she's done. >> senator reid, what you said that you guys -- been the government from shutting down in october? >> well, you know, we have a cadre of republicans that are down on the for everyday innocent are boasting about wanting to close the government. what difference does it make? they don't want to close everything. may be close a few parks and things like that that don't matter that much. and i told them, check with newt gingrich. he'll tell you what happens when you close government. but i don't know everybody, what more, the republicans could do to tarnish their brand than what they're doing here in washington. and they are not representing mainstream -- main street americans rather touch.

that's the sad part. >> what indication do you have from the critical mass of republicans when it comes to see our time they will not be as you say arm twisted into voting against the c.r., that they will be with you guys to get 60? >> time will only tell. we will see. we hope that senator mikulski has outlined so well and my colleagues here that maybe with what rogers is doing, speaking out against this foolishness. they can't, remember, the house of representatives is different than here. day, it's like the british parliament. if you're in the majority party you should get anything done what you want and. they can get anything done. they can't pass a simple appropriation bill. >> [inaudible] would you put a c.r. on the floor at the 967 of our would have to be speeded we are not negotiate in what we're going to do. the president said he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling.

okay? that's what these guys are after talking about. they want negotiation on the debt ceiling, and everyone, there will be none. as obama related again yesterday at our caucus. thanks. >> [inaudible conversations] >> and so there you go. senate leaders, democrats i should say, democratic leaders of the senate in front of reporters. senate right now in a recess, a joint caucus meeting him at a barbecue for both democrats and republicans, i tweaked this afternoon from the "washington post" may or may not sum up what's going on innocent. is what he tweaked. today's bipartisan senate caucus procedure but an our filibuster in harry reid telling senators to sit down and shut up. good were receiving. that's the "washington post" tweet for you. we expected him to come back and about 2:00 this afternoon, about a half-hour or so from the.

they will take up the nomination of samantha power to the eu -- to be u.n. ambassador. as we wait for the senate to return let's take a look at a portion of its moorings "washington journal." >> host: a republican congress and from new jersey and is member of the body -- budget committee. good morning. thank you for being here. the colors have been knocking congress as -- why would he do that? >> host: who knows. the "washington post" has this cartoon is what it speaks to this matter. spot the differences they see. seek yo you can find with a betr picture of congress in recess and congress in session. guess what? the pictures look exactly alike. what do you make of all this bashing of congress heading into the break? >> guest: not a good sign. not good for the public not to have a degree of confidence in their elected representatives. but certainly an understandable one.

when you had so much squabbling over the issues, when you can't get things done. that's the refrain when i get back him into new jersey is why speeded we'll break away from this record a program picketers of senate republicans have come up to the microphones we want to bring you that live. life right now from capitol hill. mitch mcconnell. >> makes us look a lot like a greased. there is much left to be done to get our financial house in order. but what come you don't make any progress in that direction. about signaling to the american people that you're not serious about the things you already agree to do on a bipartisan basis. our good friend on the other side of the aisle have been spending the entire year trying to get us to walk away from spending reductions that we committed to on a bipartisan basis just a couple of years ago. it's pretty clear that unless

you tax analyst you spend, they don't have much interest. and we believe that getting the federal government house in order, financially, is the single most important thing we could do, the single biggest threat to the next generation and the one coming after us. so we think this vote is a symbolic significance going into the fall when will have the inevitable discussion about how to fund the government. we'll be happy to take a couple of questions, and then we're going to a, believe it or not, bipartisan lunch over in the russell caucus building. >> democrats and others are looking at their campaign primary challenge that you have been saying that striving or actions. how do you respond to that? >> i'm sorry? >> that your own tea party primary challenge in your campaign back home is helping drive your decisions here in the senate. >> the reason for this vote, and

by the way, all but one republican voted the way i suggested, was because we need indicate we're going to keep our word around here. this is the word made on a bipartisan basis, just two years ago. the president signed it. it's the law, and we think it's important to convey to the american people we take our commitments seriously. >> harry reid you said the budget number for revenue in the murray budget is a good place to start a tax reform. you guys seem to be so far apart on just the basic element of tax reform. how can any compromise realistically be achieved in this congress? >> well, i honestly don't see how we get there. back in the '80s there was a bipartisan agreement between president reagan and speaker tip o'neill, that the whole purpose of comprehensive tax reform was to make the country more competitive, not to raise revenue for the federal government. it's really clear now that the

president has even walk away from the commitment he made to us at lunch last year that lee's corporate taxes for him would be revenue neutral. i think i can speak for all of my neighbors. we think you have to do the entire code, not just corporations. because the vast majority of american businesses are passed through corporations. in other words, they pay tax as individual. so yeah, i think we are stymied. we are stymied by the desire of the majority to raise taxes again, and that's not what most people think. >> is that dead on arrival speak with one telling is the only reason we got anywhere in the '80s is the bipartisan agreement about what it was about. it was about making america more competitive, about getting that tax rates down. simplifying the code. it's not about raising revenue for the government. so yeah, i think we have a real stumbling block year in trying to figure a way for but i will take one more. >> [inaudible] pre-sequester

level. before the sequester kicks in. is that something you'd be open to or would you -- >> i know it won't shock you to know that we didn't come here to negotiate today. we'll talk about all of this in the fall. but i think the single message ought to take out of this vote from republicans is that we believe the bipartisan commitment we made a year and a half ago is important. and we ought not to be walking away from it. that's what this vote was about. thanks, everybody. [inaudible] >> so there you go. republican leaders in front of reporters on capitol hill. now recessing for the joint caucus meeting, a barbecue. the sun is out again in washington, d.c., so that should be a good occasion for that event.

and senate did not close debate. they were not able to obtain the 60 votes to limit debate on that transportation, the bill that they were working on. so when they come back they will give it to the nomination of samantha power to be u.n. -- u.s. ambassador to united nations. that vote, the nomination vote for that scheduled for 4:00 eastern. so as we wait for the senate to return we will start from the beginning with that segment of this mornings "washington journal" for you. >> host: scott garrett is to do. a republican congressman from new jersey and he's a member of the budget committee and the financial services committee. that morning. thank you for being here. the colors have been knocking congress as -- >> guest: why would they do that? >> host: the "washington post" has this cartoon that speaks to this matter. spot the differences, they say. see if you can even find would forget the picture of congress in recess and congress in session. guess what? the pictures look exactly alike.

what you make of all this bashing of congress heading into the break? >> guest: so, not a good sign. never good for the public have a degree of confidence in their elected representatives. but certainly an understandable one. when you have had so much squabbling over the issues, when you can't get things done, that's the refrain when i get back home into new jersey. why don't you guys come together and resolve these issues. and everything went to them the promise of this the promise of is the coming years ago back to the budget issue and say, it's hard to reach an agreement if i write down his my proposal and come to the table like this and then waiting for the person on the other side of the up to come to the table with his proposal. if he doesn't come to the table or doesn't, with some specific inviting that we can compromise on our reach middleground, you are not going to get anything done but that, of course, is an example with the budget in for a half years or five years without any budget coming from the

senate whatsoever. we had our document that had nothing had our document. that nothing of is the meaning of the minds. >> host: the headline here is republican fiscal split the rest are talking about congressman harold rogers who chairs the appropriations, transportation and housing bill pulls off the floor. not enough supporters a lot of the riders say this is, doesn't bode well for the rest of the budget process. and that the republicans are basically fighting with each other and maybe a painting paul ryan's budget. >> guest: let me address that in reverse order. know, maybe, and sort of the. so no, are we defending paul ryan's budget? i'm on the budget committee, been there for 10 years and i supported the work for this time and in the past as well. i don't think we're abandoning that at all. i saw chairman roger's comments in the paper. i think that with the comments of a frustrated because he's got

to be frustrated having done all the work based upon the ryan budget and what we all came around and agreed upon, and then at some point in time i guess leadership new that they just werwere too close onto those. that happens. the republican party is not a monolithic party, and some was that the democratic party is. you can sort of see they work off of one set of talking points and they can get that done in one sort of benefit we get disagreements and disputes be wary conservative caucus, probably more conservative than anything that i've ever been here, and that's a good thing because it leaves us on the right direction with regard to fiscal sanity and fiscal stability. but there are going to be some disagreements. i guess on one particular bill there are folks who made the case they want more money, for anthrax or for this or for that. my guess is that sooner rather than later when we come back we will work out some of those differences and we will be able to go back. >> host: we invite your questions and congress for scott

garrett, republican from new jersey. represents the fifth district of new jersey come and town called glen rock and newton. what part of the state treasury the nicest part of the state. it's the top of new jersey. i describe from river to river from the hudson river to the delaware river. >> host: our guests than 10 -- he's a member of the budget committee and the financial services committee in the house currently. so the president went to the hill yesterday, to this house and senate democrats separately. what do you make of the president's current posture on negotiations? he won't nutrition on a day sitting, what he called a manufactured crisis. what do you make of all that traffic i saw the president actually. got to say hi to the president for a brief passing moment. what to make with regard to his posturing? i would guess posture is probably a good word but it is just posturing by the president.

in other words, we are not hearing anything new from the president. he's going around the country in what some people have described as campaign type events, and not really saying anything different than he has in the past. i give you an example at the start of the program about having, or wanted to reach an agreement with the other side on these things and having to have some specifics but we haven't gotten anything more from him and talking points. you may remember the last cycle, cbo, congressional budget office's course things. they said with regard to the present, they said we cannot score a speech. neither can we. we can't put a figure on the speech. we can't put a figure on it campaign some program or speak. we need them to engage in washington what we are in washington in these matters but if we do that then i will be a little more optimistic that those initial collars in this program would turn around and say things are getting done. >> host: one that i would forget to the calls.

what can you point in terms of success? where's the positive in your view and what is your biggest frustration right now? >> guest: reverse that. so the frustration is what we've been talking about, not being able to get more done. success is the fact we have moved some of the appropriation bills, moved some of those. through the process. i served as you point out on financial services. we moved a whole slew of bills bolster our subcommittee, through the full committee and now off of the floor as well, since and over to the senate. the financial service round to try to provide some sort of certainty if you go to the marketplace, the financial papers in front of you. one of the words i always do when i talk to main street or to wall street is there's not enough certainty in the markets right now. not in a certainty in all the regulation. so we've done a lot in that area, and we did it to a point,

common theme, discussion and a bipartisan manner. we moved a lot of legislation jointly out of our commitment to the floor bipartisan. >> host: first call to the congressman, mary, independent. >> caller: good morning. fiscal insanity is paying a ton dollars a year for welfare, and another 50 to 100 billion extended unemployment. these people sitting at home, you have callers before talking about wanting to get back to work. why in the world is president obama talking about jobs, yet he's not talking about taking out 7 million illegal workers that are doing not agriculture jobs. it makes no sense that we, or excuse me, that people are pushing for amnesty for the illegals here. all of them will get work permits, or most of them. that's insane. you don't add as coming in a, 11

to 18 million more people with 14 to 22 many people are looking for work. >> host: thanks for calling. congressman? >> guest: the caller makes a good point. it's a complaint i hear back in my district that unemployed in the country is still too high as something has to be done about it. we have passed a number of peace legislation for the two jobs to try to turn tha the situation around, as with a lot of our legislation goes to th the senae and is the senate and has always said the senators were all good bills go to die. the call also makes the point as far as with regard to immigration. that is one of the frustrating aspects about that as well. >> host: in any reform, we don't have reform with regard to immigration, we have to look for our focus is first and that should be here, the united states and the citizens of this country and their concerns. this caller, she may be out of work or knows people are out of work. we have to be concerned about them first and foremost.

>> host: will you hold down on these and i was? >> guest: sure i would be going out and doing those sort of things. august is also a time for county fairs up in our neck of the woods. so we will be at them. there are almost their own town hall meetings right there. you walk around, you're at literally tens of thousands of people at the fair and they turn into many town hall meetings if you will. >> host: "usa today" headlines. facing heat at home on immigration. do you think he'd on immigration or heat as they put on anything else? what are those town meetings like? >> guest: so, people are, like the previous color, people are upset. people are concerned. people who are at work themselves are very concerned. people who know family members or others are very concerned. if you want to call indeed, whether it's at the county fair or you're going to the amp just shopping or it could be an official event or you are just that with her family. people will approach me because

they recognize my face i guess i don't have to be in the district. i can be over in manhattan on business or something else there and people say, i know you, i see you on tv and i know you're a congressman. they will bring up these concerns to you as well. so you get it wherever you go. and the concerns are about the economy, about jobs, about the uncertainty in the marketplace. people are concerned about the families. they want to make sure they're going to kenya to have a, be able to pay their job -- and and education expenses on the sofa. that's the we are about. >> host: a headline from economic growth defies the economic growth defies figure to write a gdp increased at 1.7% annual rate in second order much faster than many expected. what does that mean to you? >> guest: they see as expected, and then if you look at it, the previous article and maybe a day or a week ago those projections were less than expected over all the economy continues to be in a sluggish

state. unlike any previous recovery period passed a recession because one of the worst recession of course we've had since the great depression. if i had a charger i which a charger i woul which is that wea series of other recessions since the great depression. and if i had a chart they would show that after each one of those prior recessions, you had an uptick in the market place but an uptick in the economic development at a much greater rate than it is right now. so this one little article right now, the positive, but overall we're doing much worse than ever in the past history. >> host: rosemary, republican for congress than scott garrett. >> caller: good morning. going into the long six-week break, what budget negotiations will be taking place by staff during this long break in order to get back on task immediately in september to avoid a crisis, the end of september with the budget, especially with the

administration trying to demonize anyone and everyone all around the country every single day on trips? >> guest: that's a pretty good question. the caller recognize the fact that even though we are out back doing town hall meetings and the like washington in reality doesn't shut down. that status to hear it comes to negotiations and conversations can still continue on. paul ryan author takes the lead on these things with regard to budget. i have not, i can't speak for them, can't do you what his schedule is but i anticipate that he is not going to be removed from this entirely for the next six weeks by a long shot. and so that can continue. but in order for that to really occur we need to have a better indication from the administration but right now they're taking the position of its their way or the highway, that we have just continued to failed policies in the past. his proposal from the president's proposal right now is he was once to see taxes go up and spending to go up as

well. and a negotiation to with regard to tax reform and the like to that's the same platform he said all along and that's part of the same failed policy. you have an article like this they were still in a sluggish economy. repugnance to want to increase taxes, and we know that if i fiscally sane fiscal policy can keep increasing spending. >> host: a short piece of tape from patty murray, senator from washington, democrat who runs the budget committee over there upon negotiations right now. >> he made it very clear that he was not going to negotiate over the debt ceiling. we have got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis in his words, and then onwards. and that we are going to fight hard to make sure that we continue to manage our country in a way that makes middle-class families feel secured. >> host: crisis to crisis she brings a. we can manage that way. what does that make you come just in terms of the stability of the country as you go about your business tragedy the word i

used before and always use is uncertainty. the reason that there is so much uncertainty which then with the other problems is because we do a crisis management approach in washington. at the very start a program you mentioned i served in the state government before i was here your people often ask this question, what's the difference between being in state government and in the federal government. one of the difference i noticed after being a few years is that washington come every week you come down here, it's another crisis that you're dealing with. in state government you may have one large issue and find after much wrangling on it you will come to a resolution and solve it or move on. in washington every week we have come every week we cover and it's the next big explosion to past week did with the preparation for next week it will be something else. that's not a good way to govern for the country if you want to uncertainty. what we should be doing is working in a more sustainable

pattern where you actually sit down with the president is not out to across the country campaigning them sit down with senate leadership that are actually in to work and pass bills, and then you in some of the crisis management. another point, you have the chart, that cartoon saying what the congress looks like, one that is working in one that is not working, the only thing i would beg to differ at with you on that is the difference between the senate and the house. if someone in the file. because you could look and say, actually the house has passed, actually house for all its flaws and problems that we have, the house action has passed a whole series of a piece of legislation and whether it's my area financial services or dealing with health care or otherwise. there you go. we've passed them over to the

senate. so maybe what the post should've done was have a cartoon that shows the senate, it's hard to figure whether they're in session or not. because you -- >> host: let's hear from gaveling in chicago. democratic. what's on your mind? try for a few things. i want to start with you. i thought yours was be neutral when your guest comes on. you said the president is posturing or what you think republicans are doing what's been going to get off of this. it tickles me do the republicans did you all go into a room at night because all of you all come out and say the same thing. in different ways. you know, if you all would work with this president, and i'm a citizen of this country, and i vote. if you all would work with this president, even though you don't like some of his bills, you all could never come up with a build yourself. you always breaking down this presidency and what he's not

doing, like you did with the health care. if you all and spend much time working with this president and trying to get this country back like it should, as you spend trying to repeal a bill that is law, supreme court said it was law. you all voting on something 40 times and that causes us -- cost us money. >> guest: so, appreciate the colors, but i'm not sure whether she has been watching the program for the last 10 minutes. because as you know i said repeatedly i would love to work with the president, but the president has not been willing to work with us. let me give you a little inside story and i will show you notes. with regard to her that she talked about. way back when this was first being discussed, the president said over and over and over again, republicans have zero plans, no plans whatsoever with regard to health care reform. and he said sometimes it was in the press. that's why the caller probably a single republicans have no proposals.

well, the day the president came to congress to make that speech can once again to say he has his plan for a formal health care act, republicans have no proposals and he wants to work with us. i went in early to congress that day and i got a seat right on the aisle. and so after the speech was over and the present was duncan he walks down the central i -- aisle, he walks a lot of i stuck my hand and said i appreciate the fact that you want to work with us, so do i. and in my hand was about a 30 page document which was a litany of all the republican ideas, proposals and legislation on health care and i said mr. president, you said we have no proposals. here they are. let me hand and to you personally and i would love you back from you so we can work on this. so i was happy, i was there. i dedicate a cop smiled and said, thank you very much. that was several years ago. since that time has continued to go on the news and what i do afterwards and republican

senator rick proposals even though i had to be too. i have never back from the president saying yes, he wants to work with us on that. so i respect the college of you on it but the facts speak otherwise that we had had proposal to we have tried into discussion. he has not been willing to do so. he is not here in the city all the time that we are here to give out campaigning again chicago, maybe elsewhere. in order to get the job done he has to be here in the table with is not talking to the democratic conference where he was yesterday. i saw him running over there. he doesn't need to be talking to them. they are within. a need to be coming over talking to us. >> host: lots of headlines this morning on your specific work. one of them comes from the president's visit to the hill, winning his choice, obama offices to party -- although he said no decision has been made. for the first time he offered up the names of three possible successors to ben bernanke. larry summers, janet yellen, the feds vice chair one, and a

former fed vice chairman but what you know about these people? do have a particular choice in mind? >> guest: i don't. not at this point in time. i appreciate his throwing out some other proposals there. this is what i've heard want to go back to i was a main street in addition to wall street and talk to folks who deal with this issue all the time but and i deal with them as well. what i find is always interesting is the man on the street. they are a little concerned of the fact in washington is not based upon merit necessary, it's based upon politics. it's not based upon how well you can do the job, but how well, you know, somebody. so you look at the very top of the list and it's really not an issue of hypocrisy. in other words, can never do the job is just the fact that these people are, or some of these people are politically disconnected. we are a country of over 300 million people. maybmaybe for once because we wl put politics aside, not pay some of the best friends, actually

look out there to see who can perform this job the best, have the best credentials. >> host: independent, thank you for waiting. >> caller: thank you. i'm from new jersey. i don't hear your accent. [laughter] >> guest: i don't hear yours either. >> caller: i'm retired in florida now but i had to get out of there. 5000 there's a year for taxes. too much money do i pay 500 here. >> guest: isn't that something? incredible. tranfourteen the, what i was getting at, what i wanted to ask you is everybody is yelling about these poor kids and the senior citizens that they are on food stamps and a shouldn't be on food stamps. they need to work. how does a five year old child work? that's the question. and number two, if they have the minimum wage rate, because if you realize how much it cost to rent an apartment or buy a home, you would raise the minimum wage so that these people could get

off of welfare. i don't understand, i don't get it. can you explain that to me? >> guest: let me give it a shot, okay? on the minimum wage aspect, would that be true that we live in a world that you can get -- silva said take the current minimum wage and doubled or tripled or whatever and everything else would stay the same, but that person would now make 25, 50%, twice as much as he was before. the economics of it just doesn't work that way. in other words, if you're a small business owner hiring somebody currently at minimum wage, right, you have to look as the owner of that business, can you affor afford to keep them ls say you have 10 employees all at minimum wage, can you afford to keep all of them on if you double the salary or whatever, increase their salary bucks studies have shown that if you do make these increases in minimum wage and what that

employer says byla by law i've o raise these people are currently employed by x percent, but i can't afford to keep this one or this other one or two other people on, it's just too much money coming out of the bottom line. so this issue, not mine but independence day should look at minimum wage increases and say that generally what happens, especially in the service industry and the like, that when you raise minimum wage some people see their salaries go up, those people are fortunate to keep their jobs that other people get kicked out of the employment system entirely. they lose their job. they get fired and the into being on unemployment. so dilution is not just having a government system saying you have to pay ask for a job. the real solution is trying to have a system that people can actually get out of this minimum wage job. you don't want to be in a a minimum wage job your entire life that you want to get out of that, move up the economic ladder rungs of the ladder can't get a better paying job so you are now, a year or two from niger getting better education,

go to college, so on and so forth. to get out of that situation and into a better situation for you and your family as well. >> host: there's a question by twitter. was is that you peace proposal on food stamps? what can you tell us? >> guest: that is still in a state of consideration. there is not a final decision on that. i think there's going to be probably some discussions that are during the august break so we'll take a look at it. the caller probably recognize that congress doe isn't that hat been done in decades with regard to the so-called farm bill. the farm bill used to be clearly informed the. i have in my office some old life magazines from the 1950s, and they talk about the farm bill comes as the big bill for the congress. back in the 1950s, the father was a farm bill. all that they'll with was programs dealing with farmers.

a couple decades later it changed from a farm bill to a food, toward welfare bill basically the farm, assistance to farmers for the programs but also well for for people in the form of, for food. and no food stamps, welfare portion has grown larger than the farm bill. so what happened was this congress, we bifurcated can we split can we get those two apart again and said we bill just them with farming issues and made some reforms and eliminate some of the subsidies and what have you. now we are getting with the food stamp provision and trying to find some reforms in those programs as well. >> host: republican, good morning. >> caller: how are you doing? seems like and their sever problems going on. one is the house has to hold the purse strings. they are the last defense we have to getting our population enslaved in dead in a grandkids into. and i thank you for that job.

the other thing is the speeches the president makes are not just speeches. there's across when he is the way things. summer of two a trillion dollars, without the approval of congress. and then goes back with a bill. the other thing is like a student in college, if he goes and gets his tuition paid, do we owe him for 10 trips and drinking parties and things like that and then come back and say, usage would pay for my college. the other thing is like on sandy, to get that through, $1 billion, we have to put 10 billions of pork in their for all the people who want to add on. that's just telling us. i'll hang up and hear your answer. >> guest: a whole bunch of points in the but i guess the overarching theme of his call was how do we reinstate fiscal sanity into washington, d.c. he's right, the president has continued on his tour talking about all the new programs that he would like to have icky doesn't really say how he would

pay for them, save for the fact is willing to raise tax on the other day which is always easy do. i will gladly accept a new programs myself if i can raise taxes on you. that's not going to work. we are already at near record highs as far as records of gdp when it comes to taxes. what we need is bobby with a blunt who is watching this program does, and that is to live within our means. we are in a city right now, this business can't spend more than it takes in. i can't in my budget. your colors at home can't be that as well. washington has been doing that for way too long, spending more than they take in. and so appreciate the colors accolades. that's what republicans, conservative republicans in a seven-time do if trying do is to try to reestablish us on a path of fiscal stability. it's nothing more complicated to say this is what our revenues are coming in from all the graces sources and we should not be spending more than that.

it's not for our benefit that we do these things but for our kids benefit of a grandkids benefits. because the axis that we spend the day is, the burden of that is borne by hugh? our children are now about $17 trillion in debt. a baby that is born today has, what is about $52,000 in debt already just because being born in the and it was office didn't. >> host: wonder if present a bit on the minimum wage. shouldn't keep up with inflation? >> guest: as i said before, the problem with looking to the minimum wage as a solution of bringing people out of poverty our benefiting their situation, it's a false analysis of how to do it. minimum-wage job is probably going to never be sufficient to support you, yourself and your kids and everybody else and stay out of poverty. so what you need to visit okay,

minimum-wage jobs, entry-level jobs, and opportunity for young people to get into the system, or older people for retirement purposes, extra income. should be an entry-level job and to provide education programs and others like that to move out of that so you eventually get a better lifestyle and support yourself. raising the minimum wage, study after study shows simply actually hurts people who are the ones who have been fired because the business can't afford at. >> host: why is congress and obama not going after wall street? they sure are. trillions in terms of endless bailouts to corrupt bankers. >> guest: so here's one the interesting things. did the caller say why washington and the present? >> host: yes. >> guest: good. a lot of people thought the present was taking one side and republicans the other side on this thing. but you're right, in a bill

called dodd-frank, legislation which was so called dodd-frank, which was so-called wall street warm which the present support and the democrats passed, that actually put into statute the bailout system for wall street. some of us oppose that bill string as they say no, we should not be bailing them out. i voted against the president's proposal to bail them out when we spent hundreds of billions of dollars but i did not support the idea that we should bail out and effort. that's almost $200 billion. but i was opposed to all of that. unfortunately, the presence initiative, barney frank was in the cost of the time, codified all of the spending and support for wall street in the past and i have in law a system that will do next and the crisis comes along, effectively take taxpayers money and bail them out again. we are trying, my committee when working on it is trying to in the bailout to washington and the bailout to big business and not allow them to look to the

taxpayers to ever do this again. >> host: wonder new information, and matter from "the associated press." edward snowden has been granted a one year temperate asylum in russia. this is according to adler. is reported by the russian news agency. a call from ibm, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to know, how can you republicans sit up there and say that obama is out on the campaign trail? you all said, we all heard from your party that you are going to do everything you can to bring this man down. but you're not going to bring him down. you are bringing our country down, because he will get paid for the rest of his life but the people here, hard-working people, you are denying them the right, passing bills to help the public. it's not hurting obama. it's hurting us. >> guest: i guess the facts

speak for themselves but all you have to do is look where are all the, has to look to see wha whee the president has been recently, and he hasn't been in washington engaged with the republican leadership. he's been, look in the news. where's he been? he's been out flying around the country holding, doing speeches. that's not how you negotiate. that's not how you come to an agreement. he can have one opinion and i can have another opinion, but if he is out someplace else and that's what he has been, you're not going to go to bring the two sides together. the other problem as far as -- >> we'll break away from this recorder program, take you live now back to the u.s. senate, just back in from a party caucus recess. the business at hand we understand the nomination of samantha power to the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. live coverage of the senate always you on c-span2. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. leahy: i'll tell my friend on the floor i'll be very brief and i ask consent that my statement follow that of chairman and ranking member of the foreign relations committee. but i wanted to say that i strongly support the nomination of samantha power to be the next u.s. ambassador to the u.n. i told the president that i'm very pleased with his choice. she's born of irish parents, raised in ireland, that's not the only reason that i support her, i think of her schooling at yale and harvard, her pulitzer prize winning book, "problem from hell," all of these things, she's a person of exceptional integrity, extraordinary intellect, strong

moral compass, an internationalist. i know hat at the national security council she brought much-needed attention to human trafficking, gender-based violence, but people may be less aware of the devotion she has to the principles on which this country was founded. she's an american patriot. she not only strives to ensure the u.s. leads by example at the united nations, but do it in a way that honors our constitution. i know others will speak for her, some against her. but to those senators of either party who have at times differed with this administration over foreign policy, or who may doubt the importance of u.s. support for the united nations, you should talk with her. you'll find no one better informed, no one more not willing to listen to other

points of view and ultimately no one more persuasive than samantha power. i ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: i ask unanimous consent to speak for four minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: mr. president, fellow senators, i rise today to introduce a bill called the idaho wilderness water facilities act. this is a bill that is identity to the house version, h.r. h.r. 876, which was introduced and carried through the house by my colleague from idaho, representative mike simpson, who did yeoman's work in pursuing that, on putting it together and shepherding it through. it passed unanimously in the house. ycht to thank him on behalf of all idahoans for his work on this issue. the need for this legislation is

simple. the frank church river of no return wilderness area design natured by congress in 1980, abuts the bitter root area designated by congress in 1964. these areas contain some of the largest and most rugged, remote tracts of land in the lower 48 states. it's magnificent, it is in beauty substantially better in my opinion than the alps. there are a number of water diversions within the idaho wilderness areas that have existed since the time of this legislation since the time that these wilderness areas were established. although the diversions continue to exist, the owners currently lack authority to maintain and repair the facilities. predating the existence of these two wilderness areas, private landowners had received permits to maintain and repair water diversions that exised on national treft -- existed on

national lands. included but not limited to drinking water for private cabins and ranches and for generating electricity in some places on a small scale. many of the permits have since expired leaving those who own the water diversions without any options for mechanically maintaining their water systems. in some cases, this lack of management threatens the environment and the watersheds in which they exist. the idaho wilderness water facilities act would give the secretary of agriculture the authority to reissue and issue special use authorizations to the owners of these diversions diversions -- diversion facilities within the frank church and the sellway weldness areas for the continued maintenance of their water facilities. the permits only would be issued if the owner could prove that the facility existed prior to those lands being designated as wilderness.

the facilities have been used to deliver water to the owners' lands since the nation and -- designation and the owner had a valid water right and would not be practical to move the facility outside of the wilderness area. undoubtedly in exercising the discretion, the secretary would ensure that it would no way denigrate threes wilderness areas. there are several individuals or businesses that have water diversions in these wilderness areas that meet the description that i've given. earlier this week the senate committee on energy and natural resources held a hearing on h.r. 876. the united states forest service appeared at that hearing and testified in support of this bill. i look forward to working with chairman wyden and ranking member murkowski to pass thnl quickly so as to allow for the maintenance of this water infrastructure. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i understand there is one hour available in opposition? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i would like to speak in opposition to the pending nomination. i want to take a few minutes to discuss the nomination of ms. samantha power to be the ambassador to the united nations. let me beginning by saying she is an impressive person, clearly very intelligent and already accomplished much in her career. however, i do have three concerns that i wanted to take a moment to highlight today. the first i got to tell you has to do with concerns that i have about her unwillingness to directly answer questions i personally posed to her during her confirmation hearing in the senate during our foreign relations committee. i asked her about statements attributed to her in the past alleging that the united states had committed crimes, quote-unquote it needed to reckon with.

i raised it to give her the opportunity to clarify by either pointing out examples of these crimes or to clarify what she meant by those comments. instead she kept avoiding directly addressing my question. she kept saying that america was the greatest country in the world and that she wouldn't apologize for america. i don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about those statements and i do not think it is unfair to be concerned about the fact that we are sending someone to represent us at the most important international forum in the world who thinks the united states has committed crimes that it needs to reckon with. i believe that i and members of the committee deserved an enter to this question but instead what we got in response was a rehearsed line and i got to say it was a missed the opportunityr all of us and say that these statements she made in the past and her inability to answer or address them raise questions about her judgment although let me be clear i certainly do not question her patriotism. but second i have an even greater concern that she's being

appointed by a president whose foreign policy is fast becoming an utter and absolute failure. from the crisis in the middle east to strategic uncertainty in asian to -- asia and a country that is harboring a fugitive and a traitor who has done damage to the u.s. national security i believe the world is more dangerous and uncertainty than when president obama took office. increasingly important our foes are willing to challenge us. even more troubling those who seek to emulate us, who desire the freedom we all enjoy are left to fend for themselves with little american support. a strong, engaged america has been good for the world and for the american people. when america fails to lead, the result as we see in syria today, is chaos. a chaos that allows others with goals other than our own to fill the void we leave behind. history taught us twice in the last century that even if we put

our head in the sand and try to ignore the world's problems, those problems will not ignore us. i realize the american people are weary of war. we've paid a tremendous price in lives and money in the war on radical islamic terrorism. but to follow the advice of those including some in the republican party who advocate disengagement from the world would be a terrible mistake. if we follow their advice we will only pay a higher price in the long term. let me be clear that does not mean that america can solve every problem or get engaged in every civil war on the planet. we have highways voises here too eager to engage in every conflict on the planet. we need to be very careful about when, where and how we engage american forces overseas. but isolationism on the one hand and hyper vint yengs are not our only -- hyper intervention are not our only options. there is a third option and it

is this: up with based on the idea while the united states cannot solve every problem in the world there are very few problems in the world that cannot be solved without the united states. if a problem can be solved by using an international forum like the united nations, that's fine. but more often than not the u.n. can't and won't confront the problem. in the end the truth is america is still the only nation in the world able to form and lead coalitions to confront evil and solve problems. it is still the only nation on earth able to keep the seas open for trade. it is still the only nation capable maintaining the safe balance of power in asia and around the world. still the only nation capable of preventing rogue nations from becoming nuclear powers and capable of diminishing radical terrorist organizations who plan to kill americans at home and around the world. we should be careful when we get involved. foreign aid is not a one-way street and should be conditioned

and based on our national interest. military power should be employed judiciously. but we cannot pretend if we ignore our enemies they will ignore us. we must be involved. and when we get involved we must make sure not just that we're doing at this time right way, we must make sure that weemb doing it at the right time because sometimes acting too late is worse than not acting at all. and when we do get involved, it's okay to be motivated by humanitarian concerns. but the primary objective of our foreign policy must always be to protect our people from those who do or may one day want to harm us. this is the kind of clear strategic view of america's role and of our interests that should guide our foreign policy. it is the kind of clear strategic thinking that this president has failed to lay out. and as a result what we see all around us is failure.

the president dithered on syria. we should have tried to identify secular rebels early in the conflict and made sure that they were the best armed and the best group on the ground. but instead the president decided to lead from behind and allow others to decide who to arm. and the result is that today it is rebel groups linked to al qaeda, foreign fighters, not even syrians, who are the best armed and equipped groups within syria. now i feel syria may be headed toward becoming like afghanistan before 9/11, the premier operational area in the world for global jihadists. the president entered office with the belief we could convince iran to become a responsible nation by quite, frankly, being nicer hem them. he wasted early years in his presidency not giving the iranian threat making and now

they could one day threaten the united states. i would be remiss if i did not point out in 2009 he missed an the country to clearly stawnd -- the tiewntd to stand on the side of those protesting a stolen election because he did not want to interfere in the sovereignty of another nation. the president also wasted time thinking that the cause of radical islamic terrorism was partially because george w. bush hated in the muslim world. despite his speech in cairo, despite his efforts to close guantanamo, despite his elimination of the use of the term war on terror, al qaeda continues to hate america. and even as i speak to you here today, they continue to plan attacks against america here and around the world. the president's not alone in failing to confront these threats. i'm afraid because of the success we've had in preventing another attack on the scale of 9/11, some of our leaders in

both parties have been lulled into a sense of false security. i certainly support the privacy rights and expectations of all americans. but my colleagues, i also know for a fact that the surveillance programs that our government used have prevented attacks and saved american lives. i think it's a mistake to dismiss privacy concerns as crazy. after all, we have a government whose tax collecting agency targeted americans because of their political views. but it's also a mistake to exaggerate them. after all, if a known terrorist is e-mailing or calling someone in the united states, we better be able to know who and where that person is. if osama bin laden had been calling someone in the united states on their cell phone, i promise you it wasn't a stockbroker. we better know because these people are still plotting against us, and not if but when they strike again, the american people are going to turn to us

and ask us, what has the federal government been doing to prevent this? we better have a good answer. because we live in a very dangerous world, one, by the way, where our enemies aren't just other countries anymore. our enemies are rogue states and their well-armed militias and radical clerics. this kind of danger calls for a clear strategic vision on foreign policy and this president sadly does not have one, which brings me to my third and primary concern about ms. power's nomination and it is one that is related to the united nations itself. we need an advocate in new york who makes it their primary focus to ensure that the united nations is more accountable, that it is more effective and that it efrbs u.s. interests and -- serves u.s. interests and is not a multilateral ideal in which we put our hopes. if she is confirmed i hope she does become that type of

ambassador but i have not been satisfied of this administration's willingness to tackle these issues, to ensure every dollar going to the u.n. advances america's interests. and i think congress needs to play a more active role in forcing this very much needed change to occur. what i'd like to do is spend a few minutes highlighting legislation that i introduced to this effect. i'm pleased to have as cosponsors senator cornyn, senator risch, senator flake and i hope more colleagues will join this effort. i'm not the first person to raise concerns about the effectiveness and the utility of the united nations. former senator john danforth, who was serving as our ambassador to the u.n. in 2004, when the u.n. general assembly couldn't pass a resolution condemning human rights violence and violations in sudan, said at the time, -- quote -- "one wonders about the utility of the general assembly on days like this. one wonders if there can't be a clear and direct statement.

one wonders if there can't be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle, why have this building? what is it all about? . quote. anyone who followed the u.n. closely especially in recent year as the security council failed to respond to the crisis in syria, as more than 100,000 syrians died and hundreds of thousands more have been forced out of their homes across borders, straining all of syria's neighbors leaving behind a failing state that is about to become a safe haven for global jihadists, all the people who share these concerns and seen this happen, they should be asking the same question senator danforth asked back then. in the midst of this horrific crisis, the u.n. has been -- has even been unable to achieve con is he u.s.s. on the issue -- consensus on the yew of whether to allow humanitarian organizations to provide cross-border support to tens of thousands of syrians struck in camps facing frequent shelling and attacks from the assad

regime. and just as we're troubled by this inability to tackle the world's toughest problems, we should also be angry about the enact for decades more human rights criticism at the u.n. has been directed against israel than against actual human rights violators and the u.n. agencies and organizations that have employed tpwhraeu tent antismite -- blatant antisemites or recipients of foreign aid only voted with the u.s. only one-third of the time and such support doesn't currently factor into u.s. decisions about who receives our foreign aid or the fact that the world's notorious tyrants are allowed to serve on the human rights commission or human rights council rather than being condemned by it or by the fraud or mismanagement that pervaded the u.n. peacekeeping operations including abuses and exploitation of the very people those peacekeepers were sent to protect.

or by the security council resolutions on iran and north korea that members of the u.n. willfully violate as we recently saw with the panamanian capture of a ship transferring weapons from cuba, one rogue state, to north korea, another one. or by the proper life racial of mandates -- proliferation of mandates that have clouded the administration's effectiveness. but let me be clear. i'm not here to argue we don't need the united nations. ideally we would have a united nations where the nations of the world would come together and seriously deal with north korea and iran and radical islam and human rights. but the u.n. we have right now is incapable of any of this. it's basically become a forum for nations whose interests are directly opposed to ours, to block our efforts and use the united nations as cover. that's how north korea and iran continue to evade sanctions. that's how israel's enemies

continue their efforts to delegitimize the jewish state. that's how assad continues to massacre his own people with weapons built in and supplied by the russians. more than six decades after its creation, we still hope for a u.n. with resolve, a u.n. that acts with effectiveness and purpose. sadly, the u.n.'s persistent egts theubgs and -- ethics and accountability problems are limiting its role. until the organization addresses these important issues, it will continue to be ineffective and often irrelevant. americans should care about this more than any other people because we shoulder the primary fiscal burden of the u.n.'s budget. and our patience is not limitless. we don't believe in continuing to throw money at programs and projects that fail to accomplish their objectives. so my hope with the legislation that i filed is to provide an incentive for the united nations and the president and our ambassador in new york to

modernize the international body along a spirit of transparency, respect for basic human freedoms and defective nonproliferation. this legislation would also attempt to address the antisemitic attitudes that have become so prevalent in certain corners of the u.n. and seriously diminish the effectiveness and the credibility of the entire united nations system. at the core of these reforms that i propose is an effort to instill a sense of transparency and competition at the u.n. by its adoption of a budgetary model that relies mostly on voluntary contributions. the legislation would also strengthen the international standing in human rights by reforming the u.n. human rights council in a way that would deny membership to nations under u.n. sanctions designated by our department of state, state sponsors of terrorism or failing to take measures to end despicable practice of human trafficking. other provisions of the bill seek meaningful reforms at the

u.n. relief and work agency that provides assistance to palestinian refugees of the 1948 arab-israeli conflict. this legislation is needed because the structure and bureaucratic culture of the organization often makes it impossible or at best down right difficult to achieve meaningful reforms. in closing, for more than six decades now the united nations has served as an important multilateral forum to address peace and security issues throughout the world. but it has never been and it is not now a substitute for strong american leadership. when america fails to lead, the world becomes more dangerous. the united nations is badly broken, and i hope we will work to force meaningful transparency and accountability reform for

the u.n. p. but so far this administration does not seem very interested in doing so. and unfortunately, at least based on our conversations, neither does the nominee before us. and, therefore, until we begin to take some positive steps in that direction, i will not be able to support obama administration nominees who have not committed to significant reform at the u.n.. ms. power has failed to make such a commitment and, therefore, that is why i am voting today against her nomination to be our next ambassador to the united nations. mr. president, at this time i'd like to yield back the balance of the time available to me. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to speak on behalf of samantha power's nomination to be the ambassador to the united nations. as i said in the senate foreign

relations committee hearing which i chaired on ms. power, her appointment to ambassador to the united nations has come with much fanfare and with some criticism, which at the end of the day means she must be doing something right. and i think that in that regard, as i listened to my colleague, a member of the committee, express his reservations and his opposition to ms. power, i think we have to have some context here. when she responded this is the -- the united states is the greatest country in the world, and i will not apologize for it, it was her way of rejecting any characterization of statements that she made in the past. it was very clear to me. and i want a united nations ambassador sitting in front of the world who considers the united states the greatest country in the world and who will not apologize for the

united states before that world body. and she made it very clear that's exactly what she intends to do. now on accountability, you cannot achieve accountability at the united nations if you do not have a u.n. ambassador there to lead the effort and accountability. and on those questions where she was asked by several members, are you committed to making the united nations a more accountable organization, not only did she say, yes several times in the affirmative, but she gave examples of how that accountability can be achieved. we need an ambassador to pursue accountability at the united nations. and finally, i agree with my colleague that when america fails to lead in some critical times, we leave a void in the world. but we cannot lead if we do not have a united nations ambassador raising their voice and their vote on our behalf on some of the critical issues of the day.

and so this nomination is critical to pursuing the national interests and security of the united states. and i think whatever my colleagues might think about her nomination, i don't believe anyone can question her considerable credentials or her years of service. certainly no one can question her willingness to speak her mind, especially her willingness to speak out on human rights issues around the world. as a war correspondent in bosnia, in the former yugoslavia, rwanda, and sudan she has as shied in her pull -- pulitzer prize winning book seen evil at her worst. i know her voice will be heard around the world should we confirm her. while some of us may not agree with everything she has written and said during her extensive career as a journalist and

foreign policy professional, she has been a tireless defender of human rights and has seen the tragedy of human suffering from the front lines firsthand, and it has given her unique perspective. in her role at the national security council she was clearly involved with u.n. policy towards the united nations. she knows the u.n. strengths, its weaknesses and how it operates. at the end of the day the united states needs a representative at the u.n. who will uphold american values, promote human rights, secure our interests and the interests of our national security. i have every confidence in samantha power's abilities to do exactly that, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. personally, i am incredibly appreciative of the principled position she has taken on the armenian genocide, her belief that we should use the lessons of what clearly was an atrocity

of historic proportions to prevent future crimes against humanity is a crew -- view consistent with my own. and i agree we must acknowledge the past, study how and why atrocities happened if we are ever to give true meaning to the phrase "never again." as the son of immigrants from cuba, i appreciate her commitment to exposing cuba's total disregard for civil and human rights. and i respect her for not idealizing the harsh realities in cuba. i know from a conversation we had in our office that she appreciates the suffering of the cuban people, the torture, the abuse, the tension and the abridgement of civil and human rights of those who voice dissent on to the castro regime. and i urge her to reach out to the daughter of a long time dissident and activist who died under mysterious circumstances last year as his car was bumped

off the road and i look forward to her fulfillment of that commitment. mr. president, at the end of the day it's fitting that someone with ms. power's background represent american interests and american values of the united nations. in the words of the u.n. preamble it was created -- quote -- "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person, in equal rights of men and women of nations large and small." who better than samantha power, a recognized advocate of the fundamental rights of every human being to be our ambassador to the united nations? if confirmed, her focus will be on the crises you don't juror -- pakistan and others and the nature of nations that emerge from the air be a spring. as she is meeting those challenges, she will also be engaged on human rights across the world, on fighting h.i.v., aids and pole low in africa.

on the status of talks to resolve the crisis in cyprus and human rights in sri lanka, and finally let me say that ms. power, during her nomination process, has repeatedly expressed steadfast support for the state of israel during her hearing, in her testimony, and individually to several members of the committee, including myself as chair. she has promised to stand up for israel at the u.n., and i know she will. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that a letter to the committee in support of ms. power from six bipartisan former ambassadors to the united nations be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mendoza-martinez calling on the senate to consider -- mandela callin mr. menendez: i urge my colleagues to support nominee. i know she will serve the nation well and with that,

mr. president, i'll yield the floor. mr. kaine: mr. president, i also rise to support the nomination of ms. power to be ambassador at the united nations. i had a unique opportunity as the junior member of the committee that my friend chairman menendez chairs. i left that day with a couple of reactions. first, very proud to be an american and, second, concerned about the challenges that the institution faces. first i think it's important for us to realize, for whatever its flaws, the united nations would not be in existence if not nor this country. it is a quintessential idea to pull together an organization that tries to solve global health needs and bring peace.

woodrow wilson won the nobel prize for trying to get the league of nations. that league lasted for 20 years and collapsed, for many reasons, including the united states's lack of participation. the american idea stayed alive and in 1939 the state department within two years after the collapse of the league started to work on the next version. f.d.r. worked on this during his entire presidency and was scheduled to have the first conference to organize the united nations two weeks after his untimely death in 1945. one of the -- the second decision made by president truman in 19445 -- the first was to keep f.d. res cabinet -- was he was posed with this. after f.d.r.'s death, we can pose the meeting in san francisco about the u.n. truman said we're going to go ahead because this is something for america to lead.

in good times and bad and in the very controversies that senator rubio described earlier on the floorks this united nations has worked hard to do good, has worked hard to achieve an ideal that may be impossible. it is a tribute to the u.s.'s view of our role as a global leader that the united nations exists today. but i was also struck again by many of the challenges, the challenges of a tough globe, the challenges of u.n. problems in the ethics and finance arks and the challenges that confuse many americans as we look at the u.n. principally those reefe referrey senator menendez, a history of anti-semitism at the u.n., that confusees us as we watch t and so what are we to do with this institution that we birthed more than any other nation that still offers great hope and service every day and yet needs significant change? i think what we should do is put a strong person in to be united states ambassador. samantha power is that individual. she has the strength to tackle

the challenges that need tackling at the u.n. she's had the career as described by earlier speakers as a war correspondent, a writer, somebody who has snuck across borders to take photos of atrocities in darfur and then bring them to the attention of the world. her writings and her activism have inspired generations of activists around the world to tank the cause of human rights. she has been the president's senior advisor on matters in the united nations in the last four years and just to focus on this issue, here's what ms. power has done in this role to help deal with this issue of anti-semitism in the u.n. and the double standard in the treatment of israel: she worked to ensure the closest possible corporation, champion efforts to stand up against attempts to delegitimatize israel. she was key to the u.s. decision to boycott the deeply flowed durbin-2 conference which became an event to crit site israel. she helped mobilize efforts for

the u.n. sanctions against iran. and she's opposed unilateral moves in the u.n. that could undermine prospects for a negotiated peace agreement between palestine and israel and how hopeful we are at the developments this week and we pray they'll go forward and find positive possibility. this is the achivityivity that she's in in the u.n., helping in the u.n. while she was not the u.n. ambassador. i want her in that seat so she can carry forward on those initiatives and others. sheetion a championed efforts to protect percent u persecuted ch. she's helped spearhead the creation of new tools for genocide prevention and led efforts to combat human trafficking, all values that we can be proud. i said during her hearing that

the one thing that made me scratch my head a bit about her when i heard that she was nominated is i think of her primarily as a very blunt and outspoken person. and blunt and outmoney is is not always the -- and outspoken is not always the best job description of a diplomat. but in the case of athe united nations with the challenges there, the challenges needed in financial reforth the challenges needed to push back against some history of anti-semitism, the challenges of ethics and other issues, we need blunt and outspoken at the u.n. we need the kind of strong leadership that samantha power would provide. i think of many united nations ambassadors. it's been an "e "a list of peop. we can think of many, but the two i think of most when i think of samantha power i think of because they're irish-american, strong united nations

ambassadors who stood proudly for the values of this country, who gave no quarter, who were good diplomats but didn't hesitate to call the truth whenever and whenever they saw it. i think samantha power will do exactly the same thing. that's why i urge complietion to support her nomination. with that, mr. chair, i yield the chair back. mr. menendez: mr. president, i appreciate my distinguished colleague from virginia's remarks phs he is a very thoughtful member of the committee and i appreciate his remarks on behalf of ms. powers. with that, i yield back all remaining time and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: