view, is not defensive. restoring these benefits is the right thing to do for job seek,and the smart thing to do for our economy. the very modest $300-a-week modest benefit which our bill restores helps workers stay afloat and covers the necessitienecessaryas they sear. that modest benefit gets pouched right back in the economy like the local supermarket or gas station. it is common sense. people will get this, i hope, this benefit, and they will go right along and take care of the daily needs of life. they're not in a position to stash it away, and they are not in a position to do anything. they will try to stay afloat in very difficult financial circumstances. unemployment remains stubbornly high in my state and across the united states. the march employment report, while positive, show that we still have much more to do to strengthen our economic recovery, especially for the

10.5 million americans looking for work, including the 3.7 million of the long-term unemployed. and again, this benefit we propose is particularly directed at these long-term unemployed americans. that's why this is a critical effort in our attempts to restore our economy, restoring these benefits. we have never let these benefits lapse when long-term unemployment rate is higher than 1.3%, and today it's nearly twice that, roughly 2.6% of long-term unemployed. we have acted on a bipartisan basis, on a fiscally responsible basis, on a basis that recognizes not only the needs of families but the need to help further grow our economy. now it's time for the house to act that way -- responsibly both fiscally and responsibly to our neighbors and our constituents and on a bipartisan basis to get this bill done quickly and get

it to the president. so it is my hope that the house of representatives stops blocking this. it's fully paid for, fiscally responsible, bipartisan effort. it is what every one of our constituents says we should be doing more of, responsible, thoughtful, bipartisan legislation. we have done our part in the senate. now it is up to the house. madam president, i hope they move quickly, this week indeed, to get this relief to millions of americans. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise today to take a look back on the evolution of our federal budget. over the past years as we moved from deficits and debt not seen since the years surrounding world war ii to current budget predicament which still involves deficits and debts that are far too high. the federal deficit in fiscal year 2009 was nearly 10% of our economy. this is due partly to efforts to battle the financial crisis and partly to the ineffective and reckless spending measures like as the so-called stimulus. since then the deficit has fallen and from the rhetoric of the administration and its allies here in congress you'd think the deficit reduction has been accomplished almost exclusively through spending cuts. indeed, in an effort to demonstrate his reasonableness in calling for even more tax

hikes, president obama offer touts the -- quote -- "unquote tough spending cuts that have taken place under his administration. of course after spending ballooned in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to almost a quarter the size of our entire economy, it eventually had to be curtailed. and with the recovering economy along with tax hikes engineered by the administration and its allies in congress, deficits have admittedly come down. unfortunately, however, as the nonpartisan congressional budget office has told us, the deficit reprieve will be short lived. the c.b.o. tells us clearly after 2015, the deficit will rise again and as a consequence federal debt remains on an unsustainable path. madam president, as the c.b.o. and every credible budget analyst has made clear, our fiscal path is unsustainable because our entitlements are

unsustainable. that means social security, that means medicare and medicaid, that means the affordable care act. we know that those programs cannot be sustained in their current trajectories yet the administration and its allies refuse to do anything about it. the senate democratic budget left entitlements virtually untouched. the president's budget offers little in the way of structural entitlement reforms necessary to put these programs on sound fiscal footing. in fact, with his latest budget, president obama has even retreated on reforms that he has offered in the past. but let's look back on how our budget has evolved over the last few years. if you listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle and their supporters, the federal government has significantly scaled back on spending which they say is responsible for almost all changes in the federal deficits since the outsized deficits in the fiscal

years 2009 and 2010. we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle about how they've -- quote -- "slashed"-- unquote spending. we hear about -- quote -- "austerity"-- unquote as though it is something inherently evil. for example, in june of 2013 the left-wing center for american progress said that -- quote -- "we have enacted about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction with about three quarters coming from spending cuts unquote. in march of this year vice president biden's aide wrote in "the new york times" we have generated $2.5 trillion in deficit savings with 77% coming from spending cuts." and in february of this year, the senate budget committee chairman wrote to her senate democratic colleagues that since august, 2010, we have had -- quote -- "$3.3 trillion in deficit reduction put in place over the last few years," unquote, with 70% claimed as

coming from spending reductions. now, depending on who you listen to, deficits have been reduced by $2.5 trillion or $3.3 trillion or maybe more. no matter the number, the claimed reduction stemming from spending cuts usually ends up at around 75% or more. that would mean that deficit reduction has been accomplished by a 3-1 or higher ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes. of course, all those deficit reduction and spending reduction claims represent promises for the future, and they are measured relative to some artificial so-called -- quote - "budget baseline" -- unquote -- or yardstick which can pretty much be anything that you want it to be. pick one yardstick and you get one result. pick a different yardstick and you get a different result. but, madam president, it has been recorded that in fiscal

year 2009, the federal deficit was more than $1.4 trillion or almost 10% of g.d.p. at the time. also on the books is that in fiscal year 2013, i -- a most recently closed fiscal year, the deficit was around $680 billion or just over 4% of g.d.p. at that time. therefore, the deficit reduction we have seen between fiscal years 2009 and fiscal year 2014 which is a four-year period, has been about $735 billion. that's not 2 be $.5 trillion. that's not $3.3 trillion. the larger deficit reduction numbers are derived almost entirely from future promises to reduced spending, promises that we're pretty darn sure are never going to be kept based upon all

of the past history of this country and the democratic party, by the way. once again, in terms of real actual deficit reduction, the number comes in at roughly $735 billion. now, keep in mind, all the rhetoric about deficit reduction consisting of 3-1 spending reductions to tax hikes. well, if that is what we have enacted, you would imagine that those ratios would have been at least somehow reflected in the deficit reduction realized over the past four years or so. if not then, let's be clear that they are only promises to reduced spending, promises that the current and future congresses can undo with a stroke of a pen. if past experience is the norm, you can count on it. you can count on undoing those promises. i have been -- i have been in the senate for -- this is my 38th year. i have heard countless promises

to rein in spending in the future, and the fraction of those promises that have ended up being kept is very, very, very small. promises notwithstanding, let's go back over the past four fiscal years and see what has happened. like i said, from fiscal year 2009-2013, the deficit has gone down by $735 billion. no one really disputes this, certainly not my friends on the other side of the aisle who have used this number as justification for turning their spending engine back to full throttle. now, given all that they said about spending cuts having been responsible on a 3-1 basis for deficit reduction, the question becomes is 75% of the deficit reduction we have seen over the last four years attributable to spending cuts or austerity? the answer, madam president, is not even close.

the $736 billion of deficit reduction has been accomplished with $670 billion of increased revenues, and only $63 of spending reductions, which on the basis of $3.5 trillion of annual spending is reduction of below 2%. i will say that again. the $735 billion of deficit reduction from fiscal year 2009- 2013 has been accomplished by and large through higher tax revenue. specifically, more than 91% of the deficit reduction has stemmed from higher taxes and less than 9% from reductions in spending. well, madam president, less than 9% of deficit reduction stemming from spending cuts is a far cry from the 75% or more that my friends on the other side of the aisle claim. yes, those claims were based on

promises of future spending reductions and budget projections and yes those claims are based on carefully crafted budget baselines or yardsticks that my friends creatively construct. all of this is future that we all know never come to pass, but if we have enacted budgetary changes aimed at reducing deficits that involve anything with a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts and tax increases, then you think it would have at least started to show up over the past four fiscal years. as i said, however, it's not even close. of course, some of the revenue increases have reflected the economy recovering from the recession to its current state which by the way remains sluggish. but the 2013 numbers begin to reflect recent tax hikes engineered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. and moving forward, we can expect even more revenue to be extracted interest the economy

from the tax hikes, including the higher tax rates that were passed last year in the fiscal cliff deal along with the myriad of taxes included as part of the affordable care act. we have already seen in fiscal year 2014 through february federal tax revenues hitting a record high for the first five months of the fiscal year relative to a similar period of any past fiscal year. yet, even as the revenue gushes in, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to double down with even more tax hikes. and let's not think for a minute that their demands for higher taxes have anything to do with reining in the deficit or reducing our debts. instead, the proposals for democrats are even more spending, more redistribution and an even more bigger government. the president's recent budget is exhibit number one. of course, you won't hear it

being called inefficient and wasteful government spending. no, you will hear about -- quote -- investments, unquote. you won't hear the term redistribution. no, you will hear about the wonderfully egalitarian goal of -- quote -- fairness -- unquote -- as judged by the norms of democrats. and you won't hear about big government controlling an outsized and increasing share of economic activity in our country. no, you will hear about how virtually every private sector company in virtually every speck of the economy acts beautiful, out of greed, without regard for others in search of tax loopholes to exploit to the detriment of the middle class. madam president, once again it is clear from the budget data already in the books over the past four fiscal years that the vast majority of deficit reduction, more than 91% of it has come from increased revenue

extracted from the private sector. less than 9% has come from any kind of spending restraint. those are facts. those are numbers on the books. those data do not depend on c.b.o. projections. they don't depend on picking a baseline, and they don't rely on budget assumptions. what these numbers tell us is that virtually none of the so-called austerity or slash spending that my friends on the other side of the aisle have pretended to endure have incurred in the real world. madam president, as we continue to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle about how our budget challenge has faded away and about the trillions and trillions of deficit reductions -- deficit reduction that has been accomplished through spending cuts, let's keep in mind our recent track record. that record is clear. i'll say it again just to make

sure the point isn't lost on anyone. the spending restraint we have seen since the outsized spending sprees in fiscal years 2009-2010 has been minor. the vast majority of deficit reduction we have seen to date, more than 91% of it has resulted from increased revenues. and the past four fiscal years have shown no evidence of the ongoing promises of 3-1 spending cuts to tax hikes. we do not need to increase taxes yet again. we've already done that. we do not need to declare deficit and debt victory and turn the speeding spigots backs on to maximum flow. our fiscal challenge remains where it has been for some time now. we have unsustainable growth in our entitlement spending, and we need to discuss and enact structural reforms to our entitlement programs in order to put them and our fiscal position

on a more sustainable course. democrats, of course, have other ideas. for instance, take a look at page 33 of the president's budget. the document discusses the future unsustainable deficits and debt and alludes to a large tax increase that is undefined. here is what it says -- quote - "even with reforms to medicare and other entitlements and tough choices, we will need additional revenue to maintain our commitments to seniors." unquote. like i said, my friends on the other side never tire of asking for more money from our american people, never tire of it. for example, both the president's budget and the budget proposed by senate democrats last year envision revenue increases of over a trillion dollars. that apparently is their answer to the entitlement question. not reforms, not structural changes but -- quote -- additional revenues, unquote.

if you're going to try to fix our entitlement problems entirely on the revenue side of the ledger, it's going to take far more revenue than what my friends on the other side of the aisle have previously proposed. if that's the route they want to go, they should at least be honest with the american people about where the revenue will come from and who will be paying for it. the american people deserve to know these things, and i think it's about time our friends on the other side explained it to them, but don't count on that. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. flake: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: madam president, we heard news a we can so ago that the united states government through the agency for international development was conducting a program in cuba titled susuneaeo, an seampt to set up an alternative twitter account and the attempt was certainly noble, to increase access for ordinary cubans to information that would help and assist them. i have no issue with programs like this. i think overall they are good.

the more that we can have people have internet access and meaningful content is a good thing. but i and many others do have an issue with the agency for international development, usaid, undertaking this program. usaid's mission is to help with humanitarian needs and promote democratic development around the world. it need not, should not engage in covert or in their case, they're saying it wasn't covert, they're calling it discrete. either way, it casts suspicion on other activities that usaid is undertaking around the world. we're in some pretty tough places around the world, usaid is, delivering supplies into south sudan, for example. we work with people in syria, not within the country but just outside of the country. we work in many dangerous parts

of the world and the last thing we need is suspicion cast on usaid where people think that it's an arm of the c.i.a. it just shouldn't be done. i think usaid does great work around the world, it shouldn't involve itself with work of this type. with regard to cuba itself, like i said, i think our goal should be to make sure that cubans are better informed, that we have increased contact and that we have more american influence there. that, madam president, could be most easily forwarded by simply allowing americans to travel to cuba. that's the only country in the world where we have a policy that you have to get a specific license or only certain classes of people are allowed to go there. that simply makes no sense at all if our goal is to make sure that the cuban people are aware of what's going on in the world, that they get real

information outside of the government sources, the government in cuba denies the cuban people the ability to get good, meaningful information. we ought to be all about making sure they have access to that. but the best way to do that is simply allowing americans to travel there. we do that with other repressive regimes around the world. it's been said i think freedom house has iran as the only government that is more refrict strictive, more authoritarian, more repressive than the cuban regime. yet we allow americans to travel to iran. iran, the iranian government may restrict who can come in as will the cuban government, i am sure once we lift our travel ban there. but that ought to be their province. i've often said if somebody is going to limit my travel, it should be a communist government, not my government here. and so i would just call as we review this program and as we

talk about it in the coming weeks we -- we had a hearing this morning with the head of usaid testifying about it, i hope that we simply keep in mind that the best way to help the cuban people have access to information and to have contact with americans and to be subject to american influence and freedom, economic opportunity is to allow americans to travel freely there. that would do more than any program that we could install, any program administered by usaid, the state department, the c.i.a. or anybody else, just allow americans to travel to cuba. with that -- mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? i'm going to make a statement in the nature of a question since we discussed this this morning. we had a lengthy discussion in the foreign relations committee, about this twitter project, whatever it was and whether it was wise and i think the consensus was if it opens up

the cuban people to other ideas and more information, it's a positive thing. and you and i discussed afterwards the fact that there are other things we can do, and i think you've just alluded specifically to them on the floor and i want to associate myself with your thinking on this and hope that after some 50 years plus, some fresh thinking on our foreign policy in terms of cuba may lead to what we ultimately want and that is giving the cuban people an opportunity to be part of a real democracy and have real freedoms. isn't that right? mr. flake: that is. i thank the gentleman and i yield back and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to instruct the sergeant at arms --. the presiding officer: is quorum is not present. mr. reid: i move to instruct the

sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does my is that right wish to vote or wish to change a vote? if not, the yeas are 55, the nays are 37. the motion to instruct the sergeant at arms is agreed to. a quorum is present. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer:

mr. leader. mr. reid: we're here this -- we're here this afternoon because republicans are holding up confirmation of two important nominations. earlier today, the senate voted to invoke cloture on michelle freidland, ninth circuit court of appeals. so the only question is, when will she be made a federal judge on the ninth circuit? there are some who say the 30 hours should run so they can speak for themselves on why they insist on doing so. there's no question that it's not to debate the nominations, it's just to do nothing, stand around here and do nothing. few, if any, senators have come to the floor to express any reason to oppose this good wom woman. she was nominated nine months ago by president obama so it's time to confirm this well-qualified nominee. enough obstruction and stalling has taken place. she graduated second in her

class at stanford university law school. she clerked for sandra day o'connor on the supreme court. she's been a partner in a prominent california law firm. ninth circuit is the busiest circuit in the entire country. the senate confirmed 18 of president bush's circuit court nominees within a week of being reported out of committee. now, this woman, i've already indicated, that was 13 months ago. we have 30 other judicial nominees pending on the calend calendar. we have 85 vacancies on the federal courts. there's no reason to delay this nomination. there's no reason to delay the nomination of david weil to lead the wage and hour combination at the department of labor. -- division at the department of labor. he went to boston university, harvard university researcher. so, madam president, it's i'm sure a little difficult for people watching this to ng to understand why the republicans

demanding that we waste time because that's all it is. but i guess the american people have become accustomed to wasting time. that's what they've tried to do for five years. we have wasted because of stuff like this, the staff has to be here, we've wasted so much time that we could be working on important issues. the republicans come to the floor, we want amendments. madam president, one reason we don't do that kind of stuff is because we spend so much time on this. we've wasted thousands of hours during the five years and that's really unfortunate when they've been so -- stalling so much. so i ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:00 today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form, that at 4:00, all postcloture time be yielded back on the senate -- i'm sorry, and the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar 574.

further, following disposition of the nomination, the senate proceed to vote on cloture of executive is dairy number 613. that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back, that the senate proceed to vote on the nomination. that if confirmed, the motion toe railroad be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nomination be placed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: reserving right to object and i would offer an alternative. but before i do that, i'd like to say to my colleagues in the united states senate that, first of all, there is controversy about this nominee. let's make that clear. and, second, the majority leader said maybe the people of this country don't really understand what's going on. they understand what's going on. we're working under the rules that the majority changed by

ignoring the rules of the united states senate in november. so as the majority leader knows, we have not yielded back postcloture time on judicial nominations since the so-called nuclear option was triggered last november. we have followed the rules of the united states senate, the regular order, on all judges before the senate in the last five months. just exactly the way the rules were changed in november. so there are 30 hours of postcloture debate on this nomination. therefore, i would ask if the -- i would ask if the consent could be modified so that the vote on confirmation would occur at 5:30 p.m. monday, april 28, when we return from the april recess. this would allow the senate to process the pending cloture nomination on the wage and hour nominee.

nominee this afternoon and set that confirmation vote also for monday when we return on april the 28th. that's the alternative that i offer to the majority. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: will the majority leader so modify his request? mr. reid: i reserve my right to object. madam president, this is not a -- obviously this little exchange here is not a dissertation on logic because if it were, why in the world would we want to waste 30 hours doing nothing? and that's what we're doing, 30 hours. and i know that my friend from iowa has been on the judiciary committee a long time and i appreciate all that he's done. but it's apparent that the only reason the senator from iowa expresses the delay is for del delay. no other reason. now, i may have missed it and there could have been someone come down and talked about what

a bad person this is or why she's not qualified but i must have missed that. i've heard little, if any, opposition. in fact, i've heard none to this nominee. i've heard only obstruction for obstruction's sake, delay for delay's sake. as has been going on for five years. it appears that the senator wishes his caucus to be the caucus that just says "no." and that's what they do. so, madam president, i object to the modification. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: reserving the right to object and i will object. but just to remind everybody, when the majority leader says that nothing's being done on judges, we have confirmed 233 judges and only disapproved of two and so don't ever try to sell the american people on the idea that the senate is not doing its work on getting judges approved. i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. reid: as i indicated, this is not much in the way of logic here. we have had a lot of judges approved after wasting hundreds of hours of time doing nothing. we have judges reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously, led by our good friend, the senior senator from vermont, the chairman of the committee, who does such an admirable job. they're reported out unanimously and they stall, the republicans stall, delay, obstruct and then we have a vote here and it passes very easily. their only purpose for the delaying is for delay purposes, for delay's sake. they're objec obstructing this s they've obstructed everything for the last five years. and i know people complain, madam president, about the rules

change that was made. where would we be in this country without having changed that rule? i got a letter today from the secretary of defense, chuck hagel, outlining nine important people in the department of defense that need to be confirmed. most of them have been without anybody there for more than a year. we have numerous ambassadors to important countries around the world and they are not being confirmed because they're being stalled. why? why couldn't we have these people go do their work? they've been nominated. countries all over the world are without ambassadors from the united states. where would we be had we not changed that rule? now, we're -- it's -- we're slogging through these rules -- i mean, these nominations, it's kind of slow because of the inordinate amount of time that we're caused to eat up.

but the longer that my friend from iowa talks, the more reason it is that maybe we should have changed the rules more than what we did. so unless something changes, we're going to vote tomorrow at 5:00 on three -- we'll have three votes here at 5:00 on friday. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. mcconnell: i think it's important to put all of this in context. my good friend, the majority leader, broke his word last year when he said we had settled the issue of what the rules were going to be for the senate for this -- for this congress. he then broke the senate rules in order to change the senate rules, setting a very unfortunate precedent, and continues to abuse the senate rules by using the device called filling up the tree to prevent members of the senator from his party and from our party from even offering alternatives. and despite this heavy-handed behavior, he expects the minority to simply expedite

consideration of, in the case of the matter we're just discussing, lifetime appointments. as the -- senator grassley's pointed out, we're simply exercising our rights under the rules of the senate. i might say, many of these nominees would have been confirmed last december had we not experienced this event perpetrated by the majority in a heavy-handed attempt to alter the balance, to change the nature of the senate with a simple majority. it was an unfortunate decision. but those kinds of decisions have consequences. and all we've done here is exercise, as senator grassley pointed out, the rights that senators have under the rules of the senate. if the majority leader doesn't like the way the senate's

working, i would recommend he change his behavior. you know, we don't have a rules problem, we have a behavior problem. and i hope we can get back -- we've had a couple of examples of trying to edge back to normal here where we brought up a bill that was actually open for amendments, amendments were actually processed from members on both sides. but it seems of late we're sort of back into the old senate -- all we're about is just scoring partisan points, denying members the opportunity to offer amendments. i think most of our members on both sides of the aisle came here to be senators, which involves, you know, having your committee work taken seriously, having the opportunity to offer amendments taken seriously. this body when it was at its peak, operating the way it should under members of majorities of both parties, has been a more civil place in which rights were respected. so the senator from iowa, the

ranking member of the judiciary committee, is pointing out we're simply exercising our rights under the rules of the senate. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm a patient man, try to be. for my friend to come here and have the audacity to talk about my breaking my word. the trouble with that statement is we have the whole senate to see what happened. he said something, i said something, and that fact what he said is that we're not going to have all these filibusters on motions to proceed. now, for the viewing audience, we wasted so much time just trying to get on a bill. you see, it's not that easy. you have to file something in the senate.

you have to wait a day to get on the bill. if they object, and they object hundreds of times, it takes two days to get on the bill. vote, 30 hours, and then we're only on the bill. to get off the bill, we have to go through that process all over again. we have done that hundreds of times. there have been more filibusters on president obama's judicial nominations than -- far more than in the entire history of the country for other presidents. we have been a country for a long time, roughly 240 years. in that entire period of time, 235 years, there were -- there were more filibusters in five years of president obama by far than the entire history of the country. i went to new york and had the good fortune to watch a play. it was a wonderful play about l.b.j. that good man during the time he was majority leader for six years had to overcome one

filibuster. as majority leader in the senate because of this performance we have over here, i have had to overcome over 500 filibusters. this is for the country. it's not for me. we have been stymied on everything we've tried to do, everything. now, we know -- it's all -- it's public record now -- three days after obama was elected the first time, a meeting was held here in washington. it has been written up all over. karl rove called the meeting with others. and the decision was made that our goal is to make sure this man never gets re-elected. so to the credit of the republican leader, he said our goal is to make sure that he's never re-elected.

well, obama surprised everybody except us and was overwhelmingly elected by the american people. they also said in that same meeting the way we're going to stop him from being re-elected is to object to everything. that's what they have done. unprecedented in the history of our great republic. you know, i have been here a while. i know how people used to work together. well, you can't work together if one side says no to everything, and we have been able because of the good fortune we have of once in a while being able to piece together to work with the republicans. it's getting harder and harder to do, but we have been able to get it done a few times. so, madam president, to waste this time of the american people, and that's what it's done, to say there is some objection to this woman, come to the floor and talk about what's wrong with her.

from the finest law schools in america. the battle goes on every year, whether it's harvard, whether it's yale or stanford, they flip back and forth. it doesn't matter, she is a very fine academic. she clerked for one of the finest supreme court justices we've had in the history of the country, by the way, a republican. so what's wrong with her? what do we gain by holding this up? the country gains nothing. as i have indicated, we have about 140 nominations that are being held up over here. for my friend, the republican leader, to say listen, we would have approved them all in february -- i'm sorry, we would have approved them all in december, please, madam president, please. who in the world thinks that's -- there is a bit of credibility to that. so, everybody, i'm sorry. in 25 hours, i guess it will be, we can come here and vote on these people.

all we need is a majority, and that's the way it is. i'm so sorry for the inconvenience of everyone, but republicans know that for them it's pretty easy. they can just walk out of here. they don't have to be here. we do, because it's our burden to run the country. they can walk away and take their little trips and go home. we're not going to be able to do that. we'll have to vote and approve these two people. we have a very good judge we need to approve. we have somebody from the wage and hours department of labor whose job has been vacant for a long, long time. so i'm sorry for the inconvenience of members, but we have an obligation. we have been elected to be united states senators. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: just a couple of brief observations that are relevant to the point. number one, we've approved more judges at this point for

president obama than president bush had approved at the same time in his presidency. and number two, the majority leader has a curious definition of filibuster. the reason the majority leader has had difficulty getting on to bills is because as soon as we get on bills, there are no amendments allowed. you know, once you get past the motion to proceed, i would say to the people who may be listening who are not deeply steeped as i say in senate rules, there is a two-step process. you vote to get on a bill and then you're on the bill. what's happened, once we get on bills, the majority leader has made it impossible for members of his party or ours to offer amendments more often than the last six leaders combined. in other words, he gets to decide whether anybody's amendments are considered, either on his side or on our

side. that's what has degraded the senate. that's what has turned the senate into looking more like the house. in fact, i'm told that of late the house votes on more amendments than the senate does, and the assistant majority leader used to say -- and he was quite right at the time -- that if you want to vote -- if you want to have a chance to vote, come to the senate. that's what the senate is about. that hasn't been what it's been about in recent times. and so all it really requires to get the senate back to normal is for the one member of the senate who has the right of prior recognition, who has the right to set the agenda, to open up the senate, let members of both parties offer amendments. look, when we used to be in the majority, i would tell our members the price of being in the majority is you have to give the minority their votes.

it's an unpleasant experience for us, but that's the way the senate operates, and that's the way you move a bill to completion. i have thought -- and there were a couple of times this year when it looked like we were going to get back to normal. i still hope it's not too late for that. it would be in the best interests of the institution and best interests of both the majority and the minority to begin to restore the institution to the way it used to operate. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president? mr. mcconnell: i believe i have the floor. the presiding officer: i'm sorry. i thought you had concluded. mr. mcconnell: do i have the floor? mr. reid: i have the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader had not yet yielded the floor. mr. reid: i apologize. mr. cornyn: madam president, if you will yield? madam president, the majority leader has said there is urgent work that the senate needs to turn to, which is why we ought

to amend the ordinary rules of the senate which call for a 30-hour postcloture period. i would just ask the distinguished republican leader is he aware of any urgent work that the majority leader has planned for us to turn to that would be a reason to expedite this particular nomination? mr. mcconnell: i'm sure the majority leader will announce at some point what we're going to do next, but i'm not quite sure what that is at this particular point. mr. cornyn: madam president, if the senator will yield for another question, i would just ask the distinguished republican leader is he aware -- and i'm confident he is -- that the majority leader and other leaders of his party had a press conference last week, i believe it was, announcing their agenda from this point through the election in november, which involved things like the vote we had yesterday, vote on the increase in minimum wage, vote on extending long-term employment and the like, and i believe there was a quote in the article, if the senator remembers like i do, that basically said we're not

interested in legislating, we're just interested basically in posturing and politics to help distract the american people from the unpopularity of this president's policies and this party's policies. does the senator remember something to that effect? mr. mcconnell: i do. in fact, the senator from texas is entirely correct. there was a rather candid admission at a press conference that the whole agenda was basically crafted by the democratic senatorial campaign committee and that getting an outcome was sort of irrelevant. it was mainly about scoring political points for the fall election here on the floor of the senate. so if that's the urgent items the majority leader has in mind that would somehow be prevented if we had a vote on this judge on the monday after the recess, it is perplexing to reach the conclusion that this is a matter of great urgency for the american people if there is no interest whatsoever in getting an outcome.

mr. reid: madam president? mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i have heard my friend, the republican leader, come to the floor often and say why don't we work on fridays? madam president, most people work on fridays. now, i have -- i want to make sure i was right, but there has not been a single republican conference saying a single word about the ninth circuit, positive or negative. they haven't said a single word. now, a lot of words are being thrown about here, posturing. i wonder if somebody who is a long-term unemployed -- i worked a long time, and there is a profile -- they are not all this way, but somebody who is 55 years old, was laid off because of the recession and can't find a job, overqualified, overeducated, lots of different

issues but they can't find work. we decided that it was important that they get unemployment benefits, benefit extension. about two million people agree with that for sure because they are the ones who lost those benefits. i don't believe that's posturing. we voted on that and it passed here. i think you have to have five cloture votes to get there. because of some very strong-willed republicans, we were able to do that, and i admire those five who joined with us. they mentioned yesterday they didn't want to do it by name. they said something we did yesterday. that something we did yesterday, madam president, said that if a woman works the same job that a man works, that woman should be paid the same as a man. now, is that posturing? i don't think so. my daughter doesn't think so. my granddaughters don't think so. they think it's pretty fair that -- because we have more than half the people who are going to college now are women, over half the people in medical school and law school are women. shouldn't they be paid the same

as a man? is that posturing? i don't think so. but again, diversion and distraction from the issue at hand. they wanted to offer amendments on -- 350-page amendment that covered everything, in fact i said even the kitchen sink. they are not serious about this. they only want to move from what we're trying to do. now, do we have anything urgent to do when we get back? if we didn't have to go through all this nonsense, and that's what it is, we would be voting today on minimum wage, to bring more than 20 million people out of poverty, out of poverty. giving -- i'm sorry. a million people out of poverty, 26 million people would get a raise. that's what it would do. now, why did we pick the number of $10.10 an hour? because that gets people out of

poverty. it's really important, madam president, we understand that this is part of the mantra of the program that karl rove and others decided they would do five years or more ago. that is to oppose everything president obama's done. you cannot talk about what went on before because never in the history of our great republic have we had a party, a minority party that has determined to do nothing, nothing, hoping that it will get them the majority in november. we'll find out if their noble experiment works. that is, oppose everything and people will like us a lot. i don't think that's going to work. i would also say this, madam president -- we're here to do the work of the american people. is it right that we have more than