. >> mccaskill. >> aye by proxy. >> senator tester. >> aye by proxy. >> collins. >> aye. >> coburn. >> no by approximaty. >> senator brown. >> aye. senator mccain. >> no my proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. i tried to warn everybody. >> hey, that's good. >> senator paul? >> no instruction. >> senator moran. >> aye. >> senator lieberman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are 9. the nays are 0. on the vote by proxy, the ayes are 3, the nays are 4. on this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 4 and the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you. i thank the clerk. senator carper mentioned the word lunch break earlier, so it stuck with me. we want to try to move an amendment or two more before we break. let's see if we can keep it going. senator moran, do you have any other amendments? >> i have no other amendments, mr. chairman. thank you. >> okay. so now i just think about who is here. senator levin i believe has passed. we'll go to senator akaka for another amendment at this time. >> thank you very much. >> senator akaka? which one would you like to call

. >> senator mccaskill? >> i'm going to say no instructions. maybe we'll pass until we get clarity about the proxies. i don't want to cast a vote for a colleague without them being here. >> senator tester? >> senator tester? we're going to pass again. senator tester has a proxy. a no vote. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> aye by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no by proxy. >> senator mccain? aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye. >> senator moran? >> aye. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are two, the nays are six. >> can i ask the clerk to go back to the senators we passed. >> senator landrieu. >> yes by proxy. >> senator mccaskill. >> no by proxy. >> and senator brown has just appeared so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> senator brown? okay. mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the ayes are two, the nays are seven. on the vote by proxy the ayes are four, the nays are four.

. >> senator mccaskill? >> no. >> senator tester? >> no. >> senator begich? >> yes. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> no by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> no. >> senator portman? >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> no. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are eight. on the vote by proxy, the yays are zero, the nays are three. on this vote the ayes are five, the nays are 11. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i thank the clerk. thank you, senator akaka. of those here, let me indicate that next we'll go to senator johnson and then senator mccaskill. then senator paul, then senator tester, then senator moran and then senator begich. all of whom have amendments pending. senator johnson? >> thank you. i'd like to offer johnson amendment number one and only. i would -- like my colleague from kansas, new to this process, and as i studied the issue, there's pretty -- pretty eye popping charge here th

claire mccaskill speaks about our partisan successes. she is wondering when democratic leaders will move. will you tell them to move quickly on bills that are piling up? >> the problem is a practical one. when he brings a bill to the senate floor, unless there is agreement with republican members of the senate, we have unlimited debate and unlimited right to amend. that gets you to a circumstance where you cannot complete a bill. you wind up having to get cloture and 60 votes. people say, you try to cut off debate before i got my amendments. senator reid is looking at all of those problems and trying to say, can we maneuvered through the los? will there be enough cooperation from republican leadership and republican members of the senate to allow us to complete action on the bill if i bring a bill to the floor? he is the only was it who can make that judgment. it is a difficult judgment to make. some of his presidency is not because he does not support the bill. he would like to see them enacted. do we really have a chance to get them th

several senators including john kerry, claire mccaskill and joe mansion want the administration to adjust the rule. >>> john boehner addressed the controversy during his address at cpac yesterday, suggested it strikes at the heart of the constitution. >> what is ultimately at stake here is a first amendment right and fundamental american value that has stood for two centuries. one thing is for certain, this attack on religious freedom cannot and will not stand. >> mitt romney is also weighing in on this over the past several days, the former governor of massachusetts has repeat edly slammed the mandate, from the campaign trail. >> of course this effort with regard to contraception and the day after pill, and staerileatin is an assault, they suffered at the hands of not just the people in the catholic church but people of all faiths and they will have to retreat suffer enormous consequence. >> the rule being challenged in congress. marco rubio and joe mansion pushing legislation to allow religious organizations to opt out of coverage. stay tuned there. >>> a massive federal mortgage settle

. >> senator mccaskill? >> thank you mr. chairman and to the service to the country. as some of you know, i've spent a lot of time working on contract issues as a member of this committee and other committees, and i don't need to tell you what a huge piece of your budget contract and represents. the project on government oversight released a report last year that is the first in-depth analysis that has been done an ally of the cost of the personal services contracts as compared to the cost of a federal employee. the study showed that we are paying contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees, and that is including taking into account the benefits package that goes along with the cost of the personal cost of hiring the for allin -- the federal employees. we need to talk about freezing the employees' salaries but there's been very little difficult work of trying to roll down the cost of the contracts. secretary leon panetta with the reductions of personnel contained in the budget, what are you doing to ensure that reducing what's happened over

. >> senator mccaskill? >> no. >> senator tester? >> no. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> yes. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> yes. >> senator johnson? >> aye. >> senator portman? >> aye by proxy. >> senator paul? >> yes. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are 12. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> okay. senator akaka. you're next. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i want to offer akaka amendment number one, to strike title three regarding governmentwide workers compensation or feca reform. let me tell you why i'm offering this. feca reform should not be done in postal reform. most of the employees affected by this are not postal employees. and the savings expected from these changes would have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. feca has not been reformed in close to 40 years. we need to take a closer look at comprehensive reforms to make shush we get it right and we -- to make sure we

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe 2-1 in the senate as it has in the hous

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe two-to-one in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. they cite about jeopardizing critically needed jobs and how it could cost literally billions of dollars without a delay that again epa asked for themselves. it talks about serious legal uncertainty, particularly with the january 9th, 2012 court decision overturning epa's stay of the march 2011 rules as yet another example of the continuing marchias of uncertainty regarding the rules. inadequate time for epa to finalize the rules, let alone even read the thousands of comments that are coming i

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe 2-1 in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. what we've got now is, as some before me have said is deceptive. the thing that struck me when i got here is that when we were looking for savings in the house and the senate does it and both parties do it, but we're looking for savings eight, ten years down the road. and we count that as saving money. well, the truth is, we don't know what's going to happen eight years down the road. in fact, the congress eight years from now will decide what's spent eight years down the road. we don't have a clue

pass unanimously and force the conservative senators that are democrats from missouri like claire mccaskillster, the candidate to run in ben nelson's seat to take an uncomfortable position. >> kimberly: pivotal campaign issue. >> bob: think it will get 60 in the senate? >> andrea: i do. >> bob: it could be vetoed. >> kimberly: i don't think president obama anticipated he would get this reaction. >> andrea: how bad of a visual vetoing that -- >> bob: you think it's bad at it is. it's not comfortable all the way around for a lot of people. i think biden will exercise some influence here and there will be a way out. >> kimberly: somebody better do something fast. i'm telling you, like the nature channel around here from the crickets, crickets, crickets. obama is not saying anything about it. >> greg: the real issue is the economy. finally obama has good news. and he is wasting time on this. this is what an ideal logg looks like -- idealogue looks like. >> eric: there it is. there it is. >> bob: let me finish saying this. this is something that to us is absolutely sacrosanct. it goes beyond wha

claire mccaskill complained he is received an invitation in the mail to apply for the program.lly though she is a multimillionaire. >> bret: new research by the university of colorado shows the earth's polar ice is melting less than previously thought. the guardian report scientists use satellite data to determine himalayas and nearby peaks lost no ice in the past ten years. the findings reportedly stunned scientists who maintain that despite the unexpected results, "the new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way." finally, more bad news for former democratic presidential candidate john edwards. his trial surrounding campaign finance violations over money used to hide a sexual affair, was delayed after his lawyers revealed edwards has a serious heart condition. now newly filed finance reports show the presidential campaign spent nearly $900,000 last year. even though he dropped out of the running in early 2008. the money went to airfare, hotel and legal fees. despite a ruling from the federal election officials that edwards still owed tax

you think claire mccaskill is going to go near this?ee the president becoming more and more committed to the progressive cause. have you got to wonder and this is the key question we talked about the top of the program with callahan, maybe americans want the nanny state, miller. you know, you and i, the reason i like miller and put him on the show in the first place is because miller is from pittsburgh. >> what? >> bill: is he from pittsburgh. >> regular guy. >> bill: worked his way up. his father was a regular-working just like my father. all right? so we did it. >> we don't need the nanny state. we don't want any part of it. i think miller the country is changing, millions of people want it. >> let's see. let's get it on in november. >> there is an odd chance what might do barack obama in is not the big overture. you remember the movie war of the worlds billy. the space ships were cutting us up left and right. we dropped an a bomb on him. cedric hard wick told us what did them in was the microbes. the smallest of god's organisms. i th

portman 1505, toomey toomey-mccaskill, 1472, inhofe 1500, mccain 1471, leahy-cornyn 1483, coburn 1473t, 1488, grassley 1493, brown of ohio 1481. as modified. that all other pending amendments be withdrawn from -- with the exception of a substitute amendment, that the time until 2:00 p.m. be for debate on the bill and amendments with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 2:00 p.m., the senate proceed to votes in relation to amendments in the order that i have just listed. there be no amendments or points of order to any of the amendments prior to the votes other than budget points of order. that the following amendments be subject to a 50-vote affirmative threshold -- paul 1487, collins collins -- following amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative vote threshold -- paul 1487, collins side by side to boxer 1489, boxer at 1489 as modified, blumenthal 1498, toomey-mccaskill, inhofe 1500, leahy 1483, demint 1488, grassley 1493, brown 1481. further, that the coburn amendment 1473 be subject to a two-thirds affirmative vote threshold. th

the answer is six -- manchin, gillibrand, mccaskill, menendez, something else casey.ocrats. ♪[music plays] ♪[music plays] ♪[music plays] purina one beyond. food for your cat or dog. are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. >>> let's bring back the chair. straight up politics of this contraception issues. the white house is insistent that in the long run they're going to win this fight. >> they're counting on that the outrage will pass, it does resurface all those old issues at how good is president obama if he can't handle a simple process. >> they clearly had a smart debate about it, snowing the pros and the cons of this, but where was the implementation. >> own it, just own it. this is a winning issue for democrats. let's boil this town, it's the 21st century. contraception is respected. this is such a winning issue for independence for women voters. if the democrats own this, bring this fight on, e

is the crossover states, cross brown and dean heller need crossover vote john testers and claire mccaskille rates have their own money on the >> i love this survey from the sawn light retention talk bus staff retention rates from members of congress, what do we learn in the highest staff retention rate, actual staff on the hill, michael capuano, the average rate, 64 the lowest, betty sutton, 19% did some things confirm what you knew about somebody that they can't hold onto staff, they are kind of an erratic member of congress? >> surprises on that list, betty sutton, for one. she is vulnerable but i don't think it is because necessarily she has a high staff turnover. she was redistricted into a seat with a republican incumbent nearby. >> michele bachmann, 29%. not a shock, right? >> it tells you all circumstantial, right? i think of rick larson in washington state and three of his staffers were drinking on the job and bragging about it on twitter. of course he fired them i don't think voters going to hold it against rick larson that happened. but also can feed into a bad reputation if an i

as you may know, i've got a bill with claire mccaskill that would ban all earmarks.story that the "washington post" has written about. and certainly it does create the impression that there are members who may have used earmarks to further their own. and in the past this has happened. so we've got a temporary moratorium, but it can be subverted. it is only in place for another year. i think we should institute a legislative ban. and the republican leadership in the senate voted with me and claire mccaskill in support of my amendment. i'm not going to give up on this, we lost the vote last week, i'm going to introduce this amendment to the highway bill that we're going to take up later this week, and i hope we can pass it because i gragree, need the institutional reform. >> joe and dr. sachs. >> let's talk about mitt romney's problems. obviously you and i have been critical of our own party over the past ten years for spending too much. too many deficits, too high debts. sort of the big-government republicanism we don't repeated over the next four years. is that mitt

senator mccaskill. >> thank you, thank you for your service to our country. as some of you know i spent a lot of time working on contracting issues as a member of this committee and other committees, and i don't need to tell you what a huge piece of your budget contracting represents. the project on government oversight released a report last year that is the first in-depth analysis that's been done in a while about the cost of personal services contracts as compared to the costs of a federal employee. that study showed that we are paying contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees. that's including taking into account the benefits package that goes along with the cost of -- personnel costs of hiring a federal employee. i think there's been an awful lot of talk around the senate about freezing federal employee salaries and cutting the number of federal employees, but there's been very little real difficult work of trying to hold down the cost of personal services contracts. secretary panetta, with the reductions of d.o.d. personnel

. >> senator mccaskill? >> thank you mr. chairman and to the service to the country. as some of you know, i've spent a lot of time working on contract issues as a member of this committee and other committees, and i don't need to tell you what a huge piece of your budget contract and represents. the project on government oversight released a report last year that is the first in-depth analysis that has been done an ally of the cost of the personal services contracts as compared to the cost of a federal employee. the study showed that we are paying contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees, and that is including taking into account the benefits package that goes along with the cost of the personal cost of hiring the for allin -- the federal employees. we need to talk about freezing the employees' salaries but there's been very little difficult work of trying to roll down the cost of the contracts. secretary leon panetta with the reductions of personnel contained in the budget, what are you doing to ensure that reducing what's happened over

if you're claire mccaskill in missouri, you're thinking, are you kidding me?ut unemployment in missouri, not contraceptiv contraceptives. >> i think that's why he's not. >> stay on the defense, and his side will be on the defensive. >> chris matthews is staying with us. eugene -- >> you write a column twice a day, what are you writing? >> i'm writing about mitt romney. i wrote about mitt romney this morning and i asked what's at the core? >> define something? >> what is your belief set. i haven't found it yet. i failed this morning to find it, but i'm going to keep looking. >> dangerous headline, gene. put romney in the headline, you're going to lose readers. >> oh, god. coming up -- >> it's boring. >> god, chris. >> wow. that's tough. >> you know gene will find a way to make it scintillating. >>> the moderator of "meet the press" is coming up, david gregory and historian and reagan biographer craig shirley joins us on the set here in washington. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car repla

am worried things could get worse this year if even one senator, like missouri's democrat claire mccaskillill negate the gains made over the last 20-plus years. yes, these strides have been made and in their lifetime, my students have only seen a diverse of for example secretary of state, madeleine albright, hillary clinton, condoleeza rice. our counterparts have elected women as prominent leaders. take margaret thatcher or angel merkel and ellen johnson sur leave to name a few. how can we change this balance? what kind of world would it be if the number of women in power was greater or equal to that of men? who better to speak to me than the first female leader of union theological seminary in its existen existence. dr. serene jones. how is that for messing with your scheme-a imt thanks for being my new apple this morning. >> i thought for sure we'd see eve up there. >> look at you with the apple and eve. indeed. >> you have a invited thee loej a n to the table. i'm interested in the question of what we imagine in our heads, what we see in our heads impact our ability to imagine what our

senators tester, mccaskill, baucus, blunt, grassley, hoeven, enzi, and scott brown, senator scott brown already have joined senator thune and me as original cosponsors. i want to thank them for their support. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from alaska for his explanation of what's been going on as far as executive comp with fhfa. thank you very much for that. mr. president, i would ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment number 1492. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: -- mr. tester: 1492. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. tester, proposes amendment numbered 1492. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from montana is recognized. mr. tester: i ask this amendment be set aside and ask consent to call up amendment 1503. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. th

now you got a whole bunch of democrats, in fact, the news this morning, mccaskill in a tough race intoday. >> this is not about pro choice, pro-life. this is not about the access to birth control. this is about infringing on the rights of people when happen to hold the -- >> steve: the constitution! >> it's a clear violation of the first amendment. >> brian: here is the problem, now when you have barbara boxer and other women stand up and say we're going to fight back and the president was right and the president says no, arab bishop was right, then those women are left out to dry. he's in a tough stop. >> so what? this is a problem of his own making. he should have paid attention initially. he must reverse this decision. i consider myself in the middle of the political spectrum. if i am offended by this, there are many people like me who are offended by this. this is not about birth control or day after pills or access to abortion. this is -- >> gretchen: you know what? brian brings up an interesting point. >> brian: when was that? >> gretchen: that barak obama has been losing women

but senator mccaskill and i join senator kirk and senator durbin in their efforts in this regard. mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my republican colleagues for 60 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: thank you. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to talk about an amendment that's had lots of attention. it's an amendment that i offered on the -- on the floor a couple of weeks ago and we weren't able -- the leader didn't want to get to it at the time but the majority leader brought it up for me yesterday and i'm glad he did. i'm glad we're able to talk about it. this is an amendment that would allow religious belief or moral conviction to be an important factor in whether or not people compare -- people comply with new health care mandates. now, we have long, mr. president, had this exemption for hiring mandates. and, in fact, when i served in the house of representatives, i'd been a -- the president of a southern baptist university. i understood the importance of these institutions

coburn: this is a bipartisan amendment, senator mccain, plr mccaskill and senator paul and myself. multiple times we've asked for this but haven't gotten it. what this amendment says is every bill that comes before congress and to be considered by the senate, we should determine whether it's duplicating something that's already happening in the federal government. it's common sense. and all we're saying is an analysis by the c.r.s., congressional research service, to determine if the bill creates a new federal program, office, or initiative that would duplicate or overlap any existing federal program, any existing federal office or initiative with a similar mission, similar purpose, similar goal or activities along with a listing of all the overlapping or duplicative federal programs or offices or initiatives or initiative. now, why is that important? last february the g.a.o. brought to us the first third of the federal government an outline to us $200 billion worth of spending on duplicate programs. they gave it to us. it was hailed as a great thing that we now -- now we know, we

i thank senators toomey and mccaskill for continuing this discussion, as well as numerous others, including senators mccain, coburn and demint, who have championed reforms to washington's earmark culture. as noted by senators, the earmark process lacks scrutiny. i would like to confirm, madam president, that this effort does not restrict congress' ability to protect the american taxpayer from unnecessary expenses and significant legal exposure. in certain situations, the united states is required to fulfill legal obligations. for example, the united states must resolve water rights claims that american indian tribes assert against the united states and other water users within an affected state. in those instances, as is common in other litigation, it is in the interest of the united states and the american taxpayer to limit ongoing legal exposure by settling the tribe's water rights claims. effectuating the terms of such i settlement requires congressional review and approval. congress will undoubtedly apply the searching scrutiny to require whether the settlement is in the best interests