. >> secretary of treasury, mr mr. lew . charles: let's say, that time they say we have enough money for a 10% hair cut on social security or something else. do you think that the american public would stand for that. >> number one, i am going to social security, no. but we need to look at social programs, to make cuts right now, not cuts we need to do reforms in them, so the programs are there for the safety net they were designed to be, if we don't do that now, these programs are not going to be sustainable. the way we're going. we need to look at details that are coming out of the senate before we can i don't want to second guess them, but we could then make a decision. i am happy they are coming to the negotiation table. that to -- to deal with these problem that we've had over last course of last 4 weeks, we need to get america bac back to work. charles: no doubt, a lot of people are frustrated this detracts from the facts we have an inept for the economy, sounds like you are describing the grand bargain, certainly this

mr. chairman. mr. lew, it seems to me that in the event of a default or new default, theear dominoes are going to fall fast and hard. those hit early on will be older people who depend on retirement savings. these are the older people who saw much of their life savings evaporate during the recession. they are struggling just to get those private savings back to the water line. the as specific as you can with respect to what default or near default would mean for those seniors who decide on a private savings. wyden, i can only begin to imagine what it would mean to a retired american who asies on social security their major source of income if we had to tell them the check was going to be late. my late mother lived on her social security check, many of us have relatives. if the check did not come, if they did not have the ability to call someone to help them out, they would be in trouble. anyone who thinks that anything short of default has never experienced what it means to live on social security. i share

mr. chairman. >> senator cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary lew, thank you for being an thank you for giving us -- is our responsibility to pass the debt limit its congresses is possible to do this. uncertainty is really hurting this country and we can't govern crisis to crisis. so i strongly support your view that the longer-term is what we need here. my question would be what legal authority they have to pick and choose? it seems to me that any analogy we use to a company or a business cannot pay its bill, there's a limit, discretion as to how you can make those chechens. i'd be interested into the legal authority you have on prioritization. >> other senators are not your obviously. >> i would be happy -- spanky been very generous with her time. we deeply appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as this thing comes to a close, some 20 top republicans will be me with president obama at the white house today to try to reach some kind of agreement on ending the partial government shutdown and raising the debt ceiling. the president had invited the entire house gop but speaker john boehner opted for a small group. senate democrats are also meeting with president obama today on the shutdown and the debt ceiling. the senate is expected to recess midday so lawmakers can attend that meeting. and a quick look at what's happening today in congress. the senate meets at 10:30 a.m. eastern and continued speeches on the government shutdown on the debt limit. harry reid expects to make a motion that sets up a vote possibly this weekend to move forward on legislation to suspend the debt limit until the end of next year. the house continues meantim

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary lew, you've said again today the president won't negotiate on the debt limit. and the president, as was noted earlier, has asserted that there haven't been additional items added to debt limits in the past. and, as you and i have talked about, and as you know, when you look back at the last 30 years of the history of debt limits, it's the only thing that has worked. in fact, every significant deficit- reduction package that has passed this congress in the last 30 years has come in the context of a debt limit. i found one that didn't. it was in 2005 for about $40 million, a relatively small deal. that's the way it has worked. and it's gramm- rudman, it's the 1990 balanced budget agreement or the andrews air force base agreement. it's the 1997 balanced budget agreement. it's pay-go rules that many in this committee on the other side of the aisle talk about favorably. of course, it's the 19 -- it's the most recent budget control act, just a couple of years ago. all in the context of the debt

mr. chairman. >> thank -- thank you, senator. senator cardin? >> mr. chairman, thank you. secretary lew, thank you for being here and thank you for giving us -- it's our responsibility to pass the extension of the debt limit. it's congress' responsibility to do this. uncertainty is really hurting this country and we can't govern from crisis to crisis. so, i strongly support your view that the longer term is what we need here. my question would be what legal authority do you have to pick and choose? it seems to me that any analogy we use to a company or business that cannot pay its bills, there's a limit as to the discretion as to how you can make those judgments. i'd be interested as to the legal authority you have on prioritization. >> thank you, senator. other senators are not here, obviously, be able to submit-- >> i'd be happy to-- >> questions to the secretary-- >> [inaudible] >> secretary, you've been very generous with your time. we deeply appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> hearing's adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> president obama hosted senate democrats and house republican leaders at the white house late yours they knew -- afternoon to discuss the shutdown and a gop proposal for raising the debt ceiling. after the visit, majority leader harry reid spoke with reporters the whiteht -- at house. and there was reaction from house majority leader eric cantor. >> i introduced the president by telling my caucus how proud i was of them and how proud i was of the president for the strength and unity we have shown. after having completed an hour and 45 minutes with him today, i feel the same way. we are here. the government should be open now. we should be able to pay our debts. as we have said and will continue to say, if that happens, we will negotiate on anything. the president confirmed that today. >> [indiscernible] house has a unique form of legisla

mr. chairman. mr. lewt of a default or near default, the dominos are going to fall fast and hard. and those hit early on will be older people who depend on their own retirement savings to get by. these are the older people who saw much of their life savings evaporate during the recession and they're struggling just to get those private savings in effect back to the water line, back to where they are. be as specific as you can with respect to what default or near default would mean for those seniors who depend on their private savings. >> senator, i can only begin to imagine what it would mean to a retired american who relies on social security as their major or sole source of income if we had to tell them their check was going to be late. i remember my late mother lived on her social security check. many of us have relatives who lived on their social security check. if the check didn't come, if they didn't have the ability to call someone to help them out, they were in trouble. anyone who thinks that's any

mr. chairman. >> thank -- thank you, senator. senator cardin? >> mr. chairman, thank you. secretary lew, thank you for being here and thank you for giving us -- it's our responsibility to pass the extension of the debt limit. it's congress' responsibility to do this. uncertainty is really hurting this country and we can't govern from crisis to crisis. so, i strongly support your view that the longer term is what we need here. my question would be what legal authority do you have to pick and choose? it seems to me that any analogy we use to a company or business that cannot pay its bills, there's a limit as to the discretion as to how you can make those judgments. i'd be interested as to the legal authority you have on prioritization. >> thank you, senator. other senators are not here, obviously, be able to submit-- >> i'd be happy to-- >> questions to the secretary-- >> [inaudible] >> secretary, you've been very generous with your time. we deeply appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> hearing's adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [no audio] >> the day began with jack lew testifying before the senate finance committee on what would happen if the u.s. defaults on loans. and if congress fails to increase the debt limit. he concluded with a series of talks. the president sitting down with congressional republicans. the speaker of the house return to the capital. -- capitol. this was the scene. [inaudible] >> no response from the speaker. our website, no decision reached on the debt limit. is this.tico, there signs of progress. the phone, thank you for being with us. but the days into perspective. most importantly this meeting lasted 90 minutes. it included the president and vice president, and what have we learned? >> it was a good meeting. was an exchange. the president pressed republicans on why if they're going to raise the debt limit, that they are moving on that p

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary lew, you've said again today the president won't negotiate on the debt limit. and the president, as was noted earlier, has asserted that there haven't been additional items added to debt limits in the past. and, as you and i have talked about, and as you know, when you look back at the last 30 years of the history of debt limits, it's the only thing that has worked. in fact, every significant deficit- reduction package that has passed this congress in the last 30 years has come in the context of a debt limit. i found one that didn't. it was in 2005 for about $40 million, a relatively small

mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: on behalf of senatorlessness i ask christopher landburg with granted floor privileges for the consideration of the nomination of jacob lew. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i very much support the nomination of alan estevez to be principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. mr. estevez is a career civil servant who has served under presidents of both political parties since 1981 when he started work at the military traffic management command. over the last 30 years, mr. estevez has developed an expertise in military logistics eventually rising to become the first career federal official to hold the position of assistant secretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness a position to which he provides civilian oversight for more than $190 billion of d.o.d. logistics operations. he previously played a key role in reengineering department of defense transportation processes and in helping to address logistics deficiencies identified during operation shield -- desert shield. mr. estevez is the recipient of the 2010 presidential ranked distinguished executive award and meritorious executive award, two

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary lew, you've said again today the president won't negotiate on the debt limit. and the president, as was noted earlier, has asserted that there haven't been additional items added to debt limits in the past. and, as you and i have talked about, and as you know, when you look back at the last 30 years of the history of debt limits, it's the only thing that has worked. in fact, every significant deficit- reduction package that has passed this congress in the last 30 years has come in the context of a debt limit. i found one that didn't. it was in 2005 for about $40 million, a relatively small deal. that's the way it has worked. and it's gramm- rudman, it's the 1990 balanced budget agreement or the andrews air force base agreement. it's the 1997 balanced budget agreement. it's pay-go rules that many in this committee on the other side of the aisle talk about favorably. of course, it's the 19 -- it's the most recent budget control act, just a couple of years ago. all in the context of the debt limit. so my view is kind of strange the president would, one, not my view it is kind of strange that the president would not not -- not want to negotiate. you indicate this earlier, that it makes sense because it's a tough vote grade our constituent don't get it. why would you extend the credit card again the go to the limit again without dealing with the underlying problem? that's why the polling shows from two to one that you should extend the debt limit, but only if we deal with the underlying problem. that's what we are asking for. speaking for myself, we need to avoid a debt limit crisis, but we also need to a void a debt crisis. avoiding a debt limit crisis today and avoiding a debt crisis tomorrow should be our objective. the president said in 2006 when the debt is half as big as it was today, that america has a debt problem and the failure of leadership. he said i'm going to oppose the increase in the debt limit. he said we need to deal with the underlying problem area -- the underlying problem. says we need to deal with the fastest-growing part of the spending, that it's on autopilot and we don't appropriate every year, in response to that question, you said he put in his budget significant entitlement spending reforms. he wants to do this. you are right. the president's proposal mandatory big list of savings, $730 billion. we are likely to add another $8 trillion to the debt. but he has $730 billion over 10 years. not all of those choices reflect my top right 40s or others on this committee. but in a negotiation, you don't get every thing you want. byuestion is very simple -- adding some of those proposals, maybe it's 500 billion or 400 billion, but by adding some of the president owner for postals consistent with what has been done in -- and consistent with what the american people are asking for, isn't that what we ought to be doing? dealing with the debt limit but the underlying problem and taking the president's own proposal to do it. >> on the history of the debt limit, you and i have been back and forth many times. it makes a big difference if you tag a debt limit increase onto beenhing that has already agreed to. a debt limit increase was put into it. nobody threatened default. we are in a different situation since 2011. defaulted because you didn't have a president saying he would not negotiate. just goimportant not to to a president budget and cherry pick the things that are hard for him to do. look at it -- the negotiations are events eight. there could be a serious conversation. >> the president also said in the budget that we have to have specifically with regard to corporate tax reform, you indicated it should be i thinkneutral area it's an urgency right now and i think we will continue to use -- to lose more jobs. i agree there should be a give and take, but let's look at the president own proposal. congress,tions to the would you all be willing to move that will work? on thepresident view debt limit is he's not negotiating over the debt limit great congress as to make it possible to pay our bills area >> i hate to call attention to the time, but i'm going to be late for another commitment. how about two more? -- there's two more nothing more important than this and i want to make sure everyone on our site has a chance. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for your indulgence. i will just take a few minutes. in your view, would failing to raise the debt ceiling be better or worse? >> it doesn't do anything good or if the cost of borrowing goes raises our expenditures, it doesn't reduce them. >> if the cost of borrowing went up one percent or two percent, what would that cost much more >> i would have to do the numbers exactly. >> we are clear and ronald reagan shared this view -- this will just make matters worse. unless we were to do something unthinkable and say we were never going to pay those bills and your borrowing money at a higher interest rate and it only costs. >> which means our interest cost will continue to go up and our ability to do things like respond to floods in colorado or be able to educate our kids will be diminished. i'm going to let you go because i know you have to go but i have heard a lot of people on both sides of the aisle today talk about their willingness and desire to

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary lew, you said again today the president will negotiate on a debt limit. of the president as was noted earlier has asserted that there have been additional items added in the past. as you know, when you look back at the last 30 years of the history of debt limit, it's the only thing that has worked. in fact, every significant deficit reduction package that has passed this congress in the last 30 years has become in the context of a debt limit. i found one that didn't that was in 2005 for about $40 billion. a small few. that's the way it's worked. it's gramm-rudman, 1990 balanced budget agreement or the andrews air force base a green. it's the 1997 balanced budget agreement, the pay go rules that many on this committee talk about favorably. of course, it's the most recent budget control act just a couple of years ago. all in the context of the debt limit. so my view is kind of strange the president would not want to negotiate and say we haven't had a. and you indicated earlier it only makes common sense because it's a tough vote as you say. why? because our constituents don't get it. why would you extend the credit card again, go over the limit again without dealing with the underlying problem? that's why the polling shows the american people say we should extend the debt limit but only if we deal with the underlying problems. that's all we're asking for. i'm speaking for myself. we need to avoid a debt limit crisis. but we also need to avoid a debt crisis. so avoiding a debt limit crisis to date and avoiding a debt crisis tomorrow should be our objective. the president himself said back in 2006 when the debt was half as big as it is today, $8 trillion, this was a floor speech, america has a debt problem and the failure of leadership. he said i'm therefore going to oppose the increase. he opposed to windows have as big as was today. he said we need to deal with the underlying problem. in response to sarah hatch's question earlier about why the president refuses to do with the underlying problem which although is that two-thirds of spin and the biggest part of spending, that is on autopilot the we don't appropriate every year which is the mandatory side. in response to the question you said and i quote, he put in his budget significant entitlement spending reforms. he wants to do this. and, in fact, you are right. the fed's proposal includes a pretty long list of entitlement savings. mandatory savings. about $730 billion over 10 years. a step in the right direction. during that time were likely to add another $8 trillion to the debt, based on the cbo. but he is $730 billion over 10 years. not all those choices reflect my top priority, or others on this committee probably, but in the negotiation you don't get everything you want. my question today is very simple. by adding some of the proposals, maybe not all 730 billion, maybe it's 500, maybe 400 billion. but by adding some of the president's own proposals to an extension of the debt limit, this is what's been done historically and what the american people are asking for, couldn't we move forward and isn't that what we are to be doing? dealing with the debt limit but also with the underlying problems. taking the president's own proposals to do it. >> on fish of the debt limit you and i've been back and forth many times. i think it mix of big difference if you attach a debt limit increase on to something that's been agreed to get in 1987 balanced budget agreement was also intensive and the debt limit increase was put into. it didn't drive nor did it threaten to fall. i think we're in given situations since 2011. that has changed the world. >> the president is saying he would negotiate. >> the president has said and has repeated he wants to and is prepared to negotiate. i think it's important not just to go through a president's budget and cherry pick the things that hard for him to do. you have to look at the things that are hard for others to do. the negotiation is give-and-take but if everything is on the table, if we're looking at and comment reform and tax form in a way that joins together to solve the problem, there could be a serious conversation but i would just caution -- >> the president also said in the budget that he believes we ought to tax reform, and specifically with regard to corporate tax form for the first time in your budget you indicated to be revenue neutral. i applaud you for that, as you know. i think it's an urgency right now. we will continue to lose more jobs in this country. my question to you would be the president's own proposal on entitlements, i agree there should be a give-and-take but i'm willing to stick let's look at the president's own proposal, putting those in the debt limit increase, would you all be willing to move that forward speed was just to be clear, the presidents of you on the debt limit, he has stated this clearly. he's not negotiating over the debt limit. congress has to make it possible to pay our bills. he looks for to negotiation. >> senator, i hate to call attention to the time but i'm going to be late for another commitment if i -- >> do you have just one more? how about two more? we will do two more. there you go. >> i think if we do the days that's a little plate. >> nothing is more important than this and i want to make sure everybody on our side at least has a chance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for your indulgence. i'll take just a few minutes. in your view, would failing to raise the debt ceiling make that situation better or worse? >> it doesn't do anything good. if the cost of borrowing goes up, it raises our expenditures and doesn't reduce them. >> and if the cost of borrowing went up just 1% or 2%, what would that cost? >> i would have to go back into the numbers exactly to be an answer, but we are talking billions of dollars. we're not talking small numbers. >> i think it's very clear, and ronald reagan shared this year and you quoted earlier that this would just make matters worse. >> yeah, unless we were to do something unthinkable and say will never pay those bills. you've got to pay the bills or you'll be borrowing money at a higher interest rate. >> which means our interest costs are just going to continue to go up and our ability to do things like respond to the floods in colorado are to be able to educate our kids will be dim

mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i urge the passage of the bill and i yield back the balance of my ime. >> jack lew will testify this morning about next desk's debt ceiling deadline. he'll take questions from the senate committee. live coverage gets underway at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. on c-span3, the senate banking committee will hold a hearing on the debt limit and the potential impact a u.s. default could have on the global economy. former oklahoma governor frank keating, who heads the american bankers association, will testify. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. during book tv's coverage of this year's national book festival, they spoke about joseph kennedy. >> finally kennedy couldn't figure out churchill had played this mind game with him whether churchill was teasing him or was so drunk that he forgot from the day before that kennedy didn't drink. they had disliked one another intensely, but the war was over. there had been intense suffering. and churchill said to kennedy, he held out his hand and he said, i'm so sorry for your loss. joe jr. had died during the war, and churchill was sincere, and he said to churchill, what good was it all? d churchill looked at him, unbelieving, world war ii had destroyed, in churchill's mind, hitler, mussolini, dictators, it had saved democracy. it had saved western civilization, so churchill thought. and kennedy blazed hatred at him. >> book tv is the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books, every weekend. and this fall, we're marking 15 years of book tv on c-span2. >> house oversight chairman darryl issa questioned sarah hall ingram of the i.r.s. about the healthcare law. ere's part of that exchange. >> i'd like to bring your attention to an email chain dated friday, july 20, 2012, in which you were c.c.'ed and added to the chain. in preparation for the delivery of these documents, i assume, which we were delivered under discovery, you've reviewed those, is this correct? >> i'm not sure whether i've seen the particular one, but i'm reading it now, sir. >> ok. ake your time and read it. >> i've reviewed the document, thank you. >> thank you. do you recall this document? >> i do not recall the document. i think i recall what it is a discussion about. >> well, one of the areas of interest is there's a significant redaction that quotes the statute 6103. do you know who's underneath that blackout? >> i don't recall the document, so i can't help with you what's underneath the redaction, sir. >> ok. the subject of this -- let's go to a second one. would you give her the second document and we'll pause and give you time to read it. > thank you. this one is from you directly, o hopefully you recall it. do all members have the document in front of them? can we have the clerk distribute the documents? i want to make sure everyone has them in front of them. do we have enough copies? ok, they'll be distributed, if the gentlelady will just pause or a moment. >> do all the members now have the document? i think in the front row they'll need more. ms. ingram, do you recall the second document in which you're the author? >> i remember the conversations. since my name's on the email, i assume it's me. >> ok. do you know the names underneath any of these black boxes? or the information. >> no, i'm sorry. i couldn't remotely remember what might have been underneath. >> so you don't know what's underneath there. as an expert at the i.r.s., many times awarded by both republican and democratic administrations, do you know what 6103 indicates? >> yes, i understand 6103, yes, sir. >> ok. and is it true that is, in fact, sensitive information that is not to be distributed outside people permitted to have it within the i.r.s. and a very limited amount of people here in congress? >> i understand the rules of 6103, yes, sir. >> well, you understand that you can't distribute 6103 information outside of people authorized to see this, is that correct? >> correct. >> so why are political appointees in the office of the president receiving 6103 information? on what basis would you be allowed to discuss the information, which is a form of classification under 6103, with political appointees at the white house? the i.r.s. is a nonpolitical organization. you are not a political person. but isn't it true that political appointees are not allowed to see this information unless specifically cleared, correct? >> i am not familiar with what process was used to put the markings on this document. my understanding from looking at the document is that these are names that were offered to us as examples of how the -- >> yeah, no, i understand, but you've been with the i.r.s. a long time. 6103 information, did you share 6103 information with people at the white house? >> i'm not conscious of ever sharing 6103 information at the white house, but i cannot speak to what the process was for putting these labels on this document. >> ok, so your testimony today is that you have never shared confidential information with political appointees, the white house, but in your 75 or 79 trips to the white house, meetings in small and not so small groups with political appointees at the white house, then i have to understand, either this is 6103 information as the i.r.s. has said it is and you've shared it with political appointees at the white house, or it's not 6103, in which case someone at the i.r.s. is abusing the redaction and keeping this committee from getting the information it needs for its proper and lawful discovery. i think we will have danny wuerffel back here on this subject. did you participate in redaction decisions at all? >> no, sir, i did not >> ok. now, i guess one of the -- this s a serious matter, but it appears from this that you were part of the discussion at a time in which a controversial rule was going into effect that included a number of conservative and religious groups and that you were providing back and forth advice to white house personnel on that implementation, is that correct? >> my recollection of this exchange had to do with what the current i.r.s. rules are under regulations, under 6033, in case policy makers wanted to use any definition that existed already in the tax code and that they understand what they would cover or not cover depending on which definitions they chose to employ. it was not a discussion about their decision about what to use. >> so you were providing technical information on how the administration could determine whether or not church and nonchurch groups, schools sponsored by churches and other affiliated groups, whether or not they could be compeled under the affordable care act to do certain things, is that correct? >> it was a discussion about what the current definitions under 6033 mean and have been for some decades. >> but the questions from political appointees at the white house to you, in your nearly 80 trips back and forth and apparently a large amount of emails, had to do with their desire to compel religious groups to do certain things under affordable care act and you were advising them as to what the law would be and how they might implement it. and in the case of one of the emails, you said hoping there is a quick answer, while i prep for something else, please copy me on the answer. so this was something where you wanted to be aware of and participate in the decision process by political appointees at the white house, is that correct? >> i think that portion of the email is addressed to staff at the i.r.s., hoping that they could take care of answering the questions about -- >> i was reading actually your quote, "hoping there is a quick answer while i prep for something else, please copy me on the answer." that's your portion of that first email. >> yes, it was an a.t.a.-related question and i wanted the staff to do the analysis. >> so you have been intimately involved in a.c.a. implementation questions, including whether or not somebody would receive a waiver, whether or not somebody under current law could or could not be forced to do something they did not want to do, is that correct? >> i've been involved in answering questions about how the rules work, and that's what this exchange is about. it was not about what rule the policy makers ought to adapt. >> and one last time, the information underneath here, if it's not 6103, you certainly would agree that we should know what it is, and it is 6103, then it is something you said you've never done, which is to transfer 6103 information to political appointees at the white house. >> i'd have to refer you to the people who did the redactions. >> no, i just -- >> i don't know what's underneath, sir. i'm somplee >> neither do we. neither do we. i now recognize the ranking member. >> you can watch all of our programs in our video library. go to.org.org. congressman jim jordan also questioned sarah hall ingram about the affordable care act. she testified before the house overnight committee on wednesday. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. ingram, you've been at the i.r.s. how long? >> i'm sorry. i was adjusting the mic, sir. >> you've been at the i.r.s. how long? >> over 31 years. >> and i want to go back to where the chairman was. you take the 6103 confidentiality statute pretty seriously at the i.r.s.? >> very seriously. >> let's put up the definition here, just the statute itself. there's no officer or employee of the united states shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his or her service as such an officer or employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. this is the statute he was. it's pretty state forward. you can't share personal taxpayer information, correct? >> true. >> ok. and then in my opening statement, you gave a presentation to the i.r.s. overnight board where you highlighted this as you were talking about the affordable care act. we can put that slide up. this is from the presentation you gave, according to the mep

lew nomination is withdrawn. is there any further debate? mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: hearing none, all those in favor please say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the cloture vote on the watt nomination occur immediately following the swearing-in of senator-elect booker of new jersey tomorrow and the senate proceed to legislative session and a period of morning business for debate only with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, could we have order in the senate. the presiding officer: may we have order, please. the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we all know today is senator chiesa's last day in the senate, and while the senator's only been here four months, it's been an interesting few months, to say the leas