mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, here we are; it's about 5:55 p.m. we've been here all day today postcloture on patricia smith. again, to recap why we're here -- i'm not certain why we're here, but to recap the fact that we are here. patricia smith was reported out of our committee last year, was held up to be the shror tor of -- solicitor of labor for the department of labor. finally we had to file cloture because she was being filibustered. that cloture petition ripened last night, and we had a cloture vote last night, and 60 people voted to end debate and bring her up for a vote. well, under the rules of the senate, there are then 30 hours of debate. we've been here over 30 hours. and we are here all day today, and as i understand it, only one person showed up today to talk against her nomination. that is my colleague, senator enzi, of our committee. i looked at his tra

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senatofrom iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i listeninged very carefully to the -- i listened very carefully to the statement made by my friend and ranking member, senator enzi. many of the points raised by the senator have been gone over before by the committee. these were things that we looked into, and so i think i would like to respond to -- a little bit almost point by point to some of those concerns that were raised -- that was just raised in the statement made by senator enzi. but before i do that, i again want to make one thing very clear. we are talking about something here, this wage watcher -- is that what it's called? -- wage watch. we're talking about something here that's perfectly legal. almost listening to my friend's comments on it you'd think there was some subterfuge going on here. this was perfectly open and above board and everything perfectly -- no one is al

mr. harkin: yes. mr.eahy: we have several senators who wish to speak on the first vote that's coming up this afternoon, the greenaway one. is the senator going to give us any time? because our time is also being used by him right now and i was just wondering if at some point we might have toim to -- time to speak on the greenaway nomination. mr. harkin: i would say to my friend i thought we had 45 minutes on our side for the nomination of mr. becker. i'm just using that. mr. leahy: my understanding is that that time was to be used for becker and greenaway. in that greenaway is the first vote we come to, whether wer we'll have time for that. the presiding officer: the time is concurrent on both matters. mr. harkin: i was under the information that i had 45 minutes. 90 minutes. that was evenly split on mr. becker. i've been wait a long time to speak on mr. becker. madam president, i see no reason why we couldn't ask for consent to move the vote back a little bit if people want to move the back a little bit.

mr. harkin: mr. president, thank you.so for the benefit of those who are tuned in on c-span in their offices, we're now in what we call postcloture on the nomination of patricia smith to serve as solicitor of labor. this is a nominee that came before our committee almost a year ago, in april. it's been held up and held up and held up. and yesterday the senate voted cloture because it was being filibustered -- yet again another filibuster by our republican friends. and so we had a vote last night, and the cloture was invoked by 60 votes. and so now we're in the period of what they call postcloture of 30 hours after postcloture. and then we will have a final vote up or down on patricia smith to be the solicitor of labor. and it's obvious that if she got 60 votes last night on cloture, it's obvious she certainly has more than 51 votes to take the position as solicitor of labor. so that's where we are. we're in this 30 hours. again, it raises a question in my mind why are we chewing up 30 hours? we know the votes are there. w

mr. harkin: i don't have much time yet but i'll yield. mr. durbin: i would just like to be added as cosponsor on his bill, i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. bond: i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i believe that there is a a u.c. that the assistant majority leader would like to make. mr. durbin: madam president, i've spoken to the senators from missouri and alabama, i would ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the senator from missouri, i be recognized for ten minutes and then following me, senator sessions be recognized for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from missouri. mr. bond: i thank the chair and all my friends for giving necessity opportunity to speak. for americans, the world changed on september 11, 2001. we learned that the cost of thousands of innocent lives that treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter won't keep americans safe. my real concern

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. arkin: i ask that further proceeding under t quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which is the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, m. patricia smith of new york to be solicitor. . harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, at 5:30 today under a previous order, the senate will be voting on cloture on the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor of the department of labor. i will be addressing the senate here about this and about the key role that the solicitor plays, about the qualifications of patricia smith to assume this position, and sort of to bring people along as to why we're here and why it's taking so long. this has been before us since last april, and quite frankly, this should have been disposed of many, many month m

mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i've listened again to my friend -- and he is my friend. we've worked together on a lot of issues and will continue to work together on a lot of issues. i listened to senator enzi's comments and i was thinking is there anything new here? we've heard all this before on and on and on and on and again. no matter how many times they repeat it, it doesn't seem to hold much water. i would grant that ms. smith made two mistakes in her testimony, two mistakes in her -- when she period before the committee -- when she appeared before the committee, which she corrected. one of those had to do with the origins of the program. when she was asked about this, she thought at that time that that program had originated among her staff. what she found out is that some of her staff had been talk to go outside groups about that and that -- the idea seemed to come from a meeting of different people about both within her agency and outside. so ms. smith corrected that; hardly a caus

mr. king: i think they have been sitting behind closed doors, cooging up this option for over a month. senator harkin announced after scott brown won the election in massachusetts, again, thank you, massachusetts, mr. speaker, announced that they had already reached an agreement within a couple of days before scott brown was elected in massachusetts. this is a continuation of it. the strategy is what i described with reconciliation/nuclear option. they're working behind closed doors, operating in secret. just say take it or leave it. mr. akin: is that bipartisanship or ramming it full speed ahead? mr. king: it's only the show of bipartisanship designed for two things, to say, we've negotiated with republicans on c-span, didn't shut them out, that's really it. >> i was in the state legislature, we had 180 members , you could say a third of the people were fairly liberal a third were fairly conservative and the other third were right of center or left of center. you had to have the legislative deliberations to get a bill in order to get for the georgia house 91 votes to pass something. so i assume that

harkin and back to dave. so i've got five speakers and i don't have a lot of time. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. to all my colleagues. i am pretty succinct and timely. i won't take up a lot of time but sure do have to say some things. pre-existing condition absolutely has to go. it is cruel, capricious and done only to enhance the bottom line. >> as members of this summit go back and forth, arguing about who has taken more time, and the president apologized for taking too much time out of the democratic side, louise slotter, is speaking. mike pence joins us. you've been watching from the hill. it's the president's turf. they're in his court. eric cantor brought the senate bill, most remarkable exchange, i think, so far was between the combatants from the 2008 campaign, john mccain and barack obama. what's your impression? >> my impression is that, you know, this is a good government. it's bad tv. i mean, the reality is while we were promised a serious negotiation where the president a few weeks ago said that he was going to bring various parties together and look for areas of common agreement, y

this is what senator harkin had to say "when many people think of the filibuster, it brings to mind the classic film mr smith goes to washington, but senator smith was a little guy using a filibuster to stop the special interest. today that has been turned upside down. it would benefit the little guy." he goes on to write, " republicans have filibuster legislation to provide low- income energy assistance to ensure our children are not exposed to unsafe toys and efforts to ensure that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work." "the problem is not that republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills, the larger problem is that republicans' discriminate use has made it impossible to conduct everyday business in the senate. on a daily basis, the republican minority stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate." we want to see what you think about it seemed a filibuster. we will be more in just a few seconds. pursuant to go to the phones. knoxville, tenn. on airline. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. how are you? host: i am fine. what you think about the use of the filibuster in th

harkin and then go back to dave. i have five speakers and i don't have a lot of time. go ahead. >> thank you mr.esident and thanks to my colleagues who are here. i am timely and will not take up a lot of time, but i have to say some things. the first is the preexisting conditions has to go. it is cruel and capricious and done only against the bottom line. this was not even anything we talked about 10 or 15 years ago, but i mentioned that all americans should be treated the same. let me give you a history. eight states have declared that domestic violence is a preexisting condition on the grounds i assume that if you have been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once, you might do it again. 48% is the higher cost for women to buy their own insurance. believe you me that is really a discrimination. in 1991 women were not included in the trials because we had hormones. it wasn't until we had a critical mass of women here that said this will not do for more than half the population of the united states who pay taxes and we made certain that diseases like osteo54osis and cervical cancer and uter

harkin and then go back to dave. i have five speakers and i don't have a lot of time. go ahead. >> thank you mr. president and thanks to my colleagues who are here. i am timely and will not take up a lot of time, but i have to say some things. the first is the preexisting conditions has to go. it is cruel and capricious and done only against the bottom line. this was not even anything we talked about 10 or 15 years ago, but i mentioned that all americans should be treated the same. let me give you a history. eight states have declared that domestic violence is a preexisting condition on the grounds i assume that if you have been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once, you might do it again. 48% is the higher cost for women to buy their own insurance. believe you me that is really a discrimination. in 1991 women were not included in the trials because we had hormones. it wasn't until we had a critical mass of women here that said this will not do for more than half the population of the united states who pay taxes and we made certain that diseases like osteo54osis and cervical cancer and u

senator tom harkin of iowa will be on the floor with minority leader ranking minority enzi on the same committee approved the nomination, the committee approved the nomination. since he was nominated mrbecker has responded to over 300 written questions from republican senators. more than nearly any other nominee. i don't know how many questions are asked of supreme court nominees but when you ask 300 questions it is pretty clear it goes beyond needing some information. the idea is to try to trip up the nominee or ask so many questions you will wear them out. he met personally with every interest in san natural wanted to ask his own personal views. he addressed the concerns of senator sam congressional hearings only the second time in nominee incidentally had a second hearing in the last 25 years. throughout the process mr. baker stated its belief congress create sleeper laws not the nlrb. i guess there is a parallel to this argument by judicial activism where the argument being made on the republican side if mr. becker is brought the national labor relations board he's going to make the law and he said he will. his job is to basically interpret bill law has written and implement as c