that's not a great senate. that's a failed senate in my view. and as you describe, during the '60s and '70s, tremendous problem facing this country, today, even more dramatic problems. talk for at bit about the relationship between these people who you admire so much, theirs relationship to their constituents and the american people, and maybe how that has evolved over the years. >> i think that this ties in a little bit with what we have been talking not terms of how the senators spend their time. certainly senators now are hyperaware of what is on the mind of their constituents. that goes with the territory. we used to have to read mail. now there's all kind of ways to find out. you're barraged with it. so senators know what the people care about. the issues are hard. the question of whether you can find consensus or bipartisan consensus to move ahead on them is hard. those senators found ways of understanding what was going on with their constituents and in the country. and then they addressed the problems. and they addressed the problems not

we want the senate to be the senate. if this comes about because senator alexander and senator warner, who sent a lot of time getting us all together -- we talked on the floor one day about how frustrated we were. this volunteer fire department idea we kind of seized upon, but the truth of the matter is you and senator warner have made this happen. we have had several dinners among the people here tonight to try to find a way to get the senate back to business. i am convinced that if we could bring one appropriations bill to the floor, have an honest debate about how much we should spend on that part of the government, have amendments relevant and not relevant but in an orderly fashion, there would be momentum to get the senate back to being the senate. that could help us all, it would help the country. i just want to tell senator reid and senator mcconnell, don't let this moment pass, that we have got you back. we want to conduct the business of the senate in a way more traditional than what is going on here today. i ca

, says senator lee. rather, i feel it is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of cftb, itself, end of quote. this gang of 44 republican senators proposed the creation of consumer bureau. once the department affirmative director is put in place the bureau will have issue to protect condition -- consumers from unfair practices by mortgage servicers, payday lenders, debt collectors, private student lenders, and credit reporting agencies. these are exactly the protection republicans wanted to block. article ii of the constitution says the president shall nominate and appoint officers of the united states, quote, with the advice and consent of the senate, end of quote. nowhere does the constitution authorize senators to block all nominees regardless of their qualifications because they object to the current law, the current law, of the land and do not have the votes to change it. constitutional scholar tom mass mann calls this republican boycott, and i quote, a modern da

and the senate is not going to be available for the doing of business. this was the situation that we're experiencing. as if you ask any american, if everybody in the senate but one or two people have left and they've gone all over the country and they're playing dodgeball and kick the can, are they on recess? those people who say, yes, that sounds like recess. that sounds like recess to me. what? >> when they're in session they're kicking the can. >> that is true. there is some can kicking when in regulations, a session, as w. i think the fact is that before 1948, it was rare that we had intercession recesses, the numbers are 50 -- there were 54 appointments in our history of -- i'm sorry. you're right. intrasession recess appointments. president reagan took this up by a considerable notch. he made 73 intrasession recess appointments. george w. bush, 37. president clinton, 53. president george w. bush, 141. so far, president obama has made 26. but once we have -- reason they didn't exist before 198

senate? y yes. to the other 40 , do they even senators in the elevator. >> not much. >> right. so let's just understand historically where this president has been. he had a supermajority in the united states senate after 2008 election. he was able to pass the stimulus through the house, through the tesingle vote from republicans in the united states house. it became law. this president has had a majority in the united states senate for four years. he has had a supermajority in the united states house. well, let me restate that. he had 59% of the united states house after 2008 election. so this idea that he's complaining about the congress's inaction is pretty absurd. so let me go to the cfpb. in the president's lawyers said there's a great risk, a litigation risk on anything the cfpb does would be challenged based on constitutionality does, anything the labor relations board could be challenged based on this president's unprecedented action. you know, looking at that litigation risk and the a

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 that the gao study laid out the deficits of the 30esal service and it's $250 billion and it is a quasi private quasi governmental agency here, but the fact of the matter is if we experience those types of deficits we'll be on the hook for it. or the taxpayers will be on the hook for that. that certainly governs my votes in this process. my amendment recognizes my concern about the $6.9 billion -- what's referred to as an overpayment. i think the overpayment is primarily the result of a recalculation based on actuarily assumptions which can change. when you take a look at an overpayment in the pension fund, i kind of like the fact there's a cushion there, particularly when you look at a going concern like the postal service t

thank you senator paul. senator pryor? >> i think that senator landrieu wanted to be noted that she based her vote on the napoleonic code. listen, this amendment should be noncontroversial. i think we haven't passed an amendment yet so maybe this will be the first one. >> we passed one. >> we passed one? >> noncontroversial. >> there we go. i would like to, at the appropriate time, ask that senator mccaskill and senator landrieu be is added as co-sponsors. my amendment is very straight forward. >> which one of yours is this? number one? i'm sorry, number one? >> amendment number two. >> number two. okay. >> amendment number two. and what it says is that whenever the postal regulatory commission makes recommendations through their advisory process that the postal service would say how they are implementing the recommendations or, if they're not, why they're not implementing those recommendations. and i think this has been an issue over the years that the prc will make recommendations but oftentimes it seems the postal servi

>> 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 get it right and we can include adequate measures to reduce waste. there are co

the senate votes very rarely. lots and lots of senate business is done, without a quorum, in terms of unanimous consent. the way the pro forma works, i actually went and talked to people and done nothing but that for years. the reason they have two members, ladies and gentlemen, in pro forma sessions, is because one member in a pro formula session can do anything, including confirming somebody, be it a supreme court justice, provide any hearings. but legislative power can be exercised in a pro forma session. it's nothing more than a starting point. that's the reason you have both sessions. you can do anything you can, okay? and let's face it, senate doesn't work very hard, okay? if you're going to take the position that their unavailability or, rather, let's redefine. unwillingness to give the president what he wants, triggers recess appointments. we're going to have recess appointments all over the place and they will create that. that cannot be. >> a couple of points. first of all, the senate itself has conceded

grassley, senator blumenthal, senator feinstein. senator schumer moment ago. we have six in the room, a couple others out in the anteroom so i think we'll check if you have no objection and get started. >> we should get started. >> usually once we get started people show. today the committee can move forward with the hearing we held last month. three would fill emergency judicial vacancyies ies in illi and also today we have an emergency procedure. senator grassley has asked to proceed on the bipartisan bill to televise the united states supreme court proceedings. now we have the power to use technology to allow greater access to public proceedings of the government so all americans can witness the quality of justice in this country not just those who have the opportunity to be physically at one of the hearings or -- which each one of us has the opportunity to do when we want. some of us are members of the bar but many americans don't get to see it. with technology it would deepen americans' understanding of the work of the supreme

>> aye. >> senator carper? senator pryor? >> aye. >> senator landrieu? >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill? >> aye by proxy. >> senator >> aye. >> senator begich? >> yes. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator koby burn? >> aye by proxy. we get them verified just by my staff about it too. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy? >> senator portman? >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye by proxy. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> is it possible there's a little mischief going on? >> i think may be, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the ayes are 4, the nays are 5. on the vote by proxy, the ayes are 7, the nays are 1. on this vote, the ayes are 11, the nays are 6, and the amendment is agreed to. >> okay, thank you. senator acontact car, congratulations. let's see. no one else on the republican side has any additional amendments. senator pryor, would you like to bring up one of yours? you're done. okay. you're retiring undefeated. senator tester? perhaps a

senate? >> 47. >> is 47 vendors a majority of the body? >> no. >> interesting. after the 2008 election i know you want a senator, but worth their 60 democrats in the united states senate? >> yes. >> if you 60th in a senators together, do they even have to speak to the other 40 senators in the elevator? >> not much. >> lushes understand historically. he had a supermajority after the 2008 election. he was able to pass this debellis through the house and through the senate and didn't get a single vote the republicans in the united states house. it became law. this president has had a majority in the united states senate for four years. he has had a majority -- a supermajority in the united states house. let me restate that. it's 59 states after the 2008 election. so this idea he complained about the congress inaction is pretty absurd. so let me go to the cfpb. now, the president's lawyers said that there is a great risk, a litigation rest that anything the cfpb delta be challenged based on the c

senate? was it a republican? >> normally a democrat is my understanding. >> normally are always? >> always. >> senator reid had to put a democrat in the chair to holy pro forma session every third day, and he did so? >> correct. >> thank you. i yield back and recognize the ranking member for five minutes and 49 seconds. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for bringing these concerns before us. as you can tell from my opening statement i'm concerned that a large number of senators tried to block a candidate who is extremely qualified for post because they disagree with the law, the law, congress passed creating a consumer bureau. on december 7, 2011, the office issued a press release that stated, and i quote, my decision to oppose his confirmation by the senate has nothing to do with qualifications. i feel it is my duty to oppose this confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of a cfpb itself. my question is, the senator's role is to give advice and consent. s

we got four but many more wanted to be on, senator portman, senator johnson, senator ayotte, senator toomey were selected. i know how disappointing it was because we talked how we didn't mark up a budget last year. so the people who wanted tock on there to participate in the great issue of our time -- the debt this nation is facing -- got no ability and had no option -- no opportunity to participate in the debate because the majority party in the senate decided that was not what they wanted to do. and the majority leader said it would be fool ties foolish to ha budget. i think it's very, very sad. so the president's budget represents an opportunity and a responsibility to guide this nation for the future. the president has no higher duty, no higher responsibility than to help the nation avoid an obvious crisis. mr. bowles and senator simpson, who chaired president obama's debt commission, looked us in the eye and issued a joint statement at the budget committee last year about this time that said the nation has never faced a more predictable economic crisis. and what they were saying

i may be senator. senator, i did want to follow-up on a couple questions. you mentioned earlier teddy roosevelt's famous appointment. but those are specifically when the congress like gavel to gavel. in other words during the anticipated history chances -- and commented the public have that option in this case or could he have had that option to do it on january. because it was unfair in fact a moment between sessions? >> well, i don't regard doing it then an opportunity for him to issue an actual recess appointment. they should point out that that hypothetical task at a different set of facts that deals with what you might call them intersession recess appointment. >> is not one in which the court spoke? >> well, that is one in which a court has spoken. i believe you might be referring to the 11th circuit decision in that regard. >> that would be one in which the president would know the likely outcome at least historically, right click >> perhaps in circumstances as they otherwise would support the solution that we were in recess for the purpose of the ca

but senators or would-be senators are not. right now senate candidates drop off a hard copy of their filing report with the secretary of the senate. someone from the f.e.c. comes over and takes reports over to the f.e.c. to make copies. and then finally, the copies are put online. now, these documents often run hundreds of pages in length. the f.e.c. estimates it wastes about $250,000 of taxpayer money each year just to make those copies and put them online. now, it might not sound like a lot of money in washington, d.c., but the idea of spending a quarter million dollars on an outdated process represents what's wrong with washington, d.c. americans deserve to know how much money candidates raise and from whom, and they deserve to be able to access that information in real time. it is not just the constantly occurring process that folks should be angry about. the process of making copies and posting the documents online takes weeks. it's not just a waste of time. it's bad for the democratic process. campaign finance data filed

so although senator lee is a freshman, he is certainly not new to the questions the senate faces and our country faces here today. and with that, senator, i understand that you're both testifying and willing to take questions; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. estimate as is customary for everyone except for members of congress, you will not be sworn in that you are a number of our body. with that, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. sherman. and ranking member for the invitation to come here and to address you and the other members of the committee. it's an honor to be with you here today. i'm here to defend the constitutional prerogative of converse. and i want to be clear from the outset but whatever political concerns i might have with of these nominations, my overriding dominating concerns here is not partisan. rather it is institutional and a constitutional concern that i am here to explain and the answer any questions that you might have regarding those concerns. president obama's january 4th, 2012 appointments are unconstitutional because they did not comp

unless the senate staff responsible to the senator speaks to the senator or makes that commitment on behalf of the senator, ucs don't happen, right? >> that's correct. >> you have the process of holds. everything starts with a hold and then you release them. >> yes. >> so if there had been an actual request for a vote during the pro forma session, request for uc, it would have come up. each of these appoint he's could have come up as a request for uc and a member would have had to show up physically and object to that appointment and that senator reed held no such vote. >> an objection could have been made. that's correct. >> a senator would have to be there to make the objection. >> well, that's probably a discussion for a different day. an objection probably could be made. a hold probably could be imposed on unanimous consent without physical presence but the objection would have triggered a requirement for physical presence. >> and my borrowed time has expired but you've been very illuminating. with that we go to the gentleman from virginia. before we do to mr. i would ask unanimo

senator, but i'm delighted to see the senior senator from south carolina, senator graham who is joining me to address a crucial moment in our history. the united states air force last week offered a preliminary look into its budget for fiscal year 2007. while the president -- 201. while the president will submit his proposals on monday, last week's briefing papers offered enough detail for the senate to begin considering the overall strategic direction of the air force, the air force future years defense program, pentagon jargon that's usually called fidep and for the recorder that's f-i-e/d-ep. i'm very disappointed as i look -- the first glass at that proposal. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to engage in this colloquy. one, we're the co-chairman of the guard -- guard caucus, which obviously has the air national guard component. senator leahy has been a real pleasure to work with. the bottom line is that this effort to downsize the air force falls incredibly heavy on the air national guard. there will be 3,000

a senator: mr. president 134. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: reserving the right to db ash and obviously i'm not going to object -- but i want to say to the senate that this is an example 789-5 that debate -- an example 89-5 that debate has been cut off on a nomination that has the bipartisan support of senator rubio and myself of a judge from florida, and one senator is holding up the works that he would not agree to the consent that you dismiss the 30 hours of debate, and that is causing us now to delay this. and so is it any wonder, i would ask the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee, is it any wonder that we can't get things done around here when we see this kind of action on this kind of bipartisanship support of a judge? mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i have been here for 37 years. i could not agree more with the distinguished senior senator from florida. i would note are that four months ago -- i would note that four months ago when judge adalberto jose jordan

senator warner, senator hagan, joined senator pryor, senator isakson, boozman and graham joined senator alexander. so it was a significant number of senators who talked about wanting to do the same thing and i can commend and applaud their work doing that. i'll be happy to yield. mr. mcconnell: we have negotiated the top line for the discretionary spending for this coming fiscal year. that process is normally done by the passage of a budget by the house, a budget by the senate and some reconciliation between the two bodies on the top line but we already have that number, and i want to second what my friend, the majority leader, said. there's no good reason for this institution not to move forward with an appropriations process that avoids what we have done so frequently under both parties for years and years, either continuing resolutions or omnibus appropriations. we have an opportunity to avoid that this year. it's the basic work of congress, and i just want to second what the majority leader said and congratulate senator alexander and senator pryor for their leadership on this issue.

one critic is senator upton.e's been among the toughest critics of the president's plan that provided loan guarantee to the company that's now bankrupt, a company that made solar panels. congressman upton will be our guest on sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. secretary steven chu testified on capitol hill about the energy department budget but getting some tough questions about the solendra program. >> whether it's a republican administration or a democrat administration there have been a number of embarrassing moments where winners and losers have been selected on the basis of not doing basic research, which i think is a function of government, but in transferring that research to a specific industry, specific company. and it's embarrassing to you, it's embarrassing to the president, it's embarrassing to congress, it's embarrassing in the way in which money is allocated. talk a little bit about how we can avoid -- and the problem is that the political gets involved. and then there are headlines and there's alle

but the senate was designed to give each senator remarkable autonomy and authority. our former colleague, george mitchell used to say, did he not lead a caucus, he negotiated with 57 independent contractors. a majority leader it seems to me has four primary roles. >>> first, he must set the agenda. in consultation. he must manage the legislative body, in consultation with at least the other leader. he has to be the central person with whom the president good an speaker works and he must provide leadership to his kau kiss, those four roles are critical, regardsless of the make up of the senate at any one time. and regardless of rolls, i think a leader must first and foremost always remember, the state that elected him. and to reflect the concerns, the interests, the values, of his state. every senator brings his own experiences and personality to the role of leadership, and i believe that it's always a function of the time within which a leader ascends to the majority leadership role that dictates to a certain extent what that leadership role is, in my case, when i wa

senator. the hold. tom and i tried to work to make some changes on that a couple of times. we had written agreements to try to change it osome, but the worst one was the rolling hole, and first of all it was not holds placed on there by democrats, but republicans. one time i would find a senator to pull off, and then somebody else would put a hold on it. i do, but i don't think that you should take it away, but i do think that there should be some requirements connected with that. the super majority, i wouldn't change that, but, again, a lot of that comes back i think to leadership. i remember one time that the first time i filled a tree, tom was irate let me say. i don't know what it was, because it was not precedented, so there were 100 amendments or so, and so i added it up and tom returned the favor as the years went by, but we didn't do it much. everything that tends to frustrate or plok or tie up the senate is done more and more and more often. i do think that the need to back away from

with thanks to senator carper and senator collins. i'll call on senator carper who kins continues to be the co- chair. >> thank you. thank you for the leadership you provided and for the encouraging the way the rest of us used to work. the democrats and republicans set aside differences and we try to fix things. the results are what the american people are looking for right now. they want to make sure we can still govern.

over from the senate? isn't it that sort of that entire bucket of it is the way it is, not the way we would like it to be? >> yes. you know, the fact is, governments are made up of individuals, especially in a representative government like ours. individuals have opinions. those opinions in the case of elected officials are based most frequently on the opinions of those they represent. we do have a country in which people disagree. we're not always going to have agreement. so, yeah, it is true, i suppose, if you take the same logic that we're doing to say let's have a rule change with regard to prompts, automatic consideration of all nominees. the same logic might go prompt and automatic vote of consideration by all house and senate legislation. vice versa. >> i thank you. we now will get to our final questioner, if you have the time to give us five more minutes. thank you, senator. we now recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you so very much. this just brings the point of reference that this isn

i thank the majority leader, and i want to thank senator collins, senator brown, senator gillibrand,of others who work to get us to -- worked to get us to this point where we can do two things. most important to us who worked on the stock act is that we're now -- have reached this afternoon -- in reach this afternoon of adopting a clear statement that members of congress and our staffs are covered by antiinsider trading trading -- anti-insider trading rules and that we can also provide for a fuller disclosure by members here that is more accessible to the public online. but instead of coming to a point where the system broke down again and senator reid was forced to file a cloture petition, we have worked out an agreement here. people were reasonable and there will be votes on a number of germane amendments and some that are not germane but have agreed to a 60-vote threshold. so this is the way i think the senate is supposed to work. some of these votes are going to be controversial, some difficult, but that's why we're here. i thank everybody who was part of geting to this point. i

chairman, and particularly senator durbin and senator grassley. we had a very good hearing on this if i could respond to my good colleague senator feinstein. we had a spirited debate about this at the hearing, many good witnesses, and a few things that i would use from that hearing that i think would hope to respond to what senator feinstein said. first of all the iowa chief justice mark cady testified that the concerns that some people have had with televised court proceedings just have not materialized in iowa. they've had cameras in the courtroom. all of their hearings are televised. they've been able to move forward as a court and they've seen it as a positive thing. and this is true of other courts in the land. the other piece about this, and i do have sympathy for the argument as being a former prosecutor for eight years on the trial court level that you would not want to televise every trial, that there have been issues with that, that a judge should be able to make that kind of decision. but i think you're in a whole different land when yo

senate's constitutional power to advise and consent? now, here is the way that we will proceed in today's session. the first statement will be made by mort rose enburg and followed by doug comic and walter delenger and after the formal presentations i'll give the panel an opportunity to question one another and i'm sure we will see a spirited debate at that point. then we will go to the audience, so keep track of things you do not think were covered and we will try to address those. many thanks for being here. i hope punish find the package as i think you will, info informative, let me start with a introduction for mort, i have to finds the paper and then i'll sit down. what i want to say about mort is he is an expert and has been for a good many years in the appointments issue. he was a member of the congressional research service and he was there during one of the periods when the crs had its most important business dealing with appointments and that was during the watergate period for richard nixon and his opinions, they were nine of

but 60 other members of the senate cosponsored it including senator boxer, senator feinstein, senator kerry, senator lautenberg, senator murray, and senator reid, the majority leader of the united states senate today. it was signed into law by then-president clinton demonstrating it was clearly religious freedom was not a partisan issue. it was a bipartisan concern of congress and the reason why this bipartisan legislation passed to protect religious freedom. so that just like members of the catholic church who are today concerned about being forced to provide coverage for surgical sterilization or drugs that induce abortions or other forms of contraception, members of the muslim faith, if they're a woman, need not be concerned about restrictions on their ability to wear their -- their desire to wear a head scarf in public buildings or dietary rules practiced by observant jews or that christians would not somehow be interfered with when it came to wearing religious symbols like crosses or rosaries. this is not about those -- those pieces -- those rules or those items of clothing or re

senator blumenthal had a hearing, to quote senator blumenthal--the discussion of paul, justice briar responded, there may come a time when everything is viewed publicly and it would seem weird not to broadcast the argument. well, sometime i think that time has come. with so many cell phones are equipped with video camera, with the advent of youtube, there's very little that's not able to be viewed. so as part of the supreme court, it should open its argument to the american people, not just those who are able to get a seat here in the hearing room. supreme court justices are in fact public officials whose decisions directly affect the lives of americans. they give speeches, they do book tours, where they make money, some even attend fund-raisers. well, i don't know how anybody has quoted the name of the first amendment to distort or election -- or super-pacs should not be accessible to the american people. four days ago, more than 11 million americans watched the super bowl. know one would have tolerated that game having been recorded and broadcast a day later, or at least it being t

the commission was strongly supported by senator baucus, senator murray, myself, and several others. it's my understanding the commission members were selected by the gao in september of 2010, which is nearly 18 months ago, but they've not been able to work, because they haven't had any funding. now, i think there's some provision in this budget to provide initial funding and i just wondered if you could give us an update as to what can be expected. is this commission going to be allowed to proceed to do its work and when? >> well, senator, i share your interest in the work of not only this commission, but the necessary work that needs to be done, looking at the entire health care workforce. whether or not we had an affordable care act, we have some workforce challenges as america ages and as we laook ata misalignment of where the health care providers are and where the people are, don't often match. so that we have been working on this from day one, as you know, the recovery act provided some resources, the affordable care act continued those resources, more training, more gme, more

i want to thank my colleague, senator collins, commerce chairman, senator jay rockefeller, senator dianne feinstein, for all their hard and cooperative work in getting us to this point. we will be privileged to hear from all three of them shortly. i also want to thank senator carper was not here yet for a significant leadership, contributions, to this effort. and want to thank the witnesses who are here. we have chosen the witnesses deliberately because they hold different points of view on the problem and on the legislation, with crafted and the challenges we face and we look forward to their testimony. .. the sector to better secure those systems for their own defense and for national defence. in this bill assistance that will be asked to meet standards for defined as those who brought down or commandeered or lead to mass casualties or major population centers, the cause of financial markets significant degradation of national security. this is a tight high standard. identifying the systems that meet those standards the secretary of the department of homeland security under the legislat

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i thank the senator from maine. i disagree with the andment. i think it worse than it was characterized by my friend from ohio, worse in the sense that as i read the definition of the securities that would be covered and as the securities attorneys have advised us on this, we would be required to divest ourselves even of our investment in a small family-owned business, a business that perhaps has absolutely no market whatsoever for the equity. and we would nevertheless be forced to sell that where there is no buyer. i think that's a very unreasonable standard, and so i would urge a "no" vote on this amendment. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i rise to oppose the amendment. this amendment would take congress from where we have always been and are going to be better after this bill passes in pursuit of disclosure and transparency, sunshine as the best guarantee of integrity. this will be the first time that i'm aware of that in the legisl

any legislation passed by the forum of a senate, i emphasize, this is how most of the senate's business is done, no limiting principle here. no fundamental distinction between the normal business and the pro forma session when the statutes are unlawful. and future presidents would be able to fill the administration with numerous unconfirmed officials serves close to two years and indeed not even bothered to seek senate's advice and consent as president obama did on two commissioners. this would dramatically alter the power between the two political branches by preventing the senate, god forbid from blocking the very people they wanted to block. again, absolute constitutional right to do so. and that would enable the president to exercise blocks of time. two years each. rejecting the president. now, an area that would undergo dramatic change is the use of a pocket veto as we know the constitution provides a bill passed by congress not signed by the president becomes law within

-- i guess senator casey. sorry. >> i have less than a minute so it will be quick and it's on 100% expensing. the key point here answered know there's a lot of agreement on this but i just wanted to say a real person in the real world on december 22nd bloomberg reporter katherine dodge wrote the following -- she talked about campbell fittings, a maker of industrial host couple lings using this particular tax break to buy equipment that allowed the family-owned business about 50 miles northwest of philadelphia to offer more innovative products at a lower cost to better compete with overseas rivals. here what's joe mcguinn said, the executive vice president, quote, it's putting people to work right now, end of quote. that's all i need to say about the great idea. >> mr. chairman. >> i think senator baucus is a senate republican -- >> no. >> i wanted to make a comment on a different subject if i could. as i've been look around the table -- >> no, we're in 100%. >> i've noted the size of the water bottles on the h

the bill offered by senator sessions and senator snowe is geared toward senate procedure. and our legislation in the house expands this approach where revenue inappropriation bills are first considered. we desire and are pushing for a process that instills integrity to the budget process. integrity is the highest human value we have. we must change the way washington works. we must require a budget process that is accountable, predictable and truthful. and this honest budget act is certainly a step in the right direction. and i want to thank you all again for being here today. and now i'm going to turn to senator kay bailey hutchison and her colleagues for a few remarks. thank you. >> thank you so much. is wonderful to have so many of our colleagues willing to come out and say that this is an important bill. and it's kind of a technical bill because it doesn't have the budget cuts in it. but if there is one thing that stands out to me, it is when we have an emergency funding bill that comes up. and it's for an unexpected expense in our military or it's a disaster where we

so i'm grateful to senator sessions. i'm grateful to the other sponsors of this legislation for bringing it forward. for making sure we're telling the american people what we're doing. when congress doesn't balance its budget it needs to level with the american people. when it incurs a deficit of 1 to $1.5 trillion a year it needs to tell the people what that deficit actually is and what the truly liabilities are on the books. so that it can't make it look like we're balancing what we're not and it can't make it look like we're borrowing less than we are. i commend the sponsors and urge all of my colleagues in both houses and both parties to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you, martha, for letting us go. we've got a 1:00 that most of our members have to be at. we turn it over to you. >> thank you to our colleagues in the senate for your leadership. anyone who needs to leave, please feel free. >> i think i'm batting first here for the house members. i need to get everybody ready here. we have a news flash. g

all right, he says to the senate, here is another one i have for you and the senate says all right, you have come up with someone fully appointed and tell you what, we disagree with the underlying law that this appointee is to administer. it does seem to me that the negotiation of calling the senate's bluff comes into play at some point, and i would like to know your view of that. >> well -- >> if the president had simply allowed this to go on indefinitely, instead of finally calling the question, take it to court, do what you want to, but i'm calling the bluff now after almost four years in which this, this particular bureau has not been able to function. >> if the president -- >> would the gentle lady yield for just a second? >> did you mean to say four years on this the agency? >> almost. >> when it was -- >> dodd-frank was a year ago. >> i stand corrected on the time, my point remains. >> the gentle lady will have an additional 30 seconds. >> i think the gentlemen for putting into the record the correct number of years s years whatever it is and i'm sure it's the case. the point i m

senator collins. >> mr. chairman, let me first applaud you for your leadership in this very important issue as well as the leadership of our two witnesses, said her rockefeller and senator feinstein who contributed so much to this issue and this bill, and i personally think you for holding this important hearing today. after the 9/11 attacks, we have learned of many early warnings that went unheeded, including an fbi agent who warned that one day people would die because of the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence agencies apart. when a major cyberattack occurs, the ignored warnings would be even more glaring because our nation's vulnerability had already been demonstrated by the daily attempt by nation states, terrorist groups, cyber criminals and hackers to penetrate our system. the warning of our vulnerability to a major cyberattack comes from all directions and countless experts, and they are underscored by the intrusion that has already occurred. earlier this month the fbi director warned tha

with that, we'll turn to senator johnson who is filling in for senator sessions this morning for his openre we'll turn to our witnesses for their testimony and, again, i want to thank senator johnson for filling in for senator sessions this morning. i just say to colleagues, there are many competing meetings of other committees this morning, including mark-ups in some, which means that colleagues who would like to be here simply cannot be here and participate in the work of other committees on which they serve so, we understand that this is a meeting in which there are many competing priorities for members of this committee. senator johnson. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. obviously i'm here because this is my top priority. certainly the greatest threat that faces our nation is our debt and deficit issues. and all is tied into our need to really achieve economic growth and that's what the threat of europe poses to the u.s., how is that going to affect our economic growth? i want to thank you for your comments in our last budget meeting were you indicated your desire to work towards

i just don't know, senator. i mean, what's often noted is that some people have a lot of flexibility in how they arrange their financial affairs. so that the taxable income can be more sensitive than underlying work behavior, but it's harder to disentakable the changes one might see, versus accounting changes. i don't envy our colleagues in the south committee of taxation to estimate the revenue effects. i don't know what we can do beyond that. i'm sorry. >> thank you, chairman. senator sessions? >> thank you. i would yield. i believe senator thune is next. >> thank you. senator thune? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. elmendorf for being with us today. i want to ask you some questions about what perhaps the biggest news on the healthcare was and that's the cbo decision to remove the class program from the january 2012 base line. despite that development, there's no mention of class in your testimony. and as you know in the final cost estimate of the healthcare legislation which was issued in march 20 o

i think the senator was going to say a few words, excuse me, senator casey. >> thank you, senator baucus, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you started this morning by reading what the words say, which is important. it is temporary. it's assistance to needy families. and i think it's really about two issues, really. one is trying to achieve self-sufficient efficiency in the lives of people who have really struggled, and also getting back to work, which is vital. i think that's why we're getting the kind of consensus we are. in program is a lifeline for families that have be so devastated, especially in the aftermath of this recession. and i know there are a lot of reforms that the committees of jurisdiction can deal with and should deal with. but i also believe that getting an agreement right now to extend this is very important. just this fall, the joint economic committee, the democratic staff put together a report entitled "assessing the impact of the great recession on income and poverty across the states." obviously it outline and highlighted the poverty increases for all americans. but i

i might to yield to senator dick durbin. -- i want to yield to senator durbin. we have 10 people here and there has been a request of part of the republicans -- i will have them on the agenda next week. a couple of these judges would like judicial emergencies. we have been asked by everybody from the chief justice and the u.s. to do something about this ever-growing number of judicial emergency vacancies. we are back on the bill that permits the supreme court proceedings to be televised. i will know my own support of this bill and i will vote for it. senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand that putting over the judicial nominees is not a reflection on them personally. i would just advise the committee, i am sure all the nominees are important in illinois a -- the two are going to fill vacancies that have resulted in a judicial emergency. i also noted that the nom -- they nominate john tharp and he is the first nominee. he and i work together to approve both of these nominees. i hope that the next time we meet, maybe as soon as next week, we can

senator levin. >> mr. chairman and ranking member, thank you for taking the initiative on this with other colleagues. thank you, madam secretary, for all the work the white house did on a similar bill which you worked on which i understand is basically part of now this pending bill which is on the calendar. i'm trying to understand what the objections are to the bill. it seems to me as if a whole bunch of protections in here for the private sector. i haven't read the bell yet but read a summary. there's a self-certification or third-party assessment of compliance with the performance requirements. i understand there's an appeal of those requirements if there's objection to it. i understand and believe the owners of covered critical infrastructure that are in substantial compliance with the performance requirements are not liable for punitive damage, which arise from an incident related to a cybersecurity risk. so, you have here something unusual, i believe, actually for the private sector, which is a waive

last night we had a situation where two of our fine senators, senator lieberman and senator collins, they have a reputation of being fair and bipartisan, and they did their best to work through some amendments, to set up votes on them. and they couldn't do it because we had senators who offered amendments that had nothing to do with this bill, nothing. but they -- republican senators -- said that they would not allow a vote on germane and relevant amendments until they got a vote -- they were guaranteed a vote on their nongermane amendments. well, that's not a situation, and we cannot legislate in that fashion. it's one thing to offer an amendment that's not germane, but to demand a vote on it out of order before any other amendments? so the minority has to make a decision whether they want to legislate or have morning business and have people give speeches all day that have nothing to do with morning business. i mean, have nothing to do with the legislation. so i hope that the leadership and the senators generally on the other side of the aisle will work together to help us move thi

. >> senator reid? >> excuse me. >>> i want to commend you for setting a tone on a vigorous debate but directing us to accomplish principled conclusions, and again, thank you for that. and the offer that the chairman back as has presented represents proposals made by the house that are very constructive, and i think will improve the program of ui. some proposals we made in the senate, which i think will lead to it, it does represent a balance of constructive improvements to the ui program, it reserves some of the issues as the chairman alluded to in terms of the scope, the extent. what is paid for or not paid for or not at all in terms of emergency spending. i think this is a very good way to begin what have you indicated is your goal of coming to principled resolution of critical issues. this is the most -- in many respects, one of the top three issues, i just wanted to ask your -- i know you will, your thoughtful consideration. >> i might add, chairman, this is a bipartisan full senate offer. >> well,

and together, they are all looking right now to senate republicans to do the right thing. >> senator patty murray, democrat from the washington, her reaction to this agreement worked out in the early morning hours today. now, again, part of this new plan would require any new federal hire tore contribute an additional 2.3% more of their salaries towards the pensions. that will take effect again for new employees. it will not affect current federal workers, part of the of the federal employees retirement system. one of a number of last minute compromises worked out between the conferrees. john boehner speaking to reporters earlier in the day also announcing his support for their plan. >> last fall, i said that the only reason we're even talking about a payroll tax break or an extension of unemployment benefits is because the president's economic policies have failed. i still believe that to be the case today. the agreement that's been reached to stop a tax hike on middle class americans is a fair agreement and one that i support. i want to thank chairman kemp and all of our conferrees