Floor Statements

Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings to all three of these bills at this time.

Mr. President, last night the Senate Judiciary Committee, after some 24 hearings and several weeks of markup, advanced a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to fix our broken immigration system. No one can dispute that it is broken. No one can dispute that it needs to be fixed. I commend the good work of the committee, and I am grateful to everyone who worked those long hours. I will bring this bill, which is a strong bipartisan bill, to the floor in June, sometime soon after we return from the Memorial Day work period.

Although neither Republicans nor Democrats will support each and every aspect of this legislation, it is gratifying to see the momentum behind these reforms that will make our country safer and help 11 million undocumented immigrants get right with the law. I applaud significantly the efforts of the Gang of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--who showed bravery as they set aside partisanship to address the critical issues facing our Nation.

I am confident that for everyone in that Gang of 8, Democrats and Republicans, there are parts of this bill they do not like. But that is how we move legislation forward for the greater good--compromise. I admire their legislative skills and appreciate very much their ability to set aside these partisan differences and move this extremely important bill to the floor.

There was other courage on display on the Senate floor yesterday when

two Republican Senators bucked the majority of their party for the good of the country. Senators McCain and Collins--two Senators I admire deeply--came to the floor to call on their own party to stop blocking bipartisan budget negotiations.

John McCain and I came to Congress together. In 1982 we were elected. We spent two terms in the House together, and we have been in the Senate together since then. Over these many years, more than three decades, John McCain and I have disagreed on several things, but I have never lost my admiration for this patriotic man. He is courageous in battle--not only in the fights that take place in a war but legislative battles. I am so appreciative that he decided the right thing to do was to move forward and see what we could do to get this bipartisan negotiation started.

Susan Collins and I have served together for a long time in this body. We have worked together on some extremely important measures. I don't need to run through all these, but there are parts of the law of this country that would not be law but for her willingness to move forward and move across the aisle. Susan Collins and I disagree on quite a few things, but we agree on quite a few things.

The people of Arizona are very fortunate to have John McCain as a Senator, and the people of Maine are fortunate to have Susan Collins as a Senator. The reason they stepped forward is because it has now been 60 days--2 months--since the Senate passed its commonsense, progrowth budget. The question everyone raises is, Why are Republicans standing in the way? Not only are Democrats asking that question, Republicans are asking that question now.

We passed a budget. Senators McCain and Collins do not think our budget is the best. They think they could do a better job. But they also understand the legislative process--that is, you have to work together. Just as the Gang of 8 did to get the bill on immigration to the floor, we need to work together to get a budget. The House has passed one. We have passed one. Let's go to conference and work out our differences.

For 60 days Republican leaders have objected to a conference with the House of Representatives where we could work out our differences between our budget and our priorities. The differences between our budgets are there. We know that, but we need to work together on our priorities. The House Republicans and House Democrats need to come up with what they want, and we will come up with what we want, working with the Republicans here. That is what a conference is all about. In a conference it is not just the Democrats from the Senate on the conference committee, Republicans will be on it also. And just like in the House, it will not be all Republicans, it will be Democrats also.

The only explanation their Republican leaders have given for their endless obstruction is this: They refuse to negotiate unless we agree in advance to let them have their way. Yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Maine--both Republicans--condemned that. They said it was hypocrisy. That is my word, not theirs; they can define it any way they want. But the point is that they have been calling for regular order for several years, and now they have the chance for regular order and they are walking away from it.

Senator McCain called the obstruction by his fellow Republicans a little bizarre. I used that word also to describe the gridlock here. Senator Collins agreed that it was ironic at least. That is what she said. The senior Senator from Maine went on to say:

We have called repeatedly for a return to the regular order

in this body. Regular order is going to conference.

We agree. We have a progrowth budget that we will proudly defend. House Republicans should be ready to do the same with theirs. I don't know why my Republican colleagues in the Senate are so afraid of an open conference. The conference committee report will need both Democratic and Republican votes to pass. Do my Senate Republican colleagues not trust their House Republican colleagues to hold the line on their priorities?

Congress must set sound, long-term fiscal policy through the regular order of the budget process and through compromise, but Democrats and Republicans will never find common ground if we never get to the negotiating table.

Student Loans

On another subject, Congress has worked hard and compromised often over the last 4 years in order to reduce the deficit and reverse the trend of rising debt that began under President Bush. That work has paid off. We have reduced the deficit by about $2.5 trillion.

But as our Nation has succeeded in setting a course for financial responsibility, students across the country have struggled to do the same. The rising price of higher education puts college out of reach for many promising young people, and it saddles those who do get an education with an unsustainable debt, a debt that causes them to delay buying their first home, put off having children, or give up the goal of starting a business.

Today Americans have more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. There is more student loan debt than credit card debt, and the average graduate owes more than $25,000 when they get out of school. I think a college education should free young people to achieve their dreams, not saddle them with crushing debt for the rest of their lives.

College is already unaffordable for too many young people, but if Congress fails to act soon, that cost will go up again. On July 1, interest rates on student loans are set to double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, effectively socking 7 million students with $1,000 a year in additional loan costs. In Nevada alone this will cost 26,000 students more than $21 million next year. We should be removing the obstacles keeping young people from getting an education, not raising more barriers. Raising interest rates would put higher education even further out of reach for many promising students.

Last week Senate Democrats introduced a proposal to freeze student loan rates at current levels for 2 years without adding a penny to the deficit. This is paid for by closing wasteful tax loopholes. The legislation being pushed by House Republicans will take a different route, sticking it to students instead of closing loopholes. Rather than investing in the next generation of American workers, the House bill would cost students as much as $6,500 more in interest than the current rates. In fact, passing the House proposal would be worse than doing nothing at all. We would be better off letting the rates go up to 6.8 percent than passing the House bill. Passing the House bill or letting the rates go up to 6.8 percent is not the right thing to do. We need to do what we suggest; that is, keep the interest rates where they are.

Under the House bill, students would pay up to $2,000 more if we allow the rates to double in July. But Democrats know an investment in education is an investment in our economy, so we will keep student rates low and hold back the rising price of education.

Last year, after months of obstruction, the Republicans eventually conceded and helped us achieve that goal. After all, it was great election-year politics for them. This is what Mitt Romney said about the effort to keep loan rates low: ``I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans.'' Even my friend the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said there was not a soul in Washington who thought student loan rates should go up. We agree. But unlike Republicans, we don't abandon our commitment to students just because the election is over. Can my Republican colleagues say the same? I hope they still share our goal of keeping the American dream affordable. If they do, there is an easy way to prove it: work with us to quickly pass the proposal to protect American students.

I object.

Mr. President, this good man, Sri Srinivasan, was first nominated in June of 2012. He is a brilliant man. He is an honors graduate from Stanford Law School.

Justice Roberts left that court in 2005. We have been trying to fill spots on that court for all of these many years--6 or 7 years. The DC Circuit is the court that some say is more important than the Supreme Court. No judge has been confirmed in the DC Circuit since 2006. It is an 11-member court established by law, so to have a 7-member court is unfair.

We have had one woman, for example, Caitlin Halligan, a highly qualified nominee, who has been filibustered twice by the Republicans. She was nominated to fill the seat of Justice Roberts.

The man we are talking about today has been nominated to a seat that has been vacant for 5 years. The four seats were vacated in 2005, 2008 and have senior status by two other judges in the last year or two. His nomination has pending for 345 days. That is by far the longest wait of any of the judicial nominations currently awaiting confirmation by the full Senate.

My friend the Republican leader talks about Bush's second term and how he didn't get many nominations. He didn't get many nominations at that time because we approved so many in the first term. It is just the opposite with President Obama. Eighteen Bush circuit court nominees were confirmed within 7 days or less after being reported by the committee.

A Republican-controlled Senate filed cloture on three circuit court judges--including some real controversial ones, such as, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown. Cloture was filed in less than 1 week.

There has been a stall going on in the Senate for years. It doesn't take a mathematician to figure it out. We are being held up on nominations and legislation.

President Obama has been trying to have the people he wants as part of his team for 4\1/2\ years. There are multiple vacancies in this court. It has been reported out unanimously by the committee.

There is all of this stalling and waiting so that maybe they will be able to render another couple of opinions over the next couple weeks and thwart the law which says there should be 11 people on the court. But to pack the court with what has been determined the number of people who should be on that court? Is it right to have a total of six members of the Circuit Court? Is it packing the court because we want to fill the court as it is called for in the Constitution? No. We should vote on the nomination of this young man today so he can go to work and help fill one of the four vacancies that has been long standing in that court for 5 or 6 or 7 years.

Unless there is an agreement, we will have a cloture vote at the end of tomorrow, and if they want to use their 30 hours, which they are entitled to do under the arrangement we made at the beginning of this year, they can use the 30 hours. But we are going to get this young man confirmed. It is the right thing to do and we are going to get him confirmed as soon as possible. Having waited 345 days, I think he deserves it.

We have to work together here, but it is mutual work, it is not all on one side. It is not my word versus somebody else's word.

In 2005, we had a knockdown, drag-out battle here. My friend the Republican leader, along with others, gave speeches on the Senate floor that the process regarding judges wasn't moving along quickly enough. As a result of that crisis, in an effort to resolve the matter, we agreed to put some people on the bench we have regretted since then, including Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, and Brett Kavanaugh, but we agreed to that and they are on the court now. We need a balance.

My friend has focused on judicial nominations. We have been doing better there. But other nominations, not so. We can talk about all the rights of the minority and all that. The President of the United States, whether it is George Bush or President Obama or Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, whoever it might be, deserves the right to have the people they want to work there and not be held up for months and months to fill some of these minor posts. I could run through a list of names that were held up and have been held up for a long time.

My friend the Republican leader said during the squabble we had previously how he agreed with the fact we should change the rules. I am not saying we are going to change the rules, but I am saying we have to do a better job than what is going on around here. This is no threat. We need to look at the facts. Look at the facts.

We are going to continue working to try to work through this morass we have here. But let's not focus only on the judiciary. We have a lot of problems with regular nominations. We haven't talked about legislation. We are doing a little better on that, but a perfect example of that is what is going on with the budget. People begged around here, yelled and screamed and fought, for regular order. They get it and then they don't want it.

I am convinced we need to move forward. I think one of the things we should do with something that has been reported out of the committee 18

to nothing, and there have been vacancies for 6 or 7 years, is we should do that immediately, not wait for a couple of weeks to do it. If somebody cares about this good man, his record is available. They can read it in 10 minutes.

I am sorry I had to object to my friend's unanimous consent request, but it was easy to do because the request is simply wrong.

Mr. President, everyone knows that numbers--we can show anything we want with numbers. The fact is there has been slow-walking done on the President's nominations, and we can look at how they do that. It has been interesting. It is a new way of doing things around here. A nominee comes up and what the committee does is submit hundreds and hundreds of questions. One of our nominees got 1,000 questions in writing the person had to respond to. That has never happened before. We have all of these ways of stalling.

I know the Senators from Wyoming want to vote on and have spoken to me about Gregory Alan Phillips to be a circuit court judge for the 10th Circuit. Let's do it right now. Let's do him today. The Wyoming Senators shouldn't have to wait.

That is why I ask unanimous consent that we do--I am sorry. I like him, but the man on whom we are going to invoke cloture graduated law school with my son. He is a fine man, but I am not the only one who messes up his name. He was a basketball player in Kansas. He said his parents came to all of his games and they cringed every time his name was pronounced because it is a hard name to pronounce.

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 95, Srikanth Srinivasan; that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of that time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to what the problem is.

Senator Leahy said yesterday:

A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research

Service compares the whole of President Obama's first term to

the whole of President Bush's first term, and the contrast

could not be more clear. The median Senate floor wait time

for President Obama's district [court] nominees was 5 times

longer than for President Bush's. President Obama's circuit

[court] nominees faced even longer delays, and their median

wait time was 7.3 times longer than for President Bush's

circuit nominees. The comparison is even worse if we look

just at nominees who were reported and confirmed unanimously.

President Bush's unanimously confirmed circuit nominees had a

median wait time of just 14 days. Compare that to the 130.5

days for President Obama's unanimous nominees.

So 14 days compared to 130.5. Things are going along really well? I do not think so.

On with what Senator Leahy said:

That is more than 9 times longer. Even the nonpartisan CRS

calls this a ``notable change.'' There is no good reason for

such unprecedented delays, but those are the facts.

So that is why we are doing this. There is no reason to wait 10 days or 2 weeks for this good man to fill a seat on a court that has been waiting for people to get on the court for 7 years. We have a majority in that court that

is wreaking havoc with the country. For the first time in 230 years, they rule the President cannot make a recess appointment. So, yes, there is a crisis, and we need to do something about it. One way to resolve part of it is to get this good man on the court now.

Mr. President, in school we studied a lot of things. But one of the things I cannot forget is George Orwell's ``1984.'' It was an interesting book because in that book he talked about people coming to a time when whatever they said was factually just the opposite.

Here is where we are now. It has been legislatively determined the DC Circuit should have 11 members. My friend says we are stacking the court? There are four vacancies. Stacking the court by having eight there instead of seven? That math is not very good.

My friend also keeps talking about that the DC Circuit does not have anything to do. The DC Circuit is now more than one-third vacant with four judicial vacancies. Mr. Srinivasan is nominated to the eighth seat on the DC Circuit. Three still remain empty.

And, yes, we are. The country is concerned about the decisions coming out of that court. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is considered by some the most important court in the land. But by virtually everybody, it is ``the second most important court in the land'' because of the complex nature of the cases they handle. The court reviews complicated decisions and rulemaking of many Federal agencies and in recent years has handled some of the most important terrorism and enemy combatant and detention cases since the attacks of September 11. These cases are very complex in nature, requiring additional time for consideration.

Congress took action to address these concerns about their caseload by decreasing the number of judgeships in 2008 from 12 to 11. Congress has set the number of judgeships needed by the court at 11. The court should not be understaffed by one-third.

In reality, according to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the caseload per active judge has increased by 50 percent since 2005, when the Senate confirmed President Bush's nominee to fill the 11th seat on the DC Circuit.

So Senate Republicans willingly confirmed President Bush's nominees to the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on the DC Circuit. We did not think they were stacking it. I did not particularly like some of the people they put on there, but it was not stacking it. That is what the legislation called for.

This good man is President Obama's second nominee to the DC Circuit to fill the eighth seat, and they filibustered Halligan twice.

So this is a situation that needs to be resolved quickly. We cannot have the second, or first, most important court in the land one-third vacant. We are stacking the court with one person? I think not.

So we can stay here longer, but I have made my point. One thing I have to say to my friend, although we have gotten into a few of these little conversations before on the Senate floor, I will wind up getting the last word.

Mr. President, the only thing I would say is, what about the judge from Wyoming? Why don't we do that today? Could there be a more Republican State in the country than Wyoming? Maybe. I do not know. Maybe Idaho is vying for No. 1. But I am willing to approve this judge today. Why don't we vote on him today?

Well, if you want to go ahead and have us invoke cloture on this other guy, we will do that, but I am willing to vote on the Wyoming guy today.

I do not want anyone thinking I am not keeping my word. I was not going to say anything, but I thought I said I would get the last word.

So Senator McConnell can say something now, and I will not get the last word.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Sixty-one days.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order with respect to S. Res. 65, I ask consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to honor Adam Scott, a former member of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas golf team, and the first Australian to win the Masters Tournament.

Through his determination and will to win, Adam was able to come back from a heartbreaking loss at the 2012 Open Championship to win the 2013 Masters in truly stunning fashion. In a tie for the lead heading into the 72nd hole, Adam birdied with a 20-foot putt. At that point, I thought Adam had clinched the title, but another great golfer, Angel Cabrera, was able to force a playoff with his own birdie. It was not until the second hole of that playoff that Adam, through yet another birdie, was able to call himself the Master's champion. This was his ninth PGA Tour win, but first major championship.

Adam hails from Adelaide, Australia, later moving to Queensland at the age of 9. In 1998, Adam came to my home State of Nevada to study and play golf at UNLV. While at UNLV, Adam was an All-American, finishing 11th at the 1999 NCAA Golf Championships. His victory at the Masters was the first major championship to be won by a former UNLV men's golfer.

UNLV's golf program has produced a lot of great players over the years, but until now, none had ever won a major championship. There have been several second-place and third-place showings, but never a champion. As a Nevadan, it is amazing to see a former UNLV player wearing the famous Augusta National Gold Club's green jacket.

On behalf of the Senate, I congratulate Adam Scott on his victory at the Masters Tournament and look forward to continuing to follow a career that has already made Australia and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas very proud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 258, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

There will be two votes at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. The first vote will be a cloture vote on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nomination, and the second vote will be on the Sanders amendment to the farm bill. We will continue to work through more amendments on the farm bill tomorrow. Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I called home to check to see how things were going, visited with my wife a little bit.

She said: You can't imagine what I am watching on TV. It is hard to watch.

She was talking about the terrible storm that hit Oklahoma, the devastation and deaths, the injuries. She tried to explain to me. It was hard to relate even though she was watching it on TV. Homes were destroyed, schools were destroyed, even elementary schools were destroyed.

I think what Landra did was she described how all of America feels and felt upon watching it. Our hearts go out to the families whose loved ones were lost. The extent of that we don't know. We are still waiting. Those missing in the devastating tornadoes in Oklahoma, we feel so sad for them. Our thoughts are with those who were affected by this tragedy, and so many people have been affected. Families are still searching for their family members, their children.

I recognize and commend the heroic efforts of the first responders who rushed to the scene and have been working tirelessly to help those who were injured. They worked all night. Of course, they are still searching for the missing. I commend the efforts of neighbors, everyday citizens, young and old, who have been heroic in helping.

Although we may not know the extent of the damage now, we will continue to do everything in our power to help the people of Oklahoma as they recover from these terrible tornadoes, these acts of nature. I will stand vigilant today and tomorrow, ready to help as more storms threaten the region.

Every Federal resource will be made available to help the communities affected by this tragedy. I look forward to hearing the President--his speech will start momentarily--on the disaster. I am pleased that FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate is already in Oklahoma assessing the extent of the damage and deciding how the Federal Government can best assist.

I will continue to monitor the search and rescue efforts. Whenever tragedy strikes any part of our Nation, it really strikes us all. I pledge to the people of Oklahoma my continued support, our continued support, as they begin to recover from this awful storm.

Following leader remarks today the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half. Upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 954, the farm bill. I spoke to Chairman Stabenow last night. She indicated that she believes there is an opportunity to finish the bill, even this week. I certainly hope that is the case. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 p.m. be for a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each during that time, and that at 5:30 p.m. Senator Stabenow be recognized.