Floor Statements

Mr. President, as indicated in this chart, 51 days ago the Senate passed its budget. It has now been 51 days. So why are Republicans standing in the way? A picture is worth a thousand words, and that is the picture.

Common sense and more than two centuries of history dictate the next step would be to go to conference and try to find common ground between our budget and the budget passed by the House of Representatives. The conference committee is one of the oldest traditions of the entire American Government. In fact, during the first session of Congress--No. 1--on April 7, 1789, the day after a quorum had been secured and the first meeting of Congress was held, the Senate charged a committee with setting out the rules for such conferences. During that first Congress, the two Houses convened many times on conference committees to consider many different issues they disagreed on, including differences of opinion over amendments to the Constitution, differences of opinion over

legislating as to what the courts should do, and looking at bills that created a post office and the Treasury Department. All those were bills, one passed by the House and one passed by the Senate, and they got together to work out the differences.

In this esteemed tradition, Democrats now wish to resolve our differences over the budget in a conference committee subject to the disinfectant of public scrutiny, instead of behind closed doors, as we have done for more than two centuries. A number of Republican Senators have joined Democrats in calling for such a conference. It has now been 51 days since the Senate passed its budget. Even Republicans are asking why can't we go to conference?

This is what the senior Senator from Arizona, a Republican, said last week:

I'm very much in favor of it, and I think we ought to do it

right away. . . . After 4 years of complaining about Harry

Reid's failure to bring up a budget and then we do one and

block conference . . . is incomprehensible.

That was a quote from John McCain.

After 3 years of Republican yearning for such regular order, Democrats assumed every Republican Senator would be enthusiastic to go to conference. But although a few Republicans, such as Senator McCain, have called for a conference committee, Republican leaders have refused for weeks to name conferees, flouting more than 200 years of tradition.

Republican leaders have also refused to explain why they won't go to conference. But the longer the Republicans delay, the more transparent this partisan political tactic is becoming. It is transparent they oppose transparency. They do not want openness in government.

Republicans continue to put off a fiscal compromise until our backs are up against yet another manufactured crisis--a catastrophic default on the financial obligations we have as a country. Republicans hope to use the threat of default as a bargaining chip to extract concessions for tax breaks for the wealthy, extract concessions for drastic cuts to Medicare, extract concessions for more Draconian cuts to programs that keep the elderly, the sick, the disabled, and the most vulnerable Americans from slipping further into poverty.

Even though Republicans caused themselves and the country immense political harm by pursuing this wrongheaded strategy last summer, they are at it again, and this time Republicans aren't even hiding their desire to cause a first-of-its-kind default on our Nation's financial obligations.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill called the ``Full Faith and Credit Act.'' If there were ever an Orwellian name, this is it. In their lexicon, up is down, down is up; east is west, north is south. A bill called the Full Faith and Credit Act? Come on.

This legislation ranks the Nation's debts in order of priority--their priority, a Republican-dominated, tea party-driven House of Representatives. Listen to this. Here is what the legislation says:

In the event of a Republican-forced default, the Nation would stop payments to Medicare, veterans, active-duty military servicemembers, national security personnel, and you name it--everything except paying the debt to China.

In addition to threatening the full faith and credit of the United States, this legislation would cost American jobs, hurt businesses, and tank the economy. And it wouldn't prevent default. If an American family has a mortgage payment, a car payment, and credit card payment, but pays only three of those bills, the family is still in default. The Federal Government lives by the same rules. If we pay China but default on obligations to our veterans, we are still in default. If we pay China but not our Border Patrol, not our FBI, not our law enforcement officers, including drug enforcement, we are in default. If we pay China but not our troops overseas, we are in default.

The Republican approach to default is totally irresponsible. The Republicans know this risky measure is a nonstarter in the Senate. Even if it could pass the Senate--which it won't--President Obama would veto it.

Americans are tired of these protracted fights over the budget caused by the tea party-driven Republicans in Congress. It is through compromise, not through hostage taking or political blackmail, that we can set the Nation on the road to fiscal responsibility. That compromise begins by going to conference on the budget. Americans agree the path to economic prosperity runs through the regular order of this legislative body--a process that honors more than two centuries of work.

Finally, I had hoped we would have an opportunity for the Republican leader to explain why he objects to going to conference on the budget. We informed the Republican side we would ask this consent today, tomorrow, the next day, and every day. Let us hope we don't get to day 62, 63, 64, 65, 75, but the way they are going, I guess they are never going to go to conference.

We informed the Republican side we would ask consent today and every day we are in session. While the Republican cloakroom informed us there was an objection, no Republican was available to explain that objection in person. I did this last week, and again they had no one here. I did the same thing I am going to do here. I am asking for consent, but I will withdraw my request out of respect for the long tradition of comity. This is not comedy but comity.

It is outrageous, first of all, that they block this and then don't have the courage for somebody to stand and object. It speaks volumes that no Republican Senator was available or willing to explain the bizarre objection to a perfectly reasonable request to go to conference and work out the differences. The only explanation we have had so far came from the junior Senator from Texas where he said: We will go to conference, but you have to agree to what we want before we go to conference. How is that for a deal?

The junior Senator from Texas was not available today, and no other Republican Senator appears willing to stand and explain why Senate Republicans are now standing in the way of a budget. So I will ask this and then I will withdraw it.

Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 25

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

I would elaborate. This is a process that started being developed in the first Congress that was ever held in this country--1789. My Republican colleagues for years complained about not following regular order. They said we didn't have a budget. We didn't need one, but they said we didn't have one. We didn't do one by resolution, we did one by passing a law. But regardless of that, they came and talked about that.

This is out of line. It is ridiculous. It is unfair to the American people, but it is very obvious what is going on.

I withdraw my request, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer is from the State of Connecticut, and I want the record spread with how much I admire what he and Senator Blumenthal have done in not letting the American people forget about Sandy Hook--not forget about those little tiny boys and girls.

My little grandchildren do not live here. I have three grandchildren, but they are teenagers. My little grandchildren are in Nevada, so I don't have a chance to see them. But I was in church yesterday and saw all these little kids, little beautiful children. To think these little boys and girls, just like the ones I saw yesterday, would be gunned down--shot multiple times, most of them; teachers trying to save these little children just cut down with an automatic weapon.

I admire the two Senators from Connecticut. They are not going to let this fade from our minds. Keep in mind, I

met with the Sandy Hook people on several occasions. They are not asking for anything that is outrageous. Their first step is to say that someone who is crazy--I am sorry, that is not a good term of art-- someone who has extreme mental problems should not be able to buy a gun. Someone who is a criminal should not be able to buy a gun. That is all we want. We will settle for that. The people of Sandy Hook will settle for that.

I admire what the Presiding Officer has done and what Senator Blumenthal has done. We cannot let these terrible things that happened in Aurora, CO--someone walks in with a weapon that has a magazine of 100 bullets. He would have killed a lot more, but the gun jammed.

I ask the Chair to announce the business of the day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 13, 2013, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I have been working with Senator Vitter today. I talked to him a short time ago; Senator Boxer a couple of times today. We hope that by noon tomorrow we can have a unanimous consent agreement finalized to do away with the cloture vote. If we can't, we will have a cloture vote tomorrow at noon.

Senator Vitter and Senator Boxer worked hard to come up with a universal agreement to include, I understand, about a dozen amendments. Some of those could be accepted by voice, and we would have other rollcall votes. I hope we can do that. If that is the case, we hope to finish the bill tomorrow or, at the latest, maybe Wednesday morning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Tuesday, May 14; 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 leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; further, that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act, with the time until noon equally divided in the usual form, and that the filing deadline for all second degree amendments to that act be 11:15 on Tuesday. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 tomorrow for our weekly caucus meetings.

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

I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.

Following leader remarks the Senate will be in morning business for 1 hour, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half.

Following morning business the Senate will resume consideration of S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act.

We will continue to work through amendments to the bill today. We may also consider two district court judges sometime today, the Dick nomination from Louisiana and the Roman nomination from New York. Senators will be notified when those votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, by now the minority's tactics, the Republican tactics of obstruction and delay are well known, but they are also well worn. Those methods were once again on display yesterday when Republicans delayed for the second time in 2 weeks a Senate HELP Committee vote on the nomination of Tom Perez to lead the Department of Labor.

The able and considerate chairman Tom Harkin had already postponed the vote 2 weeks at the request of one of the Republicans. They requested more time to review documents related to Tom Perez's nomination. It was terribly disappointing that, after they were granted additional time as a matter of courtesy, an anonymous Republican would employ an arcane procedural tactic to prevent the committee from even meeting, and, of course, voting on that nomination.

Republicans had 7 weeks, 49 days to consider this nomination. He was nominated on March 21. Since his confirmation hearing in April, he has responded in writing to more than 200 questions.

He is an extremely qualified candidate for this job. The President was smart in nominating him. He is what the American dream is all about. He is the son of immigrants. He paid his way through college by working as a garbage collector and at a warehouse. He went on to become the first lawyer in his family.

Mr. Perez was appointed by Governor O'Malley of Maryland to be the secretary of the Department Labor, where he helped implement the country's first statewide living wage law. In his current role as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Perez helped settle cases on behalf of families targeted by unfair mortgage lending.

As anyone can see, he is an extremely qualified nominee. His knowledge and experience will make him an outstanding Secretary.

Unfortunately, impressive qualifications and exceptional character are no longer enough to satisfy Senate Republicans. Instead of a fair and constructive confirmation process, Republicans have chosen to play partisan political games with dozens--scores--of President Obama's appointees.

They have also slow-walked the nomination of dedicated public servant Gina McCarthy to lead the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. This morning, just a few minutes ago, Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee sent a letter to Chairman Boxer indicating they will boycott committee markup of Ms. McCarthy's nomination.

This type of blanket partisan obstruction used to be unheard of. Now it has become the pattern Republicans have adopted. They will use any procedural roadblock or stalling tactic to deny President Obama qualified nominees.

My Republican colleagues can try every trick in the book--and they have and they probably will--but I assure you he will have his day in the Senate. I assure everyone Ms. McCarthy will have her day in the Senate, and I will do all I can to ensure these highly qualified are confirmed, as the President has requested.

Madam President, it has been 47 days since the Senate passed its sensible progrowth budget. As my friend the minority leader has said many times, after the Senate passed a budget, the next logical step would be to go to conference and try to find common ground. This is what Senator McConnell said earlier this year:

We ought not to ignore the law any longer. And I think it's

a good step in the direction of getting back to regular

order, which we ought to follow.

After years of calling for regular order, Republicans ought to be eager to go to conference. Senator McConnell and the Republican caucus pulled a 180--a flip-flop. They were for regular order before they were against regular order.

For weeks Republicans have refused to go to conference, and they have refused to explain why. The only excuse Republicans offered came not from the minority leader but from the junior Senator from Texas. Senator Cruz objected to the budget conference on the grounds that Democrats must concede basically everything before Republicans will negotiate anything.

As one news reporter put it, the Republicans' offer is: ``First surrender, then we will fight.'' Republicans know as well as Democrats that is not any way to negotiate. Unilateral disarmament in the legislative process is not the same thing as compromise.

Democrats--along with the media and the American people--are left to wonder and guess the real reason the Republicans are so determined to avoid a budget conference. Are Republicans afraid to defend or debate their extreme budget in full public view? Probably. It cannot be easy to defend a budget that will end Medicare as we know it. It cannot be easy to stand strong for a plan that asks the middle class to foot the bill for more tax breaks for the rich--a politically unsustainable position already rejected by the voters. It cannot be easy to stick up for the arbitrary meat-ax cuts of the sequester, which guts the safety net protecting the elderly, the poor, the middle class, veterans, and sometimes the helpless.

Is it possible that Republicans are simply hoping to delay compromise long enough to create another manufactured crisis as the Nation once again approaches a default on its bills? Americans are tired of the type of knockdown, drag-out debt ceiling battles that caused our credit downgrade and cost our economy billions of dollars last year. Middle- class families have been through enough economic turmoil. It is unbelievable that Republicans would once again hold the full faith and credit of our government hostage.

I hope my Republican colleagues will come to their senses. The way to put our Nation on sound fiscal footing is to set aside this obstruction and set sensible policy through regular order in the legislative process, not to extort concessions through dangerous hostage taking.

Passing the budget in each Chamber was a first good step toward restoring regular order. The next move is to go to conference and set our minds on reaching a reasonable compromise that reverses the painful cuts of sequestration.

Right now the Republicans are the only thing standing between the Congress and compromise. I am optimistic that they will not continue to put American families through more financial pain for their own short- term political gain.

I yield to my friend from Washington for a unanimous consent request.

Madam President, before my friend leaves the floor, I want the record spread with this. The admiration the Democratic caucus has for the Senator from Washington is significant. She is an elected leader. She was the person chosen to be the chair of the supercommittee to come up with a plan to solve the Nation's crisis we have economically, and she did yeoman's work. It was all done until a letter was received from virtually every Republican Senator saying, fine, great deal that Chairman Murray has done, but we are not going to agree to any revenue. To work through the contentious problems we have had on the floor and come up with a budget is remarkable, and it is a budget we are very proud of.

I would say to my friend, I think we are making some progress because just within the past hour the Speaker has said this: ``We can't cut our way to prosperity.'' That is a significant step forward. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, for the first time in some time, has spoken reality, the truth, the facts. I quote directly: ``We can't cut our way to prosperity.'' That is right.

That is why we have to get to regular order. We have to do what this body has been doing for 200 years or more: go to conference when there is a difference between what the House wants and what the Senate wants. That is all the chairman of the Budget Committee Senator Murray is asking--that we get together with our Republican colleagues and work out our differences.

I think our budget--and we were led by Chairman Murray--is a very good budget. Is it perfect? Of course not. We would be willing to sit down and talk to our Republican colleagues in conference the way we have done for centuries and try to work out our differences. For them just to stonewall us and say, as the junior Senator from Texas said, fine, we will go to conference, but you have to agree to what we want before we go, what in the world is that all about?

I admire Senator Murray, as does the entire Democratic caucus, and I am confident the people of Washington are very proud of this stalwart Senator who has done so much for this country. I want to make sure the Republicans understand she will be the chair. She is going to represent us. I am not going to be negotiating this. Senator McConnell is not going to be negotiating this. It is going to be done by the senior Senator from the State of Washington, and she is willing to deal with whomever the Republicans decide she should deal with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 39 and 41 under the previous order.

With this consent, there will be up to two rollcall votes at about 2 p.m. today--there may be only one but up to two--on the nominations of Shelly Deckert Dick to be a district judge for the Middle District of Louisiana and Nelson Stephen Roman to be a district judge for the Southern District of New York.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this is important. I have a unanimous consent request that we have been working on for a long time.

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, in consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 92; 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; that 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; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, through the Chair to my friend from New Mexico, I am not managing the bill. However, it is my understanding that there have been objections raised to offering more amendments.

We could get the chair back here or somebody to manage this bill, but that is where we are.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, this afternoon we have been trying to move forward on the WRDA bill--the Water Resources Development Act--and significant progress has been made. One of the issues we are trying to work out is an issue dealing with Senator Landrieu. She has been, more than anyone else in the Senate, concerned about what happens when places flood, and she has every reason to feel this way because of what happens in Louisiana with flooding. She is concerned about flood insurance.

I have worked with Senator Boxer, Senator Boxer's staff, I have worked with the Republicans, and it appears to me this is something that has made great progress today. The staff is going to work on this over the weekend. We will be here on Monday. I will file cloture in a few minutes, but if, in fact, cloture doesn't need to be voted on, we can always move forward without doing that. We can vitiate the cloture vote.

So I hope the good work done by Senator Landrieu, her staff, and other staff members here--and Senator Landrieu has been here, as she is now. I don't mean this in a negative sense, but she is like a bulldog. Whenever she gets hold of something, it is hard to get her to loosen that jaw. She has been here all afternoon working on this, so I hope something can be worked out during the next 48 hours on this matter.

Cloture Motion

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived and that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 601 occur at 12 noon on Tuesday, May 14.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.