Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am sure my colleagues are familiar with the old adage: Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

For 2 years my Republican colleagues have said they wish for a return to regular order. They asked for amendments, and they got amendments. They asked for consideration of bills out of committees, and they have gotten that. They asked and then asked again for the Senate to pass a budget resolution, even though we already had a budget law signed by President Obama. Well, they got what they wished; the dog finally caught the car. But it turns out Republicans were more interested in demagogy by calling for regular order than actually operating under regular order.

Although the Senate passed a budget resolution under regular order after scores of amendments, scores of votes, the Republicans now refuse to allow us to go to conference with our colleagues in the House of Representatives. This is a new concept.

For centuries we have had regular order where if the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill, if they are different, we sit down, talk and work out the differences. Not with this tea party-driven House and Senate. No, they talk about regular order, they talk a good game, but when it comes to regular order they don't want it. They shy away from it. They say: No, we don't want regular order. We don't want something that has been done in this country for centuries.

Why are they so afraid? Why are the Republicans so afraid?

We all know finding common ground isn't easy. They have a program where they are asking for $92 billion more in cuts in discretionary programs than we are, such as the Head Start Program which allows tens of thousands of little boys and girls to get a head start; Meals on Wheels, where millions of people have been eliminated from that program; medical research--a Senator I had a conversation with this morning has a friend with a rare form of breast cancer. A program to help this woman cure this terrible disease has been eliminated where she lives.

We know finding common ground will not be easy, but it should be done. We should find common ground. We are not afraid to work a little harder to get this done. We are not afraid of transparency. Let's sit down together and find out where each stands. We have done our work over here. Let's find out what the Republicans want to do.

We need to let the American people know where we stand. That is why transparency is so important. Democrats and Republicans will never, ever find common ground if we never get to the negotiating table. So why don't my Republican colleagues want to go to conference? Last night, a junior Senator from Texas said Republicans would agree to go to conference only if Democrats first would give in to their demands.

What were those demands? Well, they want more job-killing budget cuts. They want to make sure no millionaire is ever asked to contribute to the deficit reduction. That is what he asked: Before we go to conference, we want to make sure that happens.

He also said he wanted to make sure--remember this, we have been there before. Maybe the junior Senator from Texas doesn't remember, but we remember. We remember the government being on the verge of losing its ability to be part of the world community by not paying its debts.

Rightfully or wrongfully, this country accumulates debts. Raising the debt ceiling doesn't do away with those debts; they are still there. We have an obligation to pay the debts that are incurred by this country.

My friend, the junior Senator from Texas, said he wanted a guarantee, as a bargaining pawn, we would make sure the debt ceiling would not be raised--or words to that effect. We have been through that before. The President made it very clear: He will not negotiate on this country paying its bills.

Republicans refuse to go to conference unless Democrats give in to positions that were soundly rejected by the American people last November, soundly rejected on the Senate floor with the budget resolution we passed. In other words, Republicans refuse to play the game unless we let them win.

The rules are set. We know what the rules are, so let's get down and go forward with the rules. But they are not willing to do that. Like schoolyard bullies, if Republicans can't win, they will take the ball and go home. That is what we were told last night. This is a stunt, but it is a nonstarter.

What is the real reason Republicans are shying away from their conference? Speaker Boehner has said he would rather not subject his Members to politically tough votes. Now, that is probably very truthful. House Republicans are afraid of a backlash from a radical tea party that controls what they do over there and has such significant sway in what happens over here. They are afraid of the backlash from the radical tea party if they even discuss a compromise with us. Even if they agree to go to conference with us, they are afraid that will hurt them.

Partisan politics is no reason to shy away from bipartisan negotiations. Republicans got what they asked for. They wanted regular order, and they have regular order.

Now it is time to embrace the regular order they said they wanted. It has been going on here for centuries. That is what they want. They should complete what they asked for. It is time to get away from a last-minute fix and short-term solutions. It is time to engage in meaningful negotiations and a responsible budget process.

Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will be in morning business until 5:30 p.m.

Today at 5:30 p.m. the Senate will resume consideration of S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act. There will be two rollcall votes in order to complete action on that bill. The filing deadline for all second- degree amendments to S. 743 is 4 p.m. today.

I have been told, and staff has indicated to me, that we believe there will be an agreement that we will not have to have the vote this evening on the water resources bill; that we can just move to it sometime tomorrow. Otherwise, if we can't work that out, there will be a third rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Water Resources Development Act.

Mr. President, for 38 straight months private sector companies have added new jobs and put Americans back to work, 7 million Americans in all. They have done it in spite of economic policies that hampered growth--harsh austerity policies Republicans have forced on the economy for the last 2 years. Yet the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the other indicators hit an all-time high last week and the manufacturing sector remains strong.

While the economy isn't back to full strength, and that certainly is the truth, last week's job report shows we have made remarkable progress in 3 years. But just imagine how strong job growth could have been if Republicans had not insisted on round after round of meat axe budget cuts that undercut economic expansion.

Every expert, every respected economist says the best way to encourage a recovery, the best way to create jobs is with targeted investments and balanced deficit reduction. The most responsible way to reduce our deficit is to get away from short-term fixes, last-minute negotiations and, instead, pursue a responsible budget process. We can't begin to find common ground if we never get to the negotiating table. That is why again today I will ask unanimous consent to go to conference with the House on the budget, the budget that we passed.

For 2 years my Republican colleagues have complained the Senate had not passed a budget resolution, even though we had enacted a budget with the force of law and signed by President Obama. Remember, a budget resolution is just an inter-Congress matter. It doesn't have anything to do with the President. He doesn't have to sign that, but we enacted a budget with the force of law and signed by President Obama.

The Republicans complained and complained: Why didn't we do a budget resolution? We had something much better than a budget resolution, but for 2 years Republicans longed for the days of regular order. We know because they told us so. They wanted amendments; we gave them amendments. They wanted bills to go through committee; they got bills reported out of committees. Republicans were desperate for the Senate to vote on a budget resolution that would set spending priorities for the fiscal year. They got them. We passed a budget resolution under regular order, complete with a late-night budget vote-arama that lasted until 5 a.m. that included more than 100 individual votes. Still, the House has refused to go to conference with us. Since they got what they claimed they wanted, their interest in regular order has not just waned, it disappeared.

They don't want to go to conference as we would under the regular order--that they said they wanted. They don't even want to name conferees. We tried to get that out of this body.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee admitted these stall tactics were an effort to provide political cover for his colleagues in the House. This is what he said:

There are difficulties in the fact that we haven't been

able to have any understanding on how this conference might

work and what prospects we have for success might be. I think

it's possible that we could succeed, but at this point we're

not close enough to anticipate a successful conference and

that presents complications for the House.

Can you imagine? They don't have any understanding how this conference might work. Well, probably one of the

reasons he doesn't have an understanding of how a conference works is because they have stopped us from going to conference on virtually everything.

He also says: We don't know what the prospects are for success. That is what conference is all about. The Senate passes a bill, the House passes a bill, and we sit down and try to work it out.

He said:

I think it's possible that we could succeed, but at this

point we're not close enough to anticipate a successful

conference, and that presents complications for the House.

We are the United States Senate, not the United States House of Representatives. We should do our business and not be worried about the tea party-driven House of Representatives. The budget process is the only way to work through our differences without bringing the country to the brink of another artificial crisis. To accelerate job growth and reduce the deficit without harming the economy, we have to make important and smart spending cuts, while asking the most fortunate among us to do a little better, contribute a little more.

The arbitrary across-the-board cuts of the so-called sequester do just the exact opposite. The sequester uses a meat cleaver where a scalpel is needed. The sequester cuts were designed to be too painful-- so painful they would force the supercommittee to reach a bipartisan compromise. We all remember what happened there. Republicans refused to allow one penny of revenue. When they did that, they insisted on a cuts-only approach. They ensured the sequester would kick in.

Eliminating sequester is part of a larger challenge: to set sound long-term fiscal policy through the regular order of the budget process, which they said they wanted--they, the Republicans. Now they have walked away from it. That will take cooperation. Remember, Democrats and Republicans voted for these arbitrary cuts, and Democrats and Republicans will have to work together to reverse them.

Why are my Republican colleagues so afraid? We know the two sides will not agree on every aspect of the budget. We know finding common ground will not be easy.

We can get it done. We used to do it until we have been stopped from doing everything by a tea party-driven House of Representatives and the strongly influenced Republicans in the Senate by the tea party. Republicans believe in one set of principles for how the government should spend money and how it should save money.

Democrats have very different principles. Republicans would lower taxes for the rich while the middle class foots the bill. Democrats would ask the wealthiest individuals and corporations to contribute a little more to reduce the deficit. Republicans would turn Medicaid into a voucher program, in effect doing away with Medicaid as we know it.

Democrats would preserve and protect Medicare for future generations. Republicans would use more harsh austerity to reduce the deficit. Democrats would adopt a balanced approach that couples smart spending cuts with new revenue from closing loopholes.

Remember, we have already cut more than $2.5 trillion from the debt. We have our differences, but Democrats aren't afraid to work out those differences. We are ready to go to conference to begin the difficult work of compromise.

If this Congress is serious about reducing the deficit and protecting the economy, we need to go to work now, not wait until this minor impasse--and that is what it is--turns into another major manufactured crisis, which the House loves to send to us at the last minute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that all after the enacting clause be stricken; 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 have just been informed that there is no one from the Republican side to object to this, so I will renew this. I want everyone put on notice that we are going to ask that we follow regular order, which the Republicans have been whining about for 2 years. That is what we want to do, and that is what this consent is all about.

I would withdraw this request until the Republicans show up to object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this afternoon I offered a consent agreement dealing with the budget. I withdrew that because we did not have anyone here to object, and I had an inkling there would be an objection if a Republican were here.

We have been asked to move with regular order. We have done that. We have done our very best to do that. People wanted amendments. We have done our best to have bills with amendments. We have been asked, let's do as much work as we can with committees, and we have done that. We have bills reported out from the committee. Those are the bills we have handled here, with rare exception.

Now we have had our Republican friends saying for months and months, let's do things with regular order. We know how hard it was to get a budget passed. We have had over 100 amendments on which we actually voted. We were here until 5 o'clock in the morning. We got a budget, even though--you know, we have been through this before. We do not need to go into more detail. We had a law signed by the President of the United States that gave us our budget allocations for several years. But we decided to do a resolution. It didn't have to be signed by the President. I am glad we did. It was hard. Senators Murray and Sessions did a good job allowing us to move forward on that, so now it is time to go forward. We have a budget resolution we passed in the Senate. We want to meet with the House and work out our differences. That is what we have done here for two centuries. We should do it on this bill.

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, with the motions to reconsider being considered made and laid on 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 without intervening action or debate.

I would make a comment before making a decision on that.

The Senate considered the budget--and that is an understatement. We voted on more than 100 amendments, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. It was hard. The votes were hard. The Senate passed its budget. It should now go to conference, that which the Senate passed. It is our budget. The Senator from Texas was on the losing side. He had his view and it lost, but now he wants us to agree by consent to adopt the losing side's view or else he is not going to allow us to go to conference.

For more than two centuries, I repeat, the two bodies have been able to go work out their differences. The Senate passes something. The House passes something. You talk about regular order, that is it. We are able at that time to sit down and talk about the differences. The debt ceiling--he wants to talk about that. He wants to talk about taxes. We are happy to do that, but let's do it in the context of regular order. That is what we should be doing around here.

My friend from Texas is like the schoolyard bully. He pushes everybody around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but changes the rules. That way, no one wins--except the bully who tries to indicate to people that he has won. We are asking the Republicans to play by the rules and let us go to conference.

I don't think it takes a lot of wizardry to figure out that we know how the American people feel about what they want done in this country. They want us to get on a pathway of growth and economic vitality. It has been hindered.

The Republicans have things they want to do. We have things we want to do. Why can't we sit down as reasonable men and women and work out our differences? That is what a conference is all about.

I object to what my friend suggests. It is actually fairly ridiculous, if you want the truth: Before we go to conference, determine what you are going to do or not do in the conference. That is not how we do things around here.

Mr. President, is there an objection or no objection? Let's hear about it. We have had enough.

Mr. President, there is no such thing.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

President, today I rise to recognize one of Congress' longest-serving and loyal staffers, Charlie Houy. After three decades of service under Senators Ted Stevens, John Stennis

and Daniel Inouye, Charlie retired April 6, 2013. Today, on his one month retirement anniversary, we reflect on his quiet and steady leadership which was so important to the work of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate.

Charlie began his career on the Appropriations Committee as a professional staff member for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 1987. He was quickly promoted and assumed the role of democratic clerk starting in 1995. In that capacity, Charlie worked on nearly every issue in the defense area from purchasing weapons to personnel issues.

Charlie's work on the Defense Subcommittee enabled our Nation's military to transform itself from a Cold War-era force to the agile and quick response force that exists today. Charlie played a major role in helping modernize our weapon systems, including helping secure funding for the development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles--UAVs. Funding for UAVs helped to change the tide of the latest conflict in our favor and will continue to play a major role as we continue to prosecute and disrupt terrorist activities worldwide.

The role of UAVs in today's warfare is especially evident in my home State of Nevada. Creech Air Force Base is home to the famed Predator and Reaper aerial vehicles. For decades, Creech Air Force Base was comprised of a few buildings and a single runway, but Charlie's hard work on the Appropriations Committee led to significant investment in infrastructure and increases in Nevada military personnel. These additional resources have transformed Indian Springs Auxiliary base to Creech Air Force Base, the premier UAV installation in the world, supporting air and ground combat, reconnaissance, and search and rescue.

In 2009, Charlie assumed his current role as the staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee. As our Nation was dealing with the effects of the great recession, Charlie helped develop policies to invest in American infrastructure and jumpstart the economy. His in- depth knowledge about the intricacies of the legislative process, coupled with his sense of humor, allowed him to keep order among the various subcommittees and continue the bipartisan nature of the Committee.

Charlie played a major role in nearly every appropriation issue during the last 5 years. From continuing resolutions to omnibus appropriations measures, Charlie helped navigate the Congressional landscape to ensure passage into law. In particular, Charlie worked with my staff to help avert a government shutdown and enact the Budget Control Act. I will always be grateful for Charlie's hard work on this piece of legislation.

Although the Senate and Nevada will miss Charlie's deep institutional knowledge about the appropriations process and the Federal budget, I am confident that Charlie's work left a lasting mark on our Nation and on Congress. I am happy to thank Charlie for his three decades of service and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., on Tuesday, May 7, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and 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 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; further, that following morning business the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 42, the Medine nomination, as provided under the previous order; and that the Senate then recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote on the Medine nomination at noon tomorrow. At 2:15 p.m., we will begin consideration of S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act. I have spoken to the two managers of that bill, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, and they are going to manage this bill to the best of their ability. They have experience, they know the issue, and people should be ready to work with them to see if we can move this bill as fast as possible.

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

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 this morning. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half. At 10:30 the Senate will recess for an hour to allow for a Senators-only briefing. When the Senate reconvenes, we will resume consideration of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Yesterday I filed cloture on this legislation. As a result the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments is 1 p.m. today. Unless an agreement is reached, Senators should expect a cloture vote on Friday morning.

That was a wonderful prayer. I appreciated it very much.

I would now yield to my friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, S. 799 is at the desk and due for a second reading; is that right?

Mr. President, I object to any further proceeds with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, I now yield to the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Cowan.

Mr. President, the Senate operates by cooperation and consent. So it is unfortunate that we could not reach an agreement yesterday to consider amendments to the Marketplace Fairness Act, a measure that will provide parity between brick-and-mortar retailers and online stores.

A few Senators have held up this important legislation--and I mean a few--legislation which proponents have advocated for 11 years. The able sponsors of this bill--Senators Enzi, Durbin, and Alexander--are continuing to work to get an agreement on a list of amendments upon which the Senate could vote.

Three-quarters of the Senate support this measure. A number of those who do not vote with us do not oppose this legislation, they are doing it for other reasons. This is overwhelmingly important legislation, but, as we saw with the background check measure and the other gun matters last week, here in the Senate a minority of Senators can block even measures with overwhelming support. We found that on background checks. This bill is no exception. Despite 75 votes to proceed to the Marketplace Fairness Act, just a few individual Senators are vowing to derail this legislation. Absent consent, we will vote on closure on this measure an hour after we convene tomorrow.

I remain open to an agreement to consider amendments to this legislation. The proponents of this legislation have worked for a long time to move forward. They worked all day yesterday and the day before to come up with a list of amendments. No one is trying to prevent amendments, except a handful of Senators. I am eager to conduct an open debate on this bill, but time is winding down. One way or another we are going to finish work on this measure before we leave for our instate work period, even if it takes the weekend. Those people--that handful of people--should understand that. The calendar is simply too full to allow this important measure to hold over until next month.

The Senate must complete work on job-creating water resource legislation and a farm bill during the May work period so we can move forward on the immigration debate in June. We have had eight Senators who have spent days, weeks, working on an immigration bill. We have a bipartisan bill coming to the Senate with a system to fix our broken immigration system, just like we have a bipartisan bill on the Senate floor today.

The only way we get things done around here is with Senators working together. The immigration bill is a good example of that, and this bill is a good example. We cannot let a few people stand in the way of fairness. That is what this is all about.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as soon as I finish my brief remarks, the Senator from Montana be recognized to respond to the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, this is not a partisan bill. There are times I am on the floor advocating for partisan advantage, but that is not what we have here. We have managers of this bill who have worked very hard for a long time, and this is where we are now. We are to a point where there have been a number of amendments offered, there have been objections made, and so no amendments are allowed to be debated or voted on, and that is where we find ourselves procedurally.

As the manager of the Senate, I am left with no option except to look to the next alternative to try and move things along, which will be after midnight tonight. At 12:30 a.m. or 1 a.m. this morning, we would have a vote on cloture on the bill.

I say to my friends who oppose this--and I know they believe in their opposition to it fervently--it is a big waste of time. We have had overwhelming votes twice. Whether we vote after midnight tonight or at 6 p.m. this evening, it will still be the same result. So I would hope those who oppose this

will take a look at this and maybe arrive at a point so we can have a vote earlier. If that doesn't happen, everyone should understand we are going to come here sometime after midnight tonight and move forward on this legislation. After that, of course, it is only a majority vote to complete this legislation.

The managers are still ready to allow amendments to be offered. It is getting late in the day. The 30 hours is grinding to a halt. I hope we can get something done and move on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 743 occur this evening at 5:35 p.m.; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired at 5 p.m. Monday, May 6; the Durbin amendment No. 745 then be withdrawn; that no other second-degree amendments be in order; that the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the Enzi-Durbin amendment No. 741; that upon disposition of the amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; finally, that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be 4 p.m. Monday, May 6.

Mr. President, just briefly, I appreciate very much the fact this is a consent agreement I had nothing to do with. I appreciate all the good work of everyone who was involved in this.