Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Virginia to finish his statement, for me to have 8 minutes of morning business, and then allow our colleagues on the other side to respond.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. There is no one in this body more passionate to do the work to get us to a balanced bipartisan deal, to put the budget deficit and the budget issues behind us, and to get our country back on track than the Senator from Virginia. I know he wants to get to a conference committee as badly as I do--not to demand that we only have our position but to work with others to find a bipartisan solution.

As he so eloquently stated, it has been more than 100 days now since the Senate did pass a budget, and we have tried now 15 times to take the next step to move to a bipartisan conference with the House. Every time we have asked, we have been blocked by a tea party Republican with the support of the Republican leadership.

I understand that for some factions in the Republican Party, ``compromise'' is a dirty word. That may explain why they have offered up excuse after excuse for blocking the regular budget order we are trying to work toward. They refuse to allow a conference before we get to a so-called preconference framework. They demand we put preconditions on what can be discussed or talked about in a bipartisan conference, to claiming that moving to a budget conference--which leading Republicans called for just

months ago--was somehow now not regular order, to most recently claiming we need to look at a 30-year budget window before we look at the major problems we have in front of us right now, when we can--and must--do both at the same time.

I know there are significant differences between our parties' values and our priorities. Some of us--Democrats and Republicans--think this is a reason to come together and try to reach a bipartisan deal in a budget conference now. It has been heartening to hear from Senators McCain and Collins and many other Republicans who have chatted with me about why they believe we need to have a formal bipartisan negotiation move on this. Unfortunately, there is a small group of Senators who would prefer to throw up their hands and stall until we reach a crisis, when they think they can get a better deal.

Last week, I was home in my State, similar to most Senators, and I talked to a lot of Americans who don't understand that kind of approach. They run their businesses and help their communities and support their families by compromising every single day. They can't afford to wait to reach agreements until the very last minute, because when that happens, they have to deal with the consequences. But that is exactly what my Republican colleagues are doing to thousands of my families in the State of Washington. Because Republicans will not allow us to come to the table, the automatic cuts from sequestration are impacting everything from children who depend on Head Start to our national security. What is more, many of the same colleagues will try to tell you that sequestration is not impacting American families. As the Senator from Virginia just talked about, I can tell you firsthand that the impacts are real.

For thousands of families in my home State, these become a reality tomorrow morning. That is because furloughs for the Department of Defense employees begin this week--equivalent to a 20-percent pay cut for 650,000 defense workers nationwide. Bases in my home State of Washington are being affected, and the first furlough date at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State is tomorrow. So instead of going to work, thousands of workers in my State will go home. The 9/11 call center and the fire department will be understaffed. Airfields are going to be shuttered except for emergencies. The military personnel office is closed. The substance abuse center is closed. The Army Medical Center is going to close clinics, and even the Wounded Care Clinic is going to be understaffed.

I am reminded of one worker I met last week, Will Silba. Will is a former marine, an amputee. He works now as a fire inspector, and he told me that because of these furloughs he is going to have to get a second job. He is going to struggle with his mortgage payments.

While these furloughs are going to directly impact thousands of people and civilian employees, the leaders at Lewis-McChord have made it very clear that the furloughs are going to hurt our soldiers. They are going to limit their access to medical care. They are going to cut back on the family support programs. They are going to make it tougher to find a job when they finish their military careers. Why? Because our colleagues refuse to work together. To me, this is unacceptable.

Because some Republicans would like to preserve the harmful cuts from sequestration despite these kinds of impacts, we have a $91 billion gap between the House and the Senate appropriations levels for next year. If we do not resolve that gap, we are headed for another round of uncertainty and brinkmanship, another unnecessary burden on our economic recovery and the millions of Americans who are looking for work every day. Some of my Republican colleagues say they are fine with that. In fact, House Republicans are reported, right now, to be busy working on a debt limit ransom note--right now--and so far that ransom note sounds quite a lot like the Ryan budget. As you know, the budget we did pass here in the Senate was very different, but that is exactly why we have to resolve our differences in conference. That is where we come together in a public fashion and talk about our differences and work out agreements.

I believe we have an opportunity, a window of opportunity over the next few weeks to do what Americans across the country have asked us to do--compromise and confront these problems before we head back to our home States for the work period in August. We do not have a lot of time, but I am confident that if those of us who can see working together as a responsibility rather than a liability come to the table, we can get a fair bipartisan agreement.

By the way, I was very discouraged to hear just this week from some tea party Republicans--many of the same ones who are now blocking us going to conference--who are already talking now about shutting down the government in order to defund ObamaCare. Not only do they want to push us to a crisis, but they want to do that in order to cut off health care coverage for 25 million people and reopen that doughnut hole we know so much about, causing seniors to pay more for their prescriptions, and end preventive care for seniors, and the list goes on.

This is an absurd position. We should not be talking about shutting down the government. I really hope responsible Republicans reject this approach and work with us on real solutions, not more political fights. My colleagues and I are going to continue urging the Senate Republican leadership to end their tea party-backed strategy of manufacturing crises and allow us to do the work we were sent here to do and go to a conference. I urge them to listen not just to Democrats but to many Members of their own party who want to get to a budget conference and allow us to get to work to solve the Nation's problems.

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

Today I come to the floor to 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; that 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 appointment conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side: the motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenues; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote in relation to the motions; that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; and that all the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent for that.

Madam President, I will object, but let me just say this. What the Senator is requesting is that we tell our conferees before they ever get to the conference committee what they can do on a specific issue. What I offered in my original offer is to have a vote on that, which is how we do this here. The Senator is requesting not

that we have a vote but that we have a demand.

I respect the Senator from Florida. He has worked very hard, as he stated, on immigration reform. He is working now to try to get the House to pass that. At some point they will go to conference. What he is saying is that when his bill goes to conference, what he wants to do is allow any Senator on this floor to make a demand of that conference committee before they get there--not a vote, not a majority vote, but a demand from a small minority of what is going to be in that conference. We cannot agree with that.

What I have offered is a vote on that, which is what we are--a democracy. You are allowed to vote, and if enough Senators agree with that position, that is what we would direct the conference to do. But this body is not built on a demand from one Senator or a small group of Senators on a conference before we go there. We are a democracy.

So I again object to his request as he said and renew my request, which will allow a debate and a vote on that issue he is requesting, as happens in a democracy.

Mr. President, we are here today because, unfortunately, the financial burden on our Nation's college students dramatically spiked overnight 8 days ago, including for over 100,000 students across my home State of Washington, where 56 percent of college graduates leave school with a student loan debt, and the average amount they owe is more than $22,000. Just when they are getting started on their careers, instead of buying a house or buying a car or just paying the bills, their student loan bills are piling up with interest.

Now interest rates for Federal student loans, which have been kept at a low rate of 3.4 percent, have doubled to 6.8 percent. For these students and for millions of students across the country, that is a tax hike of $1,000. That is not fair to students, and it is certainly not good for our economy. Congress has to act to fix it.

This isn't just an abstract issue for me; it is very personal. Pell grants and student loans were what allowed my six brothers and sisters and I to go to college after my dad got sick and had to leave his job. They are what made college affordable, and they are what allowed each one of us to pursue a career and give back to our communities. Because our government was there to help my family and help us through hard times, those seven kids in my family grew up to be a firefighter, a lawyer, a computer programmer, a sports writer, a homemaker, a middle school teacher, and a Senator. In my book, that was a good investment by our country and our government.

My family's story is far from unique. In fact, last week I traveled around my home State of Washington listening to student after student after student describe the real-life impact this rate hike would have on them. Students such as Elizabeth from Vancouver, WA: She is a sophomore at the University of Washington. She comes from a family of five children with immigrant parents who work hourly low-wage jobs.

She told me growing up, the idea of paying for college was overwhelming, but thanks to scholarships and grants and loans she is able to pursue her dream of becoming a broadcast journalist. However, her part-time work-study position barely covers her bills, and she says she is constantly plagued by stress as she worries about how she is ever going to overcome what she calls her ``debt sentence.''

The reality is this is a simple issue. College is already too expensive for students such as Elizabeth, and Congress shouldn't make it worse. So I am very proud to join my colleagues in supporting the Keep Student Loan Rates Affordable Act to extend the 3.4 percent interest rate, and I urge our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us and pass it.

With student loan debt now exceeding $1 trillion, students and their families deserve due process and thoughtful consideration of issues such as financial aid. Students have already contributed billions to deficit reduction, but the problem is the Senate Republican leadership has insisted in all of their proposals that we balance the budget on the backs of struggling students and their families. So far, they have refused to put the interest of students and tomorrow's middle class ahead of Tax Code spending that benefits the wealthy.

What they have introduced is a bill that includes no cap on how high student loan rates could go--something CBO tells us would mean students could be locked in at rates over 8 percent in just a few short years. In effect, it would be better to do absolutely nothing now than to take up and pass the Republican bill.

I bet everybody listening knows a family member or a coworker who is up to their neck in student debt. It is a weight that keeps them from helping to grow our economy or start a family or take risks with their careers, and it is a weight that is not easily shed.

We can't continue to do this to generation after generation of college students and expect to be able to compete in the 21st-century economy. We have to do everything we can to remove barriers to education, not erect new ones.

The clock has run out. We need to act now because for millions of Americans, affordable college has been the ticket to the middle class, and we can't allow it to slip away. We can't allow access to college to become unattainable for so many of our families.

I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in investing in America's future by reversing this student loan increase and making college more affordable for America's middle class.

I yield the floor.

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 July 9, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the passage of the comprehensive immigration reform bill. For the first time in a generation, the Senate has passed a bill that brings us one crucial step closer to sensible immigration laws. This is a historic day for the Senate, for our economy, and for families across our country, but there is more work to be done before this bill becomes law.

When we began consideration of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, I gave a speech in which I quoted from a book that John F. Kennedy wrote while serving in this Chamber. He wrote, ``Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the world, and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear conscience.'' Today we can turn to the world proudly, with a clear conscience, and say this bill lives up to our ideals and our American values, to say that it will provide millions of aspiring Americans the opportunity to come out from the shadows, realize their dream of citizenship, and be strong threads in the rich fabric of this great nation.

From the beginning of this process, I have been very clear with my colleagues regarding my priorities for immigration reform, and this bill takes steps to achieve each of them. First, this legislation provides a real pathway to citizenship for the 230,000 undocumented people already living in Washington State. These families already work alongside us, attend our churches, and send their children to our schools--and they deserve the benefits and responsibilities of American citizenship. This bill also makes important reforms to help our economy, from agricultural businesses in central and eastern Washington to our expanding high-tech corridor in the Puget Sound. It can and should do more, but this legislation includes provisions to treat immigrants with dignity and help reunite families separated by our outdated laws. Finally, it provides Washington State's 35,000 DREAMers, children brought to this country at a very young age, with the chance they deserve to succeed in America. This bill allows thousands of undocumented families in my home State of Washington who work hard and play by the rules to leave the shadows--to no longer live in constant fear of being separated from their loved ones.

I am also pleased this bill offers important reforms in the employment-based immigration system. There is a clear need to expand legal avenues for workers to immigrate to the United Sates in a safe and orderly manner. The size of this workforce must be flexible to meet the needs of our diverse industries and must be responsive to changes in our economy. This bill is a step in the right direction. It will allow the immigration system to be more responsive to the needs of the marketplace and will enable businesses to attract and retain a capable, stable, and legal workforce.

This bill isn't perfect and it is not the bill I would write on my own, but it is the result of a bipartisan compromise, and I am proud to support it as a strong step in the right direction. Although I have concerns about some elements of the bill, it makes critical changes to our broken system that will strengthen our country and grow our economy.

Over the past weeks, I offered a number of amendments that would have made commonsense improvements to the bill. Importantly, three of my amendments would have made this bill more inclusive of women.

Too often women in the developing world are not offered the same educational and employment opportunities afforded to men in those countries. This fact places women at a competitive disadvantage under a merit-based system that rewards education, job promotion, and career advancement. That is why I worked with my colleagues, Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to introduce my first amendment, which would provide 30,000 green cards for occupations held by lower income immigrant women in the United States. Our amendment would accomplish this by creating a third tier in the merit- based point system that would have complemented the highly educated tier one system and the moderate to lower skilled tier two system.

I was deeply disturbed to learn that some pregnant women in immigration detention are shackled, including during labor and delivery. While the Department of Homeland Security recently adopted performance standards that prohibit the shackling of pregnant detainees absent extraordinary circumstances, a significant portion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, detainees are held in county jails by local law enforcement. These holding centers are not required to follow the Department's standards.

Shackling during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery increases the risk of harm to the fetus, it inhibits medical staff's ability to respond to emergencies, and it increases the discomfort and pain of the childbirth. That is why I introduced my second amendment to extend the prohibition against shackling to include all pregnant women held for immigration purposes, including those held under an immigration detainer issued by a Federal agency. This bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, provided for certain exceptions to the ban due to extraordinary circumstances, while also prohibiting certain types of restraints known to cause tripping, falling, or that stop a mother from using her hands to break her fall. Simply put, a woman should never have to endure the pain, embarrassment and extreme discomfort of being restrained while giving birth to her child, nor should she have to fear she will lose her child because of the way in which she is detained. Our immigration enforcement policy should always uphold our commitment to civil liberties and safeguard the dignity that every mother deserves. My amendment would have done just that.

My third amendment would have extended protections for the most vulnerable, including domestic violence survivors whose visa depends on their abuser's sponsorship. I drafted a comprehensive amendment designed to protect immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, and dating violence. It would have extended judicial review in certain cases, would have modified the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, cancellation of removal process, and would have provided training for Federal officers on vulnerable populations, among other protections. It would have also extended certain safety-net benefits to immigrant survivors to help them escape violence, gain independence, and recover from physical and emotional abuse.

I am going to keep working to improve this bill as it continues in the legislative process, and when it becomes law, I am going to work to ensure it is implemented in a way that works for families and communities. We must start by pairing unprecedented spending on new border security with responsible oversight, so I will be working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure our efforts to secure the border do not violate the civil liberties of American families and communities. I am proud my amendment to address warrantless stops and searches in broad border zones is included in this bill, but for immediate border communities, we can't stop there.

That is why I offered an amendment that would have strengthened the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by amending current law to clarify its jurisdiction and the scope of its authority to conduct investigations, require greater transparency in its reporting requirements to Congress, and ensure the Department's timely implementation of its recommendations and findings. Essentially, the amendment would have provided the office with the tools it needs to conduct effective oversight, provide substantial and timely responses, and to protect the Department's commitment to civil rights and liberties.

I also authored an amendment that would have required the Department to report on the use of force during immigration enforcement. By better understanding how and why force is being used, the Department would have been better equipped to ensure its policies and training promote and protect effective and humane enforcement practices. While I am committed to proving Federal law enforcement and border security the resources, training, and personnel they require, Congress must also ensure detainees are treated with respect and dignity. I will be working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure our efforts to secure the border don't violate the civil liberties of American families and communities.

I have also introduced a number of other amendments over the past weeks, including an amendment to provide DREAMers access to affordable college education. I was disappointed these amendments were not added to the bill, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to push for these commonsense reforms.

Although I have concerns about some elements of the bill, it makes critical changes to our broken system that will strengthen our country, grow our economy, and finally allow millions of families to gain citizenship and chase their dreams without fear of deportation. This sweeping legislation is a step in the right direction, and I am proud to cast my vote today in support of S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business to offer a unanimous consent.

Mr. President, it has now been 95 days since the Senate passed a budget, and I have come to the floor myself now 6 times to ask unanimous consent to move to conference. My Democratic colleagues have asked unanimous consent to move to conference another eight times. After every request, a Senate Republican has stood up and said no--no to the opportunity to work on a bipartisan budget deal.

I want to say to the Republicans who are blocking a bipartisan budget conference: Enough is enough. We have heard so many excuses--refusing to allow conference before we get to a so-called preconference framework; putting preconditions on what can be discussed in a bipartisan conference; claiming that moving to a budget conference-- which leading Republicans did call for just a few months ago--was somehow not regular order; to, most recently, claiming we need to look at a 30-year budget window before looking at the major problems we have right now in front of us--which, I add, is unacceptable, because the American people rightly expect us to work on both at the same time.

Hearing these changing excuses week after week has been frustrating not just for Democrats but for many of my Republican colleagues as well.

A large group of us--Republicans and Democrats--think that although we do have major differences between the parties' values and priorities, we should at least come to the table and try to work out a bipartisan deal. That is what American people do every day. And when there is a disagreement, they can't afford to play a game of chicken and hope the other person gives in, because when that happens, important work cannot get done. Kids don't get picked up from school, bills don't get paid, small businesses miss a major opportunity for expansion. Every day regular Americans avoid those kinds of situations, and we here in the Senate should at least try to do the same.

There are extremely important things that are not getting done in the Senate right now because some Republicans want to embrace the harmful top-line spending level in sequestration which has a major gap between the House and Senate appropriations levels for the next fiscal year. We don't have much time left to resolve that gap. After we come back from next week's State work period, we will have 1 month to try to come to an agreement or else we are going to find ourselves in a very tough situation in September. We could, once again, be working against the clock to avoid a harmful crisis. The last thing the American people-- who come together and resolve differences every day--want to see is another round of manufactured crises coming out of Washington, DC, and they do not have to. We still have time.

I know there are leaders on both sides of the aisle who would strongly prefer to solve problems rather than to get into yet another political fight that creates uncertainty for our families, our businesses, our country, and our economy. I am confident that if those of us who prefer commonsense bipartisanship over artificial crisis work together, we can reach a fair agreement and show the American people our government does work.

I urge Senate Republican leaders to drop the tea party-backed strategy of delaying until the next crisis, and allow the Senate to join the House in a formal bipartisan budget negotiation.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 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 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; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees will be in order from each side-- motion to instruct relative to the debt limit, and motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; and further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am not sure whether there has been an objection.

Mr. President, I would object. What the Senator is asking for is a precondition on a conference committee without the consideration of this whole Senate.

What I have offered to him and to this body in my unanimous consent request is a vote on the motion to instruct conferees, which is what occurs in the Senate if we want to put any precondition onto a budget.

I reject his unanimous consent, and I ask again my unanimous consent request.

The Senator from Washington objects to the request as modified, and again reasks my original unanimous consent request.

I make my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my bill, S. 112, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act. I have introduced similar legislation in previous Congresses; in fact, this is the third time I have made a legislative push to protect these treasured spaces. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, for the first time, and I wish to thank my colleague from Oregon for all his tremendous work to get a package of public lands bills through the Senate for the first time in over 4 years.

Passage of this bill is a tremendous step forward and is the result of over 5 years of work by me, my staff, and Congressman Reichert, who has introduced companion legislation in the

House of Representatives several times, and Congresswoman DelBene, who now represents the lands this bill would protect. We are fortunate to have bipartisan support for this effort, and we are fortunate as Washingtonians to have unique and beautiful natural landscapes that deserve protection from unrequited development and pressure.

This legislation would protect, in perpetuity, over 22,000 acres and provide the protections of the Wilderness Act to a richer diversity of ecosystems and lower elevation lands. These protections will ensure diverse recreational opportunities and protect one of the closest blocks of wild forests to an urban center in the country.

As I mentioned, Congressional action on public lands have been stymied in recent years. I was pleasantly surprised we were able to find a path forward, and today I wish to confirm my support for tribal treaty rights and for access to these spaces to be designated as wilderness for traditional uses by tribal members. I firmly believe the Federal government has a responsibility to uphold the treaties signed by our predecessors with Native American tribes--a fact that has been upheld by the Federal courts. As the author of this legislation I want to reaffirm that regarding lands defined within the bill located in the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, nothing in this act alters, modifies, diminishes, or extinguishes the treaty rights of an Indian tribe with respect to hunting, fishing, and gathering rights as protected by a treaty.

Again, I wish to thank Chairman Wyden and ranking member Murkowski for working together to find a path forward to protect public spaces. And I wish to thank Senator Cantwell for her steadfast support of this proposal. I look forward to working with my House colleagues to protect this important landscape.

I thank the Chair.

No. Go ahead.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from California for coming out today to let everyone know how extreme this bill is and how important it is that we send the message that this bill is going to be what most Republicans know deep down already. The anti- choice bill that they passed yesterday--a bill the New York Times called ``the most restrictive abortion bill to come to a vote in either chamber in a decade''--is not going anywhere--is not going anywhere.

The bill they passed yesterday is a nonstarter in the Senate, and it is a nonstarter with the overwhelming majority of American women. It is an attack on women's rights under the Constitution, and it is an attack on a woman's ability to make her own health care decisions.

It is a bill that was motivated by politics, pure and simple, and it amounts to little more than a charade designed to appeal to a dwindling base. But it is a charade that will end in the Senate today.

Even more than reminding House Republicans this bill has no chance of moving forward, I am here to provide a reality check because, apparently, despite the one that millions of American women provided last November, House Republicans need another one.

Despite the fact in States across the country voters rejected one candidate after another who politicized rape and ran on restricting a woman's right to choose, House Republicans are now back at it again.

Despite the fact they had to bring in a paid pollster to tell the entire Republican House caucus to stop talking about rape, apparently the message has not sunk in.

For many Republicans it is like 2012 all over again, which is to say it is more like 1950 all over again--a time when an all-male House Republican Judiciary panel can join together--all male--just like they did last Wednesday, to pass a bill that clearly ignores Roe v. Wade; a time when the same panel could reject efforts to protect the life and health of the mother or even reject efforts to make exceptions for rape or incest; a time when one of those panel members, a Republican Representative from Arizona, can even trot out the idea that women are not likely to become pregnant if they are raped.

But it is not 1950, and that irresponsible and shameful claim has been debunked by doctors and experts of all stripes, time and again.

It has been 40 years since Roe v. Wade put the health care choices of women in the hands of women. We are not going back.

But just as House Republicans need a reality check that American women are not going to have the clock turned back on them, I also believe the American people need to know House Republicans--and those on the far right targeting women's health care--are not going away anytime soon either.

In fact, I wish I could say the new restrictions on women's health care choices that the House passed yesterday were a surprise or that I thought that after last fall, Republicans would magically see the light.

I wish I could say I bought the rhetoric from some Republicans who have criticized their own because they believe we should be focused on jobs and the economy at such a difficult time.

But the truth is, attacks on women's health care have not stopped and, apparently, they will not stop. That is because they are a core part of that party's philosophy. In fact, all we have to do is look back at the moment that Republicans in the House took power.

We all remember back to 2010, after campaigning, by the way, across the country on a platform of jobs and the economy, the first three bills they introduced were each direct attacks on women's health.

The very first bill they introduced, H.R. 1, would have totally eliminated title X funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention, and it included an amendment that would have completely defunded Planned Parenthood and would have cut off support for the millions of women who count on that.

Another one of their opening rounds of bills would have permanently codified the Hyde amendment and the DC abortion ban. The original version of their bill did not even include an exception for the health of the mother.

Finally, they introduced a bill right away that would have rolled back every single one of the gains we made for women in the health care reform bill.

That Republican bill would have removed the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that protect women from losing their homes or their life savings if they get sick. It would have ended the ban on lifetime limits on coverage. It would have allowed insurance companies to once again discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums, and it would have rolled back the guarantee that insurance companies cover contraceptives.

Those were just their first three bills.

Since that time, we have seen women targeted on everything from contraception to Violence Against Women Act protections, to stripping the new protections provided under the Affordable Care Act.

Through economic peril, budget crises, record unemployment, the attacks on women's health have remained constant. On Capitol Hill, in State houses across the country, and in courtrooms at all levels, the fight against women making their own decisions about their health rages on. Republicans have shown they will go to just about any length to limit access to care. They have put politics between women and their own health care, they have put employers between women and their health care, they have even threatened to shut down the government over this very issue.

They have shown that this is not about what is best for women and men and their own family planning decisions; instead, it is about political calculation. It is about appeasing the far right. It is about their continued efforts to do whatever it takes to push their extreme agenda. But as we have seen with this latest effort, the deck is stacked against them because the Constitution is not going anywhere. Also, because Senators such as myself and Senator Boxer are not going anywhere either, because women who believe Republicans should not be making their health care decisions are not going anywhere. Therefore, this bill is not going anywhere.

Let me respond this way: When I go home--and I go home every weekend--my constituents talk to me about this big word called sequestration and its impact on their lives. Whether they have been furloughed, and their paycheck is much smaller, or whether they are running a violence against women center and they are having to close down a facility, or whether they are sending their kids to preschool and teachers have been laid off, or whether their small pizza shop in Kitsap County is going to have to close because so many people have been furloughed and cut back because of sequestration, what they want us to do is to invest in our infrastructure, to invest in our education, to make our country strong for the future, and to quit governing by crisis, which is why I have come to the floor, as the Senator from California knows, constantly to say we passed our budget; the House has passed their budget; solve this and replace sequestration in a responsible and fair way. We need to get to conference.

But we are being blocked by a handful of Republicans here on the Senate floor. Over in the House, they are not appointing conferees. They do not want to go to conference apparently, because they want to take the floor time to attack women's health care. This is not what the country is telling us to do. They are telling us to do our job and get a budget done so they have certainty. They are telling us to do our job and make sure we invest in the WRDA bill Senator Boxer has worked so hard to do; that the Corps of Engineers projects, whether it is a dam or whatever project they have at home that provides jobs and provides the kind of economy they need is taken care of. They elected us to come back here and do the job of this country.

So, yes, it is frustrating to me to have to come to the floor one more time to talk about abortion when we should be talking about the investments that need to be made, when we should be passing a budget, we should be investing in our children and their future and providing people with jobs and job training and research that is so important at universities across this country so we can be a good place 30 years from now in this country and be competitive.

I would say to my colleague, yes, it appears to me the country has an agenda that is vastly different than the House Republicans on the far right.

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

Mr. President, Senate Democrats have come to the floor now 13 times and requested unanimous consent to move to bipartisan budget negotiations with the House. We are ready to get to work. We have been ready for 88 days now, which is how long it has been since the Senate passed a budget.

Back in March we assumed that once the two Chambers passed their budgets, Republicans would be eager to join us in a formal budget conference, since they have spent years talking about the need to return to regular order. Instead, we have seen delay after delay. Now that Republicans have gotten exactly what they wished for, they seem to be running as quickly as they can in the other direction, and they have offered excuse after excuse after excuse.

First, they said they wanted a framework before they would start a conference, even though a framework is exactly what a budget is. In other words, they wanted to negotiate behind closed doors when we should be negotiating in a conference.

Then they said they wouldn't allow us to go to conference unless we guaranteed the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations would be protected from paying a penny more in taxes.

Then many Republicans indicated they didn't want negotiations happening too early, to take away the leverage they think they have on the debt ceiling.

Then some of them called for a do-over of the budget debate, including another 50 hours of debate and a whole new round of unlimited amendments, even after they praised the open and thorough floor debate we had on the Senate budget.

Now, in what seems to be the latest delaying tactic, some Republicans are

saying before we can work to solve short-term problems we first need to agree on the budget outlook 30 years down the road.

Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the constant lurching from crisis to crisis. They are looking to their elected officials to come together, to compromise, to find common ground, and that is exactly what we would be doing in a conference.

It is not just Democrats saying so. Over the past few weeks, we have heard a number of Republicans step forward and agree with us that the tea party and Senate Republican leadership are wrong. Senator Coburn said blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator Wicker said, weeks ago now, that ``by the end of next week, we probably should be ready to go to conference.'' Now, according to Politico, ``more Republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking it.''

As many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, it is certainly true there are big differences between the parties' budget values, and priorities, but that would give us all the more reason to sit down and try to find some common ground. The fact is we have a lot of work that needs to be done in the next few weeks. We have 11 days until the next State work period and then just 3\1/2\ weeks before we all go back to our home States again for August. Because some Republicans want to continue the harmful austerity measures resulting from sequestration, we now have a $91 billion gap between the House and Senate spending bills for the next fiscal year.

If we don't reconcile those differences, we are going to find ourselves in a very tough, bad situation come September, and a lot of hard-working families and communities are going to feel the consequences. It does not have to be that way. I am confident, if both sides come together now in a conference committee and are ready to compromise, we can find a way to reach a fair and bipartisan and responsible agreement.

The American people shouldn't have to worry the government is going to lurch into another crisis that has been manufactured by this Congress. It doesn't have to happen. Instead of fighting over whether we should be engaging in bipartisan talks, we should be working together to get more Americans back to work, to protect our economic recovery, and lay the foundation for strong middle-class growth in the future. I think we can all agree on those important goals, and they are very urgent ones. But we cannot move forward on them if we are consumed with constant artificial crises.

I believe it is time for Senate Republican leaders to listen to the many Members of their own party who prefer commonsense bipartisanship over delay and disorder and allow the House and Senate to begin a bipartisan budget conference. I am here this afternoon to ask unanimous consent to do just that.

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; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side, a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I would like to point out to everyone that we had hours and hours of debate, with over 100 amendments offered, and no one offered an amendment on the debt ceiling limit. As part of the agreement in order to go to conference, we have offered to have a vote now on whether we should have motions to instruct. I would be willing, as chair, to abide by that vote once our unanimous consent is agreed to.

But I have to say, as a matter of principle, for a chair of any committee to say, once we have gone through hundreds of hours of debate and a lot of amendments, that then, before we go to conference, we have to agree to a principle that has not been voted on or offered in the Senate as part of that is not how we can proceed in this body. It would be the same as if I would come out and say: I am not going to allow us to go to conference on whatever bill because I have a small provision, and unless you absolutely agree it has to be in there, even though I don't have the votes, we are not going to conference. We would never get anything done.

The unanimous consent request I have offered allows my Republican friends to have a vote on this, even though they didn't ask for a vote in all those hours of debate and hundreds of hours we spent on this issue, before we move to conference. The principle is this: Our Republican colleagues wish to have an open debate, they say, but we are not having an open debate because of their insistence we don't go to conference.

So I object to the Senator's request and again renew my request as I stated before with the provision we have a motion to instruct and allow those Senators who have strong feelings about this to vote on it before we go to conference.

Finally, I would add, remember with whom I am going to conference: Republicans and Democrats from our side and Republicans and Democrats from the other body, a majority of whom are on their side of the aisle, with the chairman, Paul Ryan, a Republican conservative, chairing their side.

This is an issue that is going to have plenty of debate, plenty of open discussion, if it should come up, and we will all have an opportunity to vote on it.

I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Staying on Track: Next Steps in Improving Passenger and Freight Rail Safety''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimus consent that the Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reducing Senior Poverty and Hunger: The Role of the Older Americans Act'' on June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 19, 2013, at 3 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 19, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Social Security Payments Go Paperless: Protecting Seniors from Fraud and Confusion.''

The Committee will meet in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Airline Industry Consolidation.''

Madam President, a few months ago I met two sisters from my home State. They are Mari and Adriana Barrera. These two sisters were brought here by their parents when Mari was 7 and Adriana was 3 years old. They were raised by a single mother who spoke no English after their father left the family behind.

Growing up, their mother, who worked at a local hotel, did whatever she could to support her family, but Mari and Adriana often had to depend on themselves. Unlike other children her age, Mari told me she grew up the moment her father left. She told me about how she scheduled all of her family's doctors' appointments and how she translated legal documents, and how, at the age of 13, she started working as a hostess at a local restaurant, and not for money, as most teenagers want for their own indulgences, but to support her family.

Mari also told me when she was about to enter high school Adriana had to have life-threatening surgery, and a dream was born within herself. As her sister's life hung in the balance, Mari realized she wanted to become a pediatric cardiothoracic surgeon. She wanted to help others the way she watched doctors help her sister that day, and she decided she would commit herself to getting the education and work toward that dream.

When I talked to Mari that day a few months ago it was just after she had been forced to drop out of the University of Washington because she could no longer afford it. Living in Seattle, she told me about how she had been unable to find a job to support her studies. Why? Because she lacks a Social Security number. Mari's dream, it turns out--the same as for many like her--has been put on hold. It has been put on hold because our immigration system remains broken. All those dreams have been put on hold because for far too long Congress has failed to act. They have been put on hold because, despite the fact that young women such as the Barrera sisters want to contribute to our Nation, our current system won't let them.

It is not only stories such as those of the Barrera sisters that point to a system badly in need of reform, I see it everywhere in my State. I see it in rural parts of my State, in cities such as Yakima and Moses Lake, where farmers can't get the seasonal agricultural workers they need to support one of our State's largest industries. I see it in big cities such as Seattle and Vancouver and Spokane, where high-tech businesses struggle to hire the world's best and brightest. I see it in neighborhoods throughout my State where families have been ripped apart by a system that forces them to choose between legal immigration and long-term separation from the people they love. I see it along our northern border in Washington State where the need to secure a long, porous border must be balanced with smart enforcement policies that don't use intimidation and fear as a weapon. And I see it in my State's LGBT community--a community that badly lacks fairness and equality under today's broken system.

But these aren't problems that cannot be fixed. Although previous reform efforts have fallen short, this Senate is not incapable of this task, especially now. And that is because today--due to the changing demographics of our Nation, because of the growing political voice of a new generation of Americans, and because of the energy, determination, and hard work of immigration advocates in my home State and across the Nation--we are at a historic moment of opportunity. For the first time in the history of this debate there is broad bipartisan agreement this system must be fixed and that a bipartisan solution is within reach.

No one in this country needs to be reminded it is a rarity here when Senators from different parties and from very different States come together to agree on common solutions to a big issue. So it is truly remarkable that over the course of the past year the bipartisan so- called Gang of 8 has worked to craft this bill that is now before the Senate. The bill we are considering is focused on four bipartisan pillars that have drawn consensus support from Members of Congress and the American people.

First of all, this bill includes a path to citizenship, so that with a lot of hard work many of the immigrants living in this country who are dreaming of citizenship can achieve that goal over time.

Second, the bill provides employers certainty in a system that has often left them without any answers.

Third, this bill will help continue the progress we have made in securing our borders by focusing on the most serious security threats and by utilizing new technology.

Finally, this bill helps to reform our legal immigration system so it meets the needs of our families and our Nation going forward.

These are all important steps. But this bill is only the beginning of a full, fair, and open public debate over reforming immigration in this country. And while it will be tempting to get caught up in the specifics of one amendment or policy in this debate, we can't forget about the larger questions this bill addresses, because at its heart this is a bill that touches nearly every aspect of American life, from our economy to our security, from our classrooms to our workplaces. It is about what type of country we want to be, what we stand for, and what type of future we all want to build.

These are the questions I have actually posed in meetings with advocates and businesses and leaders in meetings all over my State, both in recent weeks and going back many years. Those conversations have stirred a lot of passion, brought new facts to light, and helped me bring the voices of countless advocates to this debate today. They have also helped me to arrive at the core issues I believe are essential to repairing our broken immigration system--the issues I will fight for as we debate in the weeks to come.

Sitting and talking about the aspiring Americans this bill will affect has made clear that protecting families must be a central priority in comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration reform isn't just about a person's status, it is about sons and daughters and mothers and fathers and families who want to live full, productive lives together in this country. We know when workers have their families nearby they are more likely to be satisfied with their job, they are healthier, they work harder, and they contribute to our economy.

We know families are the building block of strong communities. Yet under today's broken system, family-based immigration has been pitted against employment-based immigration, and far too often immigrant families are being forced to choose between the country they love and the ones they love. I firmly believe it is in our long-term national interest to change this approach. For immigration reform to best meet our national ideals we have to keep our focus on keeping our families together, reducing these backlogs, giving women immigrants access to green cards, and reuniting immigrants with their families.

Immigration reform must also include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in this country. Many of our undocumented immigrants have lived in this country for more than a decade. They are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues. They go to church with us, they pay their taxes, and they follow our laws.

But our current system creates a permanent underclass of people that are caught between the law and earning a living. While citizenship has to be earned, it is simply not feasible to deport this entire population or expect them to return to their nation of citizenship. We certainly can't make this pathway contingent on enforcement measures that are unachieveable or unrealistic. I believe the bill before us lays the foundation for a pathway to citizenship that will bring aspiring Americans out from the shadows.

Immigration reform must also meet the needs of our changing economy. This need is perhaps best on display in my home State where the diversity of our economy creates diverse immigration needs. Washington is home to some of our Nation's largest high-tech, aerospace, and composite manufacturing firms. These are businesses that demand a robust employment-based visa system that attracts the best and brightest from across the world. However, just across the Cascade mountains lie miles and miles of fertile farmlands and orchards that demand a flexible and pragmatic agricultural worker program. I plan to support changes that help meet both of those needs while also working to invest in job opportunities for American workers through the STEM investments that are provided in this bill.

We also need a smart and humane system of securing our Nation's borders, including my State's many land border crossings. But we must balance the necessity of securing our borders and enforcing our laws with the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect, and that includes ensuring access to due process in our immigration hearings, restrictions on the use of unnecessary restraints on pregnant women, the use of less costly alternatives to detention whenever possible, and humane conditions and strict oversight and reporting requirements at our detention centers.

Our strategy for enforcement and border security should focus on keeping Americans safe, fighting violent crime, reducing smuggling, and stopping terrorists. We should always be doing it in a way that upholds our commitment to civil liberties and the rights of every American.

Finally, I strongly support efforts to craft a system that will unite families by extending immigration sponsorship privileges for married binational LGBT couples. I was very proud of my home State of Washington when it voted last year for marriage equality. However, my heart breaks because each time a binational LGBT married Washingtonian is split apart because their marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government, it is just not right.

The Defense of Marriage Act has long barred equal immigration sponsorship privileges for married binational LGBT couples. While I am hopeful the Supreme Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, I believe we should also move decisively to include these provisions in this bill.

These are certainly not the only priorities I will be fighting for in the coming days. In fact, I am hoping to offer some amendments that will help open new doors to education for our DREAMers and that will expand investment in our STEM education. But I also know we will see amendments that will attempt to weaken and defeat this bill altogether, because as we saw in the exhaustive and inclusive committee process, there are those who are simply bent on standing in the way of a bill that Americans want and our economy needs--those who will say or do anything to defeat this bill.

But I am confident this is a new day for immigration reform. I am confident of that because more Americans than ever before see the benefits of a modern immigration system that is coupled with the investments that help our families succeed. They see we are stronger when immigrant workers are contributing to our economy, when employers have the resources they need to grow, and when a path to citizenship is available to those who are already here.

Too often in this debate it is difficult for some people to understand that the millions of undocumented families in our country are already an important part of our communities. Immigrants work hard. They send their children to schools throughout this country. They pay their taxes, and they help weave the fabric of our society. In all but name they are Americans.

When John F. Kennedy was serving in this Chamber, he wrote a book about the fact that America is a nation of immigrants. In it, he wrote:

Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair;

it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the

world, and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear

conscience.

Today, those words continue to ring true. It is not only the world we have to turn to. This effort is about living up to our own ideals. It is about, as then-Senator Kennedy said, living up to our own past.

Our history has long been that of a beacon of hope for people throughout the world, from those who arrived at Ellis Island to start a new life decades ago to the DREAMers who want to contribute to the country they love today.

As we once again take on this very difficult task of reforming our immigration policy, let's make sure our actions reflect our security, our economy, and our future. But let's also never forget the past and the fact that our Nation has long offered generations of immigrants the chance to achieve their dreams.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, Senate Democrats have been waiting a very long time to go to conference on our budget. In fact, it has now been 73 days. Until recently, we have gotten pretty used to Senate Republicans simply standing and saying no.

For months Republicans have been offering a lot of excuses for why they do not want to go to conference on the budget. They have said they want a preconference ``framework,'' which, by the way, is what a budget is. They have said they would not allow us to go to conference unless we guaranteed that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations would be protected from paying a penny more in taxes. They said they did not want a bipartisan conference to take away the leverage they have on the debt ceiling. And then they called for a do-over, which, actually, my ranking member on Budget called for again this morning--to bring up the House budget, have 50 hours of debate, a whole new round of unlimited amendments, go through the process all over, and they did this after they praised the very open and thorough floor debate we had on the Senate budget.

The story keeps changing. But even as some Republicans were focused on finding excuses to move us closer and closer to this crisis rather than have a budget deal, we have a number of Republicans who are now joining with us to call on regular order. Senator Coburn said that blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator Wicker said weeks ago that ``by the end of next week, we . . . should be ready to go to conference.'' We have known for a while that blocking regular order--especially after calling for it so eagerly just a matter of months ago--was not sitting well with a number of our Republican colleagues, and now, according to Politico, ``more Republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking it.'' I welcome that.

We need to move this to conference. It is the regular order. It will allow us to solve our country's problems, and we truly need a process to allow us to deal with our Nation's problems.

Senator McCain is on the floor, and I thank him because he understands the importance not just for this bill but for all legislation in the Senate that we come here, we compromise, we fight hard for what we believe in, but at the end of the day just saying ``my way or the highway,'' even if you are a small minority, does not move this country to the place where we need it to get to, which is not a crisis-by-management place. I thank him for taking a lead and calling for regular order. He has said that Republican preconditions such as demanding that the conference agree to not raise the debt ceiling or raise taxes are ``absolutely out of line and unprecedented.'' Senator Collins joined us on the floor a few weeks ago to say that even though there is a lot we do not see eye to eye on, we should at least go to conference and make our best effort to get a deal. I could not agree more.

The stalling that we have seen is, as some have said on their side, ``a little bizarre'' and ``ironic to say the least,'' especially after, I would remind everyone, 50 hours of debate, innumerable amendments that took us way into the early hours, and we offered everybody the chance to speak. After that session was over, many of our Republican colleagues came to me personally and thanked me for finally having an open process. If they want us to have an open process, then they have to take that process and take it to the next step.

So I am deeply concerned. We are moving toward another manufactured crisis this fall. We have our Appropriations subcommittees that need to move forward. The country is very clearly tired of this country being managed by crisis. We just had a budget hearing this morning in which our witnesses, both Republicans and Democrats alike, said that moving us to a manufactured crisis would impact this economy in a horrific way this fall. We do not need to have that happen.

I want to go to conference. Do I want to have a compromise? Not really. I love where I stand. But I have been here a long time. You do not get everything you want, but you do have to compromise in order to move the country forward. And I am willing to go to conference with my counterpart, Chairman Ryan, who is on a very different page than I am, and find our compromise and be willing to move that forward here in the Congress so we can get to a place that allows us to be able to lead this country again. So I think we are at a very critical point.

I see Senator McCain is on the floor. I would be happy to yield to him for a comment.

The Senator is here.

If the Senator will yield, I can go ahead and offer the unanimous consent request at this time and we can move from there.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his very heartfelt remarks. I know he and I do not agree on a lot, but we do agree that we want this country to work because the alternative is not great. The way for this country to work is for us to come together with our differences of opinion and move forward, and that is what the conference committee is all about.

So, Madam 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; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side: motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes, all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, if the Senator heard my request, I said we would consider a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit as part of our agreement to move to conference. So the Senator would be allowed to make his voice heard at that time. I would object to making it a requirement without a vote of the Senate that says the majority agrees with that. So I would object to his amendment and again ask for unanimous consent on the original request.

Mr. President, when Governor Christine Gregoire signed the Washington State marriage equality bill into law last year, it was a day of joy for all of the loving, committed LGBT couples of Washington--and for all who love, respect, and support them. And when voters approved the law in a referendum last November, we showed the Nation once again that we can change the course of history and give true voice and meaning to the idea that all are created equal. This law takes us one important step closer towards true equality for LGBT families across Washington State. It is proof of the incredible power a community can have when we come together to fight for equality. Washington is now 1 of 12 States to have affirmed the right for LGBT couples to marry--an amazing sign of progress in our Nation.

I am proud to work with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve equal rights for LGBT Americans in Washington State and across the country. Earlier this year, I joined 172 Members of the House of Representatives and 39 Senators in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, arguing the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be struck down. And, as a senior member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I led a letter to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki calling for an expedited waiver process to grant every same-sex spouse of a veteran burial rights in our national cemeteries.

There is much to celebrate today, but still so much more to be done to ensure equal rights for LGBT Americans. As we look back upon our recent victories, we must also recommit to our efforts and harness the energy we used to achieve marriage equality last year to continue this fight. From our immigration and employment laws to our policies for veterans and military families, there is still plenty of work to be done to ensure all Americans, including members of our LGBT community, are treated equally.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental right in our country. No one should suffer discrimination because of their race, religion, national origin, age, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Whether applying for a job, finding a home, eating in a restaurant, seeking credit, serving in our military, or attending school, we must ensure all citizens are treated fairly and equally. To me, the fight for equality for the LGBT community is a fight for what it means to be American. That is why Pride Month is so important.

Each June, Pride Month brings our community together to honor diversity, equality, and love. And this year, we can celebrate some truly historic gains as LGBT couples are finally able to express their commitment to each other in the same way so many other Washingtonians have throughout our State's history--by joining in marriage and saying ``I do.''

Pride Month is a time to commemorate our accomplishments and recharge for the fight ahead. We have many more opportunities to advance our efforts in the coming months and years, and we will not give up until we have

achieved full equality under the law for all Washingtonians and all Americans. I wish to thank the countless organizations that have led us to the victories and accomplishments we celebrate in June. When we gather together in moments such as this, we speak with one unified voice for the cause of equality and give true meaning to our Founders' belief that all are created equal. I am proud to fight for the LGBT community in Washington and across the country, and I will continue to ensure the voices of LGBT Americans and their allies are heard in the United States Senate.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening with a very sad heart to speak about one of our colleagues here in the Senate who gave tremendous service to his country and sadly passed away last night.

Senator Frank Lautenberg was a true American. He earned a lot throughout his lifetime, but he came here to the Senate floor to fight for all of those people who didn't have the ability to fight for themselves. He was here in the Senate with us just a few weeks ago even though he himself was battling an extremely difficult illness.

I think of Frank Lautenberg as a man of tremendous determination, an awful lot of grit, and someone who really embodies the term ``happy warrior.'' He wanted to be here to fight for those who didn't have what he did. Throughout his career, that is exactly what he did.

Frank lived the American dream. He was the son of poor immigrants, and he rose to become a chief executive of a business that employed thousands of people around the world. He personally did very well, but he was never satisfied with just his own personal success. He understood, as so many other great Americans, that his success was based on the opportunities this country afforded him. So he chose over three decades to give back and to fight for people to make sure they had the opportunities he had.

He started his career in the Senate back in 1982. As many of us who served with him know, he decided to retire, but he was not happy in retirement. He wanted to be here doing what he loved--being a Senator and fighting for the people of his home State of New Jersey and fighting for Americans all over to have the opportunities I just spoke about. He made it his mission to make sure the ladders that were there for him were there for the generations that came behind him.

He was a proud World War II veteran--in fact, the last this body will know. He fought for the post-9/11 GI bill because, as did my dad, who was also a World War II veteran, he had used the GI bill after World War II. He knew it was the key to unlocking the knowledge that powered the ``greatest generation.'' He wanted that for those who came behind him.

His desire to stand for the powerless is also why he championed legislation to protect families from gun violence, why he stood to safeguard families against dangerous chemicals time and time again, and why he took on the powerful to ban smoking on airplanes and to bring about tougher drunk driving protections.

I personally will always remember Frank's passion for transportation. He chaired the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee before I did, and I spent many years working with him to make sure we funded the infrastructure of this country--rail, highway, airline safety issues.

Frank's legacy really is that his direct work saved lives. He saved lives. He helped to build transportation networks that brought families, businesses, and communities together. He wanted a better life for families in America. He was a champion for the underserved and underrepresented.

How many times have I been on the floor feeling like a lonely voice-- fighting for women's health care issues or fighting for the protection of families against hazardous chemicals or fighting for victims of domestic violence--and time and time again Frank Lautenberg would come over here to stand beside and fight with me, no matter what the time of day or the late hour of the night, because that was his passion and his cause.

He was a passionate public servant. He was not afraid to fight and vote for what he believed. He could never understand anyone who came here and tried to figure out which way the winds were blowing in order to take a vote. Frank came and was passionate about whom he cared for, and he did not care about the political consequences. He wanted to fight for the underserved.

He loved the Senate. In fact, he loved it so much that one tour of duty was not enough and service called him back, as I said. Up until just a few days ago, nothing could stop Frank from taking Amtrak down here to fight for the issues he believed in and the people of New Jersey whom he represented so well.

Frank Lautenberg gave everything he had to public service, and those who served with him, as I was so fortunate to do, know it gave him all the satisfaction in the world.

He is going to be missed by all of us. He will be missed for his determination, for his passion, for always caring, and for fighting for what was right for all the people in this country.

I just wish to say tonight that my thoughts and prayers are with Bonnie and all of his family as they struggle with this loss but to know that his legacy lives on in the safety and caring of so many families in this country for whom he worked so passionately and hard.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate, not just today but for 61 days as we have been working extremely hard to get the budget passed and go to conference so we can work with our House colleagues--and, by the way, the majority are Republicans. We are working to do that because the American people have been very loud about not managing by crisis. We all know that what will happen if we don't go to conference is exactly what the Senator from Utah has been saying he doesn't want.

If we go to conference we will have an open conference committee to discuss the differences between the House and the Senate budgets. They will then give those instructions to the conference committee on how to move forward on our appropriations bills that we are now looking at and how we are going to deal with sequestration. It will be an open debate that will come back here.

If we are not allowed to go to conference--we do have to pass our appropriations and spending bills or move to a continuing resolution because we can't if we don't get a budget deal--we are going to have to have a closed-door and secret discussion to figure out what we are going to do when the debt ceiling hits. It will come down on them in the middle of the night, and they will not have had an opportunity to be a part of it because of the delay that is occurring right now.

If the Senate allows us to go to conference, Members of the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, my counterpart Senator Sessions, and I, his committee, as well as Congressman Ryan from the Republican Party in the House and his committee members and Democrats will sit together in an open process and determine how we move our budget forward.

I am happy to yield for a question.

Once the conference is set and we begin meeting in a conference, it is like any other committee hearing where the public will be able to come in and listen. They will able to watch on C-SPAN, and it will be an open process.

I will tell the Senator from Arizona that if we don't get to conference, we are going to have to have discussions, as a country, about how we manage our finances and our government moving

forward, and those will be behind closed doors.

So what the Senator is objecting to as to the closed-door secret meetings he is causing.

I hope our Republican colleagues would allow us to move forward. As the Senator from Missouri said, we had 50 hours of debate, we had over 100 amendments which were considered. Not one amendment was offered or considered on the debt ceiling, which is now what they are objecting to if we go to conference.

The Senator from Texas, I believe, offered 17 amendments, and he has been objecting because of this. Not one of them was about the debt ceiling.

I know the Senator wants to have a debt ceiling debate on the floor of the Senate. He is welcome to come to the floor anytime and talk about the debt ceiling. We welcome that discussion. We believe our bills should be paid, but that is separate from what we are talking about here. We are talking about a budget resolution.

There were over 100 amendments considered. There was 50 hours of debate equally divided. Every Senator participated.

Over 70 were agreed to.

Not one amendment was offered or considered on the debt ceiling.

I would add that what the Senator from Missouri has offered, after talking with the Senator from Arizona, is the ability now to have a vote, despite there wasn't any during that time. There was an offer, with our consent, that, yes, OK, fine. If you have to have that now, we want to get to conference so we will allow a vote on that and proceed to the conference.

So I do not understand this argument that we are going into some secret meeting. I assure the Senator that we have seen secret meetings here when it comes to the budget in the past that have gotten us all to a very frustrating point.

Let's move to conference so we do not have those secret meetings. The Senator is arguing for something--I say to the Senator from Utah--that the Senator from Utah is going to cause.

I hope we can come to an agreement. We have offered a consent which offers two motions to be considered. We hope to have those, and we hope to go to conference.

I assure the Senator that we will be as open and as transparent as possible. That budget resolution will come back to the Senate, everyone will have a chance to have their say if they want that, and then that budget resolution will give us our instructions so we can continue to move forward on regular order to fund the Defense Department, Agriculture, Education, and to fund the different aspects of government such as transportation and housing. That is our obligation as the United States Congress in order for the American public to be able to manage what they are required to do once we pass our budget.

I urge our Republican colleagues to back off on their insistence on this matter. I am ready to go to conference. Am I going to like what comes out of conference as chair of the Budget Committee that worked very hard to get a budget passed in the Senate? Probably not.

I know my responsibility as a Senator is to work with my House Republican colleagues and those on our conference committee to come to the best judgment we can mutually so we can move our country forward and get us out of this management by crisis that has been forced on us time and time again over the last several years.

The American people deserve certainty. That certainty will come when we can move to conference with an open, transparent committee process which allows us to get the budget in order.

Again, I urge my colleagues to reconsider their objections.

Mr. President, it has now been 59 days since the Senate and the House passed our budget resolutions. The American people are now expecting us to get together and do everything possible to bridge the partisan divide and come to a bipartisan deal. On this side the Senate Democrats are ready to get to work. Unfortunately, despite their focus over the past 2 years on the need to return to regular order, Republicans have been refusing to allow us to move to a bipartisan budget conference.

Many Republicans, including the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, had been very clear up until recently that after the Senate engages in an open and fair budget markup process--and these are his words--``the work of conferencing must begin.''

Minority Leader McConnell said in January that if the Senate budget is different from the House budget, then ``send it off to conference. That's how things used to work around here. We used to call it legislating.'' I could not agree more with Minority Leader McConnell's words from back in January. Over the past few weeks we have tried to move to conference eight times, and each time Senate Republicans have stood and said no.

They have managed to stall for weeks now, but their excuses for not wanting to move to conference are changing. At first Republicans told us that we needed ``a framework'' before they would allow us to move to conference, although they never explained what that meant. And, frankly, a budget is a framework. Then the story changed, and they told us they would only let us move to conference if we made certain guarantees about the outcome. Then last week the story changed again, and Senate Republicans claimed that despite the fact that we engaged in a fair and open budget process in the Senate less than 2 months ago, they think we need a do-over, with another 50 hours of debate on top of the 50 hours we have already done and another round of unlimited amendments on top of the unlimited amendments that were moved already.

This is absurd. First of all, to claim that regular order involves a second full Senate budget debate is simply not true. The Senate has never been forced to go through a full debate and open amendment process twice just to get to conference--not one case. Completely unprecedented. In fact, every single time since 1994 that the Senate moved to conference, it was done by unanimous consent, with bipartisan support, which is the way it ought to be done.

Second of all, the Senate engaged in a full and open debate in which any Member could offer any budget amendment they wanted to. We did that a few months ago. I know all of my colleagues remember this. I certainly remember this.

I would be happy to quote some of what was said about the process if any reminders are needed because as that debate came to a close in the wee hours of the morning, Minority Leader McConnell said the Senate had just engaged in ``an open and complete and full debate.'' He continued and said, ``I know everyone is exhausted, and people may not feel it at the moment, but this is one of the Senate's finest days in recent years, and I commend everyone who has participated in this extraordinary debate.''

My ranking member, Senator Sessions, said the Budget Committee markup was ``an open process'' where ``everybody had the ability to offer amendments.''

Senator Sessions said on the floor, as debate was wrapping up, he was thankful that the Republicans had ``free ability to speak and debate'' and for ``helping us move a lot of amendments fairly and equitably tonight.''

There is no question the Senate engaged in a fair and open and lengthy debate about the budget before we passed it. There is absolutely no good reason to ask that we do this all over unless the intention is to simply stall the process and push us closer to a crisis.

Instead of scrambling to find new excuses for their budget conference flipflops, I hope Senate Republicans realize their opposition to bipartisan negotiations is not sustainable and will not allow us to get to the table and move on this matter.

I know there are Members who do not agree with the budget that was passed. They will have another opportunity to fight for changes in a bipartisan conference, which is how we do this. That is the responsible and appropriate path forward, and I hope the Senate Republican leaders decide to move back to the position they maintained just a few months ago. I know a number of our colleagues on the Republican side have said to me privately and in public that they believe we should move to conference. I hope we can do that. The challenges before our country in terms of our debt and deficit and the investments that need to be made and the certainty that Americans are looking to us for cannot be completed until we go to conference and work out our differences and come back and move this forward.

I hope this time when I ask for unanimous consent to go to conference Senate Republicans will join with us so the American people can see an open conference move to a debate and solve this very challenging problem we have in front of us.

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 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 that the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator expect the House of Representatives, a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, would not participate in that vote?

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Does the Senator expect he would not have a vote at the end of a day after a conference comes back from the House of Representatives?

And isn't that a democratic process?

Can the Senator answer my question? Does the Senator from Texas understand the House of Representatives also would have to pass this? They are a Republican majority.

And, by the way, we are not talking about whether we should pay the bills this country is already obliged to pay. We are talking about putting a budget framework forward for the next 10

years. We had a terrific debate about that and the Senator from Texas participated in that and offered amendments. He had an opportunity to do that.

The House of Representatives did the exact same thing. At the end of the day, the way a legislative democratic process works is the two bodies come together and it will have to pass whatever our conference agrees to with a majority of Republicans in the House and a majority in the Senate with Democrats. That is going to be where the Senator from Texas will have an opportunity to say yes or no to a conference.

So I don't understand the Senator saying he would not participate. He has a vote. That is how the Senate works.

With your vote.

I ask the Senator to yield for one final question. I know they want to keep talking.

The irony of this is really astounding. By objecting to us going to conference, the Senate Republicans who are objecting are actually putting us right in the position of being in the place where the debt ceiling, by virtue of timing, will have to--may be part of the budget conference because the House of Representatives wants to appoint conferees and have a budget done fairly quickly once they appoint conferees because they have told us they do not want to go through a series of votes as we all did. I think it is 20 days. If my colleagues object to going to conference at this point----

I ask for 1 additional minute.

By objecting to going to conference right now, what Senate Republicans who are objecting are doing is pushing us to a place where the debt limit, by virtue of timing, may be a part of the discussion. I ask the Senators to think about what they are doing by their objection, in forcing us into that position, and suggest that by allowing us to go to conference--we will have a better chance of not-- --

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 2013 Pride Foundation Scholars--a remarkable group of 89 students who share incredible perseverance, a strong desire to give back, and a focus on how education can improve their lives and their communities.

Pride Foundation plays a crucial role in encouraging and supporting the next generation of leaders in the LGBT community. Students who have been stigmatized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity sometimes do not receive the support they need from their families and communities, and too often, individuals of great

promise give up on their dreams because they do not believe success is possible.

Over the past 20 years, Pride Foundation has worked to lift up future leaders by giving over $3 million in educational scholarships to LGBT and allied students in Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. They have provided these students with financial support, mentorship opportunities, and a community that focuses on generosity, encouragement, and acceptance. As Pride Foundation marks the 20th anniversary of their scholarship program and honors these students at the 2013 Scholarship Celebration Reception, I wish to congratulate this year's scholars on all their achievements.

Pride Foundation's longstanding determination to help students succeed mirrors the LGBT community's tireless efforts in the fight for equality. And as we commemorate this year's Pride Month, we should look back and celebrate the tremendous strides that we have made toward equality in Washington State and across the Northwest.

I join with many in Washington State in congratulating this year's Pride Foundation Scholars on all they have achieved so far. I look forward to seeing all they will accomplish as leaders in their communities. Although we have a long way to go to move our country in the right direction, working together we have accomplished so much. I am proud to stand up and fight for the LGBT community, and I will continue to make sure that your stories are heard in the Senate. Again, congratulations to the 2013 Pride Foundation Scholars. I look forward to seeing all you will accomplish in the years to come.