Floor Statements

Mr. President, last month the flags of the Navajo Nation flew at half mast, in honor of Wilfred E. Billey. Mr. Billey was one of the legendary Navajo Code Talkers. He died at the age of 90 on December 12. His passing is an occasion to reflect on a truly heroic life, and on the vital contribution of the Navajo Code Talkers to America's victory in World War II.

Wilfred Billey was born on December 28, 1922, in Sanostee, NM. He was raised by his grandparents. In the summers, he herded sheep and farmed in the Chuska Mountains. In 1941, Wilfred was attending Navajo Methodist Mission School in Farmington when a Marine recruiter visited the school. Still a teenager, Wilfred would travel half way around the world with the all-Navajo U.S. Marine Corps Platoon 297.

The Navajo Code Talkers turned their language into an unbreakable code. They would use the language of the Navajo people as a weapon to defend our freedoms. In battle after battle, in ferocious combat, they used that code time and again to help secure Allied victory. Their service was all the more remarkable in that they fought so bravely for freedom in a world that did not always accord freedom to them.

Wilfrid's journey would take him throughout the Pacific theater. He would witness some of the bloodiest, most brutal fighting of World War II at Tarawa, Saipan, and Okinawa. The code he spoke, however, would save countless American lives, and help lead to allied victory.

Despite this work, this brave Marine never forgot those whom he believed to be the real heroes. His daughter, Barbara, in an interview with the Indian Country Today Media Network, recalled her father's humility. ``I'm not a hero,'' he said. ``The heroes are the ones we left behind.''

While most Americans would learn about the battles at sea and on land, the story of the Navajo Code Talkers was kept a secret, until the true purpose of their service was revealed over 20 years later.

In 2001, Congress honored Wilfred Billey and his fellow Navajo Code Talkers with public recognition and Congressional medals. Wilfred helped draft the words inscribed on the medals: ``The Navajo language was used to defeat the enemy.''

Wilfred Billey defended our Nation during time of war and peril abroad, and he continued to serve by working to lead the youth of the Navajo Nation. He returned to New Mexico and obtained bachelor's and master's degrees, and embarked on a career as an educator. Wilfred worked for four decades in education, including at the Navajo Methodist Mission School, and as principal at Shiprock High School. When he retired, he continued to ranch and farm, and to advocate for and inspire others in his community.

In Wilfred Billey's long and remarkable life, he exhibited impressive humility and unwavering service to his people, his community, and his country. If we look for exemplars of courage and commitment, we need look no further than Wilfred Billey and his band of brothers among the Navajo Code Talkers and the U.S. Marines. We are all forever in their debt.

My wife, Jill, and I extend our sincere sympathy to Wilfred's family. He will be missed by those who knew him, and he will be forever remembered by a grateful nation.

Madam President, today the Senate took an unusual step to change our rules with a simple majority vote. I say unusual step, and not unprecedented, because it was something the Senate has done on many occasions in the past. Like those previous changes, the action we took was not intended to destroy the uniqueness of the Senate but instead was meant to restore the regular order of the body.

I believe, as I have stated many times since coming to the Senate, that the best way to amend the rules is by having an open debate at the beginning of each new Congress and holding a majority vote to adopt the rules for that Congress. I, along with Senators Harkin and Merkley, tried to do that at the beginning of this Congress and the last. Ultimately we were unsuccessful in achieving the real reforms we wanted, including a talking filibuster. But there was some hope that the debate highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules and led to an agreement that both sides would strive to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately, that agreement rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned.

As expected, many of my Republican colleagues called today's action by the majority a power grab and ``tyranny of the majority.'' They decried the lack of respect for minority rights. I do believe that we must respect the minority in the Senate, but that respect must go both ways. When the minority uses their rights to offer germane amendments, or to extend legitimate debate, we should always respect such efforts. But that is not what we have seen. Instead, the minority often uses its rights to score political points and obstruct almost all Senate action. Instead of offering amendments to improve legislation, we see amendments that have the sole purpose of becoming talking points in next year's election. Instead of allowing up or down votes on qualified nominees, we see complete obstruction to key vacancies. It is hard to argue that the majority is not respecting the traditions of the Senate when the minority is using this body purely for political gain.

During the debate over rules reform we had in January, many of my colleagues argued that the only way to change the Senate Rules was with a two-thirds supermajority. As we saw today, that simply is not true. Some call what occurred the ``Constitutional Option,'' while others call it the ``Nuclear Option.'' I think the best name for it might be the ``Majority Option.'' As I studied this issue in great depth, one thing became very clear. Senator Robert Byrd may have said it best. During a debate on the floor in 1975, Senator Byrd said, ``at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are determined to change the rule . . . and if the leadership of the Senate joins them . . . that rule will be changed.'' That is what happened today.

We keep hearing that any use of this option to change the rules is an abuse of power by the majority. However, a 2005 Republican Policy Committee memo provides some excellent points to rebut this argument.

Let me read part of the 2005 Republican memo:

``This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S.

Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always

had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power

to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote.

Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option

in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents

changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress.

And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules

after the constitutional option had been threatened,

beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in

1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a

longstanding feature of Senate practice.

The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of

the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has

been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At

other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators

negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order.

But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has

played an ongoing and important role.''

The memo goes on address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option.''

One misunderstanding addressed, which we heard today is that, ``The essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised.''

The memo rebuts this by stating that ``When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed, many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with which it is presented.''

Changing the rules with a simple majority is not about exercising power, but is instead about restoring balance. There is a fine line between respecting minority rights and yielding to minority rule. When we cross that line, as I believe we have many times in recent years, the majority is within its rights to restore the balance. This is not tyranny by the majority, but merely holding the minority accountable if it crosses that line and makes the Senate a dysfunctional body. I would expect the same if my party was in the minority and we were abusing the rules.

Many of my colleagues argue that the Senate's supermajority requirements are what make it unique from the House of Representatives, as well as any other legislative body in the world. I disagree. If you talk to the veteran Senators, many of them will tell you that the need for 60 votes to pass anything or confirm nominees is a recent phenomenon. Senator Harkin discussed this in great detail during our debate in January and I highly recommend reading his statement.

I think this gets at the heart of the problem. We are a unique legislative body, but not because of our rule book. We have recently devolved into a body that our Founders never intended. Rather than one based on mutual respect that moves by consent and allows majority votes on almost all matters, we have become a supermajoritarian institution that often does not move at all.

With all of the economic issues we face, our country cannot afford a broken Senate. Both sides need to take a step back and understand that what we do on the Senate floor is not about winning or keeping the majority next November, but about helping the country today.

Today's vote to change the rules is a victory for all Americans who want to end obstruction and return to a government that works for them. Americans sent us here to get things done, but in recent years, the minority has filibustered again and again--not to slow action out of substantive concerns, but

for political gain. Any President--Democrat or Republican--should be able to make their necessary appointments.

This change finally returns the Senate to the majority rule standard that is required by the Constitution when it comes to executive branch and judicial nominees. With this change, if those nominees are qualified, they get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. If a majority is opposed, they can reject a nominee. But a minority should not be able to delay them indefinitely. That is how our democracy is intended to work.

New Mexicans--all Americans--are tired of the gridlock in Washington. The recent filibuster of three DC Circuit nominees over the last 4 weeks was not the beginning of this obstruction. It was the final straw in a long history of blocking the President's nominees. Doing nothing was no longer an option. It was time to rein in the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, and I am relieved the Senate took action today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy following my remarks.

Mr. President, I could not agree more with what Senator Merkley pointed out. There has been a lot of discussion-- especially as shown on that chart the Senator talked about--that we have done this before. When the Senate hits a roadblock, we can come back to our majority powers and get through the roadblock and continue to do business, to do business as the Senate and do the business we were sent here to do.

As the Senator noted, I remember I called for rules reform 4 years ago. I said the Senate was a graveyard for good ideas. I remember talking about that in my campaign and coming here, and I am sorry to say little has changed, that the digging continues.

Americans are tired, I believe, with the gridlock and the dysfunction in Washington--filibusters, shutdowns, hyperpartisan attacks. Americans want reform in the way their government operates: more cooperation, more transparency, less partisanship, more problem solving.

Monday's vote was one more example of why we need reform. Judge Robert Wilkins is well qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He deserved an up-or-down vote. Instead, what did we get? Another filibuster. He is the fourth nominee to that court to be trampled on by the minority--not because he is unqualified, not because of any failing on his part, but because a Democratic President nominated him. For some that is enough, that is all it takes to tell an eminent American to go home.

First it was Caitlin Halligan in March, then Patricia Millett last month, followed by Nina Pillard last week, and now Robert Wilkins--each of them exceptional, every one of them distinguished nominees. Each would be a credit to the court of appeals.

So No. 4, and counting. In baseball, three strikes and you are out. Not so in the Senate.

But this is not just about the rules. It is about having a Senate that works--not one that buckles under the weight of filibusters.

The partisan games continue, and the game has gone on long enough because the losers are the American people.

Senators Merkley and Harkin and I proposed changes to the rules at the beginning of this Congress--rules changes that were fair. They reined in the abuse. They protected the minority. We were very clear. We called for a talking filibuster. We argued that if the minority wants to continue debate, which is what voting against cloture is, they should actually have to stand on the floor and debate. Come down here, if you want to slow things down, and get on the floor and debate.

Instead, a compromise was reached. The two leaders agreed to ``work together to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances.'' That was the standard and the test: ``extraordinary circumstances.''

The minority leader said:

On the subject of nominations, Senate Republicans will

continue to work with the majority to process nominations,

consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate.

That was the agreement, and we all know it has not been kept.

In July, we had another shutdown on confirmations--all qualified candidates, all prepared to serve, but nominated by a Democratic President--or asked to lead agencies the other side does not like: the Department of Labor, the EPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--all blocked.

Once again we looked at changing the rules with a simple majority to restore the Senate's ability to function. We had a historic meeting in the Old Senate Chamber, and we reached another compromise.

I was hopeful for the outcome. There was feeling on both sides that things had to change, that we needed to change the way we do business here, and we confirmed several of those nominees.

But here we are again back on the filibuster merry-go-round and getting nowhere. Four months later, the same debate, the same partisan games, with qualified nominees denied an up-or-down vote. And not just judicial nominees but also Congressman Mel Watt blocked from leading the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The only ``extraordinary circumstance'' has been continual obstruction.

These are not the norms and traditions of the Senate. It is the failure of partisan politics. In fact, it was not long ago that Republicans were the first to say so during the Bush administration. They were up in arms. Why? Because 10 judicial nominations had been blocked--10, mind you. That number seems quaint now, but it was enough for the Republicans.

Here is what the Republican policy committee said in 2005. These are their words:

This breakdown in Senate norms is profound. There is now a

risk that the Senate is creating a new 60-vote confirmation

standard. The Constitution plainly requires no more than a

majority vote to confirm. Exercising the constitutional

option in response to judicial nomination filibusters would

restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices

governing judicial nominations, and guarantee that a minority

does not transform the fundamental nature of the Senate's

advice and consent responsibility. This approach, therefore,

would be both reactive and restorative.

Restoring the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices. It would be difficult to state the case more clearly.

One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: We should be careful what we wish for; that is, majority rule could backfire, which might get more Justice Scalias.

Well, that is exactly the point. The Constitution does not give me the right to block a qualified nominee no matter who is in the White House. The real norms and traditions of the Senate honor that principle. Some of us may disagree with Justice Scalia on judicial philosophy, but he was a qualified nominee. He received an up-or-down vote and he was unanimously confirmed. Likewise, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was considered liberal, the former ACLU general counsel. Many on the other side may have disagreed with her views, but there was no filibuster. She was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. A minority in the Senate should not be able to block qualified nominees.

On the other side of the aisle, this is not advise and consent; this is obstruct and delay. The people elect the President. They give him or her the right to select a team to govern and to appoint judges to the Federal bench. If those nominees are qualified, they deserve an up-or- down vote. That is how our democracy is intended to work. That is the mandate of our Constitution. That is the real tradition of the Senate. That is the way it is supposed to work. It has worked that way in the past.

My father was Secretary of the Interior for President Kennedy. He later told me--when I asked him how long it took to get his team in place at Interior, he said, ``Tom, I had virtually my entire team in place in the first 2 weeks''--in place and ready to serve the American people in 2 weeks. The President's team is his team to choose so long as they are qualified to do the job.

My colleague on the other side is right. The winds can change. Let's be candid. Neither side is 100 percent pure. Both sides have had their moments of obstruction and, no doubt, their reasons at the time. But I do not think the American people care much about that. They do not want a history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is fair. They want a government that is reasonable and that works for them.

I say to Senator Merkley, we are back in this situation now where we started as we came in the Senate in 2008 and saw a broken Senate, a Senate that was not responding to the American people.

What I wanted to ask the Senator about, because to me it is one of the troublesome parts of what is happening with these judges, the last four judges who have been filibustered have been women. I think we are talking about a different standard because in between the four, a man got onto the same court, was voted in, but three women have been held up and filibustered: Caitlin Halligan, Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard. So over and over we have this kind of obstruction. Does the Senator think we have a double standard? Is it one standard when we look at what has happened recently on the court of appeals where a man gets on and three women get denied?

I think we have come back to the central question. That question is, How does our Constitution work when it comes to nominees? I do not have any doubt that we are talking about majorities. There are only five places in the Constitution where a supermajority is mentioned. It is not mentioned when it deals with advice and consent, judicial nominees, or Presidential nominees to the executive branch.

I think the Republican policy committee said it very well in the memo the Senator is talking about. It was authored at the time when the head of the policy committee was John Kyl. He was the chairman of the policy committee, known in the Senate as a good lawyer, and was respected on the Constitution. He wrote about the Constitution and how the Constitution should work. He said a couple of things that I think are interesting. This was back on April 25, 2005:

The filibustering Senators are trying to create a new

Senate precedent--a 60-vote requirement for the confirmation

of judges--contrary to the simple-majority standard presumed

in the Constitution.

A little bit further on, he also said:

An exercise of the constitutional option--

That means taking an action to put a judge on the court with a majority vote--

The exercise of the constitutional option under the current

circumstance would be an act of restoration--a return to the

historic and constitutional confirmation standard of simple-

majority support for all judicial nominations.

So I do not think anything has changed. I do not think it has changed from the time in 2005 to today. I do not think the Constitution has changed from the time we put it into place until today, that when it comes to those nominees the traditions and norms of the Senate are to have the majority have a say, that they get an up-or-down vote.

That is the situation right now. We have a filibuster going on on a number of nominees, both Presidential nominees and judicial nominees. So I think what we are trying to do in working with our leadership is say: Let's go back to the norms and traditions of the Senate where we use the majority wisely and give that advice and consent.

I do not think there is any doubt in this country that on both sides--the Republican side and the Democratic side--the base pushes us hard. I think we have reached this stage of hyperpartisanship. I believe our job as leaders is to overcome that and to lead. Leading here means allowing the norms and traditions of the Senate to continue, and that would be an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees.

What I asked the Senator about what was particularly troublesome to me was when we look at the history, the last two women who were put onto the Supreme Court--Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--75 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted against both of them. So we have that history compared with the women who have been denied here. It is very troubling to me to see that.

I think we are supposed to wrap up. I do not know whether the Senator has any closing comments.

Mr. President, one of the great natural treasures of my State, and of our Nation, is Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Underneath the Guadalupe Mountains, in southeastern New Mexico, lies one of the most spectacular caverns in the world. Will Rogers famously called it ``the Grand Canyon with a roof on it.''

Since 2004, the park has been well served by Superintendent John Benjamin. I rise today to congratulate John on his retirement after 45 years with the National Park Service.

John's tenure with the Park Service has been a remarkable journey, and he has served with distinction every step of the way. He graduated from Syracuse University with a bachelor's degree in resource management and a master's degree in forestry. He then began his career at NPS in 1968 as a park naturalist at Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado and Utah.

For over four decades, John has been an exemplary public servant at America's greatest wilderness and recreation

areas, including Lake Mead, Glacier National Park, Glen Canyon, the Everglades National Park, and the Grand Canyon. He served as deputy superintendent at Boston National Historical Park and Boston African American National Historic Site, and as superintendent of Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, prior to his time at Carlsbad Caverns.

Throughout his career, John has reflected that he enjoyed every job he had and particularly his role as a mentor to others who would go on to serve the Park Service and the American people with the same dedication that he has demonstrated for so many years.

In his book, The Quiet Crisis, my dad wrote the following:

Each generation has its own rendezvous with the land, for

despite our fee titles and claims of ownership, we are all

brief tenants on this planet. By choice, or by default, we

will carve out a land legacy for our heirs. We can misuse the

land and diminish the usefulness of resources, or we can

create a world in which physical affluence and affluence of

the spirit go hand in hand.

Public servants like John Benjamin make sure that our ``rendezvous with the land'' is a noble one and that our national treasures will be safeguarded for generations to come. John can look back on a career of great accomplishment and service. He exemplifies a legacy of professionalism and commitment that will continue to inspire others. I wish him and his wife, Deborah, much happiness in all their future endeavors.

Mr. President, in less than 1 week our Nation will commemorate Veterans Day. It is a day that we set aside to honor the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces, those who are still among us, as well as those who, sadly, have left us.

Today I wish to pay tribute to an American hero, Vicente Ojinaga, who passed away on September 30 at the age of 95. Mr. Ojinaga was a valiant soldier, a member of the Army's 200th Coast Artillery Regiment, a defender of Bataan and Corregidor, and a survivor of the Bataan Death March.

During World War II, the courageous defenders of Bataan were an inspiration for an embattled nation. The Japanese attack on the Philippines in December of 1941 came just hours after Pearl Harbor. The Battling Bastards of Bataan were outnumbered and outsupplied, but for 4 intense months they fought on against all odds. In holding off the enemy forces longer than expected, they bought the Allies precious time to regroup. They were, and always will be, an inspiring reminder of the grit and determination of both Americans and Filipinos.

The courage and sacrifice of those brave troops should never be forgotten. Their number included 1800 New Mexicans. Many of them were also Hispanic, deployed to the Philippines because of their ability to speak Spanish. They were dedicated to defending the freedoms that we all hold dear, at a time when they themselves were treated as second- class citizens.

For Mr. Ojinaga and his fellow soldiers, even worse was yet to come after the surrender. Those who survived the Bataan Death March faced 3\1/2\ years of horrific conditions and forced labor in Japanese prisons.

In an interview with the Santa Fe New Mexican, Mr. Ojinaga's daughter, Teri Gonzales, recalled that her father would sometimes tell his family about his experience during the war, but not in detail. ``We didn't want him to relive the horrible things,'' Mrs. Gonzales explained. ``He said what kept him alive was faith and prayer and his family, knowing he was going to come back to his family.''

Vicente Ojinaga was born on January 22, 1918, in Santa Rita, NM. After graduation from high school, he worked as a carpenter in the copper mine. When his country called, on the brink of World War II, he answered that call, unequivocally and with a powerful sense of duty. With his passing, we say goodbye to a courageous veteran of the legendary New Mexican survivors of Bataan. Our Nation is forever in their debt.

As his daughter said, despite the horrendous circumstances of his captivity, Mr. Ojinaga held on to his faith and held on to his hope that someday he would return home, that someday he would see his family again. By the war's end, his body bore the weight of his suffering. When he was finally released, he weighed only 95 pounds.

Like so many of the Bataan survivors, Mr. Ojinaga served his country at war but also in peacetime. He married Celia Presciado and together they raised five children. He and his wife purchased a home, with the help of the GI bill, in the Casa Solana subdivision of Santa Fe. They would live there together for over half a century. Mr. Ojinaga graduated from the University of New Mexico in 1950 with a degree in business administration. He worked for the Internal Revenue Service and then for the New Mexico Bureau of Revenue until his retirement in 1978.

His daughter recalled to the New Mexican that after his retirement Mr. Ojinaga was busy with his family and with community service. He was a Little League coach, volunteered to provide tax counseling to the elderly, was president of the Guadalupe Credit Union, and served as a Eucharistic minister at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. Mr. Ojinaga was blessed with a long and eventful life, and he dedicated his life to his country, to his family, and to his community.

Our Nation has lost a brave soldier. We extend to the family our deepest sympathy and our enduring gratitude for his service.

Madam President, recently there was a disturbing poll in the Washington Post. It said that most Americans fear that the American dream is passing them by. Almost 65 percent worry that they cannot make ends meet with their current incomes. That is up from 48 percent in 1971.

We are not talking about luxuries--just basic living expenses: food and clothing for their kids, a roof over their family's head, just getting by day-to-day. So many of our fellow citizens are working harder than ever and still feel as though they are falling behind. They wonder: Where is the country headed?

This week, they are wondering more than ever, watching the spectacle here in Washington, watching the government shut down, grinding to a halt. I am hearing from my constituents, from people in New Mexico, and they are frustrated and worried. They are concerned about the U.S. Department of Agriculture crop payments, as we head into the harvest, when they need financing the most. They are concerned about being able to close on mortgages with Federal backing, with their loans on hold.

Many New Mexicans are going to be furloughed without pay. This hurts their families and all the businesses that rely on them in our economy--restaurants, retailers, car washes, landscapers, any type of business one can imagine.

This shutdown did not have to happen. We are not debating the amount of the budget. The fact is, House Republicans are demanding concessions just for keeping the lights on at the Federal Government.

I think most Americans have two questions. How did we get into this mess and how do we get out of it?

We are coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, but recovery is underway. We have seen 42

months of private sector job growth. That is 7.5 million jobs. That is hope for millions of families. We have had nine consecutive quarters of economic growth--the longest stretch since the recession hit in 2008. So we are slowly making our way back--not fast enough, with too many folks still struggling, and with great challenges for the future.

This is a time for leadership, for working together. Americans expect their leaders to act as grownups. But they feel they are watching a schoolyard spat. Is it any wonder they hold Congress in such contempt or that they worry about the kind of country they will leave their children?

Here is what we should be doing. We should have a farm bill by now. We should have comprehensive immigration reform, and we should have a serious budget--one that would get rid of sequestration's meat-cleaver cuts with targeted spending reductions, tackling the deficit, reforming the Tax Code, helping the middle class and small businesses, helping families and seniors who are struggling, moving ahead with smart investments in infrastructure, creating jobs, investing in our future.

The Senate passed that budget 6 months ago. But the House went in a completely different direction. Their budget put tax cuts for the richest Americans above funding for education and ensuring the safety of our roads and bridges.

Democrats and Republicans have differences. That is no surprise. But we still have a job to do. We still need to sit down and work it out. But a minority in the House has blocked our way forward--not once, not twice but time and time again.

American families and businesses need a long-term budget. Businesses do not hire on a monthly basis. They need certainty and the confidence that their government is working to create an environment for growth. We are giving them neither; instead, we lurch from crisis to crisis.

The worst thing about it is it does not have to be this way. This is a manufactured crisis, a series of self-inflicted wounds to our economy. The American people do not want this. They want a strong economy. They want jobs and a government that can actually get something done for the middle class, not just for Wall Street billionaires. The American people want a government that works, not a government shutdown.

There is no logic behind this crisis. Why are we here? Because the other side wants to kill the Affordable Care Act. I respect the diversity of views in America and in Congress. But the Affordable Care Act passed Congress like every other bill. It passed the House, it passed the Senate, and the President signed it. If Republicans want to repeal this law, they should make their case to the American people and work to pass their own health care law. What is happening is unprecedented, disruptive, and undemocratic behavior.

We heard a lot of indignation--hour after hour of it. But here is the thing: It does not stop the Affordable Care Act. This whole stunt has been a colossal waste of time, and wasting time is something we cannot afford. The real problems facing our Nation are still waiting.

Everyone outside of a radical group of obstructionists knows this is silly, knows this is misguided and dangerous to our economy.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, business leaders from coast to coast--there is a loud chorus of: Stop. This is enough. But, so far, it is not loud enough.

The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. I am not going to come here to the floor and say the Affordable Care Act is perfect. What law is? But it is the law of the land. It is being implemented. Shutting down the government does not change that. Here is what a shutdown does do: 27,000 Federal employees in my State could be furloughed and lose their income. Nearly half of the civilian workers for the Department of Defense will be sent home. In New Mexico, that is over 6,500 people who help defend this country, and they may not be paid.

Social Security applications could be jeopardized. Calls to SSA for help could go unanswered. Federal loans would be delayed for tens of thousands of folks trying to buy a home or applying for a small business loan. Those doors may be locked. National parks will close. So will museums and monuments.

This hurts the tourist economy in my State and hurts small businesses. During the last shutdown, 7 million tourists were turned away. Our veterans, who already face too many delays in their claims for benefits, could face even more. During the last shutdown, more than 400,000 veterans saw their disability and pension claims delayed.

Students will also be hurt. Work-study and Perkins loan payments would stop. Pregnant women and mothers who need nutrition assistance for their children may not get it. All of this is because the other side wants to send a message on ObamaCare? Well, it has a very high price, costing our Nation billions of dollars every day and hurting Federal agencies, including our critical national labs such as Los Alamos and Sandia, in their important national security mission.

Wall Street is on edge. Main Street is on edge. Families are worried. Communities suffer. There is another cost. The paralysis of government sends a terrible message, a terrible message of failure and dysfunction.

What is next? The debt ceiling. Holding the credit of the United States of America hostage for political gain. Instead of serious debate, we have ultimatums. Instead of regular order, we have midnight shutdowns. Instead of compromise, we have all or nothing, take it or leave it.

My friend from New Mexico, MSG Jessey Baca, summed it up well in an interview with KOB-TV back home. He said:

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated because of the way we've

always been taught to work together to get things done, you

work together--and that just doesn't seem to be happening.

Settle your differences.

Jessey is right. We need to start working together. We have not done that. So here we are on the wrong train, on the wrong track going nowhere. It is hurting families, hurting communities, could derail our economy with the recovery still under way.

The hard-working families of this country want a government that works, not one that shuts down just to send a message. Meanwhile, those families wait--wait for us to meet the real challenges that face our Nation and that make a real difference in their lives and the lives of their children.

Before I finish, I want to discuss the subcommittee I chair on Appropriations, the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. We work with agencies that are critical to keeping the economy running smoothly. I have to speak up and make sure that those who are causing this shutdown know exactly how badly the country needs the government to reopen. This shutdown is jeopardizing consumer safety. It is adding to the uncertainty facing our financial markets. It is doing real damage on our economy.

Our subcommittee funds the Small Business Administration. Small business owners are really going to take a hit in this shutdown. The SBA, Small Business Administration, is closed. I do not know about my colleagues, but the top concern I hear from small business owners in New Mexico is how hard it is to get a loan to expand. The SBA approves an average of $86 million in loans to small businesses each day. But while the government is shut down, our Nation's job creators are not getting those resources. If the shutdown continues, 28 million small businesses will no longer be able to get capital from the SBA to expand.

There are other impacts too. Each day the government is closed our economy grinds down a little further. The shutdown is affecting the services that keep our capital markets safe. The CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, will have just 4 percent of its normal staff during the shutdown. That means markets will be without effective oversight.

We are about to hit the debt ceiling, our Nation's borrowing limit. It is a potentially dangerous financial situation. The shutdown has put our watchdog at the CFTC and the SEC to sleep. Global markets are open, Wall Street is open, but investor protection agencies are closed. It is an open invitation to financial abuse.

The shutdown is also putting the safety of our children at risk. Christmas may seem far away, but companies are already working to get ready for the holiday season. They are shipping

goods in from overseas, including millions of toys. During this shutdown, only 22 employees at the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be available nationwide. That is 22 people to inspect millions of imported toys and gifts, gifts that American families will be putting under the Christmas tree. These agencies were created by Congress to protect American investors and consumers, to help small businesses. It is a travesty that tea party Republicans in the House have been allowed to hold the country hostage. That is unconscionable. Real people are being hurt, the people who are going without pay, without veterans' benefits or survivor benefits, without important financial and consumer protections.

You know the one that is the most devastating to me? People who are going without food. Here we are talking about millions of women and children in this country in poverty.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

For this hour of majority time, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators have 15 minutes each: Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Merkley, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Whitehouse.

Five years ago, our economy went off a cliff. We all remember how bad it was. Wall Street crashed, great industries faced ruin, trillions of dollars in savings of American families gone, wiped out. That was the reality. It was a nightmare for millions of Americans. They lost their jobs, they lost their homes. So many saw a lifetime's work disappear through no fault of their own.

Five years later we are slowly making our way back. We have seen 42 months of private sector job growth. That is 7.5 million jobs. That is a new start for millions of Americans, but as families in New Mexico know, having a job in this economy does not mean the struggles are over. We are moving forward, but not fast enough. Too many folks in my State are still looking for jobs, or they are working and still struggling to pay for rent, food, and gas. They still have not caught up to where they were before, even though they are working harder than ever.

New Mexico's unemployment remains too high. It is at 6.9 percent, and it has been stuck at around 7 percent for far too long. We still have a way to go, so we can't afford any more self-inflicted wounds--no more manufactured crises and no more manufactured government dysfunction.

Unfortunately, we are seeing this again and again. A minority of radical obstructionists in the House and in the Senate is threatening a government shutdown unless they get their way. They wish to repeal the law of the land even though they lack the votes to do so. They are driving us toward another cliff.

They are willing to endanger the full faith and credit of the United States, all for their narrow ideological agenda. The American people will be the ones who feel the consequences.

There is no reason for this drama that threatens our struggling economy. The American people don't want this. From Wall Street to Main Street, most Americans are watching this spectacle with disbelief. They are looking for progress, for recovery, and they are getting gridlock over and over, with no budget, no long-term plan. If this continues, we have a government in paralysis--all this to drive a tank through health care reform.

The American people don't want to shut down the government to prevent people from getting their health insurance. They want jobs and they want economic recovery.

It is clear to folks on all sides of this desperate stunt that this is dangerous. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, not exactly a leftist group, has said, ``Stop.'' Last week they told the Representatives:

It is not in the best interest of the U.S. business

community or the American people to risk even a brief

government shutdown. . . . Likewise, the U.S. Chamber

respectfully urges the House of Representatives to raise the

debt ceiling in a timely manner and thus eliminate any

question of threat to the full faith and credit of the United

States Government.

We need to move past these partisan games and get back to working on our economy. We need to provide stability so our Nation's families and businesses can grow and prosper. We need to pass a bill that prevents a government shutdown and funds the programs critical to our economic health.

I wish to talk about the effect on my home State of New Mexico. New Mexico's economy can't afford these partisan games. We are already struggling with sequestration.

In New Mexico, sequestration is a painful reality, having a chilling effect on our economy. Folks are worried about their jobs. The most vulnerable groups--the poor, families with children, seniors, and Native Americans--face serious cuts in education and social services.

Our State has two great national laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos. Their work is essential to the security and safety of all Americans, keeping our Nation's nuclear stockpile safe and secure.

We are host to three Air Force bases, as well as White Sands Missile Range. This budget impasse is damaging to these installations and it threatens economic chaos in the nearby communities.

Businesses that rely on Federal contracts wonder if they can keep their doors open. Sequestration is already

damaging small businesses that survived the recession, businesses such as Queston Construction, a general contractor. Queston's president, Tina Cordova, has seen the number of employees shrink from near 40 to only 18 today.

Then there are the businesses such as PSC, a 100-percent Native- American, woman-owned security personnel business that had to let go employees last year. Threatening shutdowns only makes this worse.

These partisan games are also hurting businesses that depend on tourism. According to the National Park Service, New Mexico's national parks and monuments had 1.5 million visitors last year. We can't afford to close down sites such as Bandelier National Monument, Carlsbad Canyons, Chaco Canyon, Tent Rocks National Monument, Bosque del Apache Wildlife Refuge, and a host of other unique and special places. Customers who visit these sites stay in our hotels and eat in our restaurants. Tourism means big dollars for New Mexico and our small businesses, about $5.9 billion in direct spending.

However, here we are with a House resolution that is playing politics with our economy. This is a dead end. We are on the wrong train, the wrong track, and going nowhere. Americans understand this, and I think that is why they are so disappointed in us.

Our economy can't afford even the threat of government shutdown. Too many businesses and families are still barely making ends meet 5 years after Wall Street crashed.

Today's vote is some good news. We are facing obstruction, but we are moving forward. In a bipartisan way, I believe the Senate can do its job. It can pass a bill to fund the government without partisan poison pill amendments. Then it will go back to the House. With little time to spare, we can only hope the House leaders will come to their senses and allow a bipartisan bill, not a partisan bill, to move forward.

When that happens, if it happens, we have more challenges ahead. The House has drastically underfunded programs that American people depend on.

I spoke about the impact on New Mexico. Now I wish to speak for a minute as chairman of an appropriations subcommittee.

We see the needs out there. We see the need for investments. We can't keep kicking the can down the road hoping that somehow a miracle will happen and our roads and bridges will fix themselves, that our veterans will get the resources they need without funding, and that our national labs will be able to take on additional responsibilities without additional resources.

In the case of my subcommittee, Financial Services and General Government, we are making sure our financial systems are sound so Americans won't have to worry about a collapse, about losing their retirement, their homes, or their life savings. We are making sure we do not need a government bailout again and we are protecting consumers against fraud.

The House bill would put all of those important functions at risk. We can't afford that, the American people can't afford that, and we will continue fighting for a commonsense path forward.

One of the areas in my subcommittee is small business and funding the Small Business Administration. If we go into a government shutdown, the Small Business Administration closes down. All those small businesses across America that rely on loans, rely on advice, and rely on small business development centers aren't going to be able to do that, take an idea from the beginning of a business through a business plan. It is going to thwart entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. We can't afford that.

I plead with my friends in the House, when you get our bill this week or near the end of the week, please think long and hard. Let's pass it and move this forward.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 26, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 26, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous 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 ``Newborn Screening Saves Lives: The Past, Present, and Future of the Newborn Screening System'' on September 26, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 September 26, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Outside the Box: Reforming and Renewing the Postal Service, Part II--Promoting a 21st Century Workforce.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 26, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 26, 2013, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, September 15 through October 15 is National Hispanic Heritage Month. This is a time to remember and to celebrate the integral role of Hispanic Americans in the economy, culture and identity of our Nation.

In New Mexico, we enjoy a rich Hispanic heritage that goes back over 400 years. Santa Fe, the oldest capital city in the United States, was founded a decade before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock. New Mexico has the highest percentage of Hispanics of any State. From the Spanish colonists to immigrants from Latin America, the Hispanic community has informed our history, our art, and our sense of who we are as a people.

New Mexico is blessed with a blend of cultures and backgrounds like nowhere else. Our State is called the ``Land of Enchantment,'' not just for the beauty of our landscapes but also for the vibrant diversity of our culture.

The annual Spanish Market in Santa Fe is the largest exhibition of traditional Spanish Colonial and Hispanic art in the United States.

New Mexico is home to the National Hispanic Cultural Center, which is the fastest growing cultural institution in our State. The center, located in Albuquerque, is a guardian of Hispanic arts, culture and humanities, reaching people throughout the world.

Like America as a whole, the Hispanic community is itself diverse, representing a rich mosaic of nationalities and backgrounds. Its values of family, faith and hard work are the values that unite all of us as Americans and New Mexicans, and make us both more compassionate and stronger. Indeed, the story of Hispanics is a vital part of the American narrative--of overcoming hardship, of sacrifice, persevering, and helping one another.

During times of war and peace, at home and abroad, the Hispanic community has been a rich part of the fabric of the American story. From the time of the Revolutionary War, Hispanics have fought and died for our freedoms. Forty-one have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military honor our Nation can bestow. Hispanics continue to contribute in communities throughout the Nation--in business, in education and the arts, and at every level of government service. Their talents and sacrifices are integral to our past, and crucial to our future.

The late Dennis Chavez from New Mexico was the first American-born Hispanic to be elected to the Senate. He was a trailblazer for the people of New Mexico and for the Hispanic community. I am honored to follow in his footsteps and to represent such a diverse State.

This month, as we celebrate the historic achievements and contributions of Hispanic Americans, we should also remember the challenges we face and dedicate ourselves to meeting those challenges. With comprehensive immigration reform, and working together for vital education, health care, and economic development initiatives, let us commit ourselves to ensure that Hispanic families in New Mexico and across the Nation have an equal opportunity to achieve the American dream.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to again thank my colleagues for their kind words on the passing of Randy Udall. Their condolences, and those of so many people who knew and loved Randy, have been a great source of comfort to our family. I would also like to share with them Randy's obituary, published in the Aspen Times, as we remember Randy and celebrate his life.

I ask unanimous consent that the obituary be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the very serious vote before us--the vote to authorize force against Syria. Let's be clear: This is a vote to authorize an act of war. The American people are watching. They know what this is--a dilemma with no easy answers. They know it could spiral out of control. It has happened before and it could happen again.

The use of chemical weapons is an outrage. What happened in Syria was despicable. The horror is clear. The world cannot look away. This crime is a crime against humanity. It demands an international response-- strong and unequivocal. On this we can all agree. However, what should that response be?

The President has presented a plan for military strikes on the Syrian regime--an attack that has been presented to the American people as limited in scope but with very great consequences. So we are confronted with urgent appeals to strike, but I believe there are strong reasons not to do so.

First, we should pursue all diplomatic and economic options to pressure both Asad and his backers to change course. We have not yet done that to the fullest extent.

We all know the Russian Government is aiding and abetting the criminal regime in Syria, supplying military support, providing diplomatic cover, and preventing an international response to this atrocity. The world is rightly outraged. That outrage should be loud and clear, and the full force of international condemnation must be exerted, not just against Asad.

As of this week there are signs Russia may be getting the message. If their proposal to help secure Syria's chemical weapons is sincere, then we should welcome this opportunity. We should work with the international community to make this a reality. The inability to use chemical weapons in this conflict will restore the international norm we seek to uphold and prevent a recurrence of the horrors we have seen.

If Russia aims to be a responsible world power and not a rogue nation, they will seek solutions, not obstruction. They are a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Let's hold their feet to the fire to do what is right. The President's mandate is stronger with congressional approval, and the mandate of the United States is stronger with international support. I would urge Ambassador Power and Secretary Kerry to keep up the pressure on Russia. Make the forceful case to the Security Council. Continue to share the evidence with the people of the world.

This situation will not be solved with Tomahawk cruise missiles fired into Syria. It will require a concerted international effort to push Asad and the various rebels to pursue a political solution. For us to go it alone, to take unilateral action, will put us on shaky ground legally and strategically.

Second, the proposal to use military force could embroil the United States in a complex Middle Eastern civil war. There is a cancer in Syria, from Asad to Al Qaeda. The civil war is a twilight zone comprised of multiple players internationally, regionally, and within Syria. Many of the rebels do not share our values. Some--we don't know how many--are enemies of the United States and our allies. Many of these rebel groups have also committed terrible atrocities. Tilting the balance too far in their favor is not in our Nation's interest and will not leave Syria safer for innocent civilians.

These strikes have been presented as limited and targeted, but last week there were reports about expanding military targets, of regime change. Even the resolution we are considering today includes veiled language--the language that could make it the policy of the United States to tilt the momentum in the civil war and endorse the policy of arming the Syrian rebels--a policy I and others believe is very dangerous--about whom we know too little.

Third, there is a real risk that even limited U.S. military involvement may make Asad feel more desperate, putting our allies-- Israel, Turkey, and Jordan--at risk of attack. This could spark a regional war, creating a situation on the ground where Asad may be more, not less, inclined to use chemical weapons.

As with so many elements here, the question occurs, what then? Here is the reality. There is no simple solution, and the American people know this. I understand there is a natural instinct to want to retaliate, to strike out. No one can forget the horrific images, the terrible suffering of the victims. But we need a clear strategy that will not mire the United States in a bloody and uncertain civil war. I remain unconvinced that we have such a strategy in place.

The Iraq war, which I voted against, began as an international effort to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. There followed years of a no-fly zone and airstrikes to prevent Saddam from threatening his neighbors or reconstituting his arsenal of chemical weapons. As we all know, these limited military actions led to one of the biggest blunders in U.S. history.

Americans are understandably skeptical after the fiasco of Iraq. They want to know if we are going down the same path in Syria, into a civil war that is more complex and potentially damaging to the United States and its interests. Limited attack or broader, there is no easy way out of the quicksand. Have we not learned at least that after 12 years of war?

I have listened to the administration's arguments closely, as well as the opinions of New Mexicans. The American people do not believe a limited strike will deter Asad; they fear this strike will just lead us further toward direct involvement. They rightly ask, for what purpose and to what end? Public officials should not always let polls be their guide before making important decisions for our country, but I agree with the majority of Americans and New Mexicans--we must exhaust our political, diplomatic, and economic options first. This is not a lack of resolve. America has the greatest military on Earth. No one should doubt that we will defend our interests and our allies. But a military strike in Syria is the wrong response in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I come to the floor not to push my colleagues one way or another. Each of us must make up his or her own mind. I come here simply to explain my reasons for voting no on this authorization for the use of military force in Syria.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, this is a historic day in the Senate. These are qualified nominees. They have been delayed long enough. But we are also considering a larger

question; What kind of Senate do we want? What kind of Senate best serves the American people?

This is not about breaking agreements. This is about a Senate that is already broken. We once were called the world's greatest deliberative body, and we have become a graveyard for good ideas. The traditions of the Senate have been buried--buried under the weight of filibusters, of chronic obstruction, and by a tyranny of the minority. The Senate has been driven by unprecedented partisanship.

The agreement of this past January was modest. Some of us felt it was too much so. The leaders agreed to schedule the President's nominees in a timely manner, but that did not happen. That is not what we have seen. Nominees have been continually blocked--one after another, month after month. That failure doesn't just violate an agreement, it violates the trust of the American people.

People in New Mexico--people in the rest of the country--want to know: Who is minding the store? The answer, too often, is no one. As a result, important work is left undone. That is not by accident. It is by design, which is why we are here now. Because the months go by, and we don't have a Secretary of Labor. We don't have a National Labor Relations Board. We don't have an administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. These, and other, vital agencies are adrift.

Their work matters for the people in my State, for all Americans who care about the rights of workers, the environment, health care, consumer protection, and the integrity of our elections.

The American people spoke in November. They re-elected the President. They expect a government to do its job, and gave the President the right to select his team to do that job. The people give the President that right, but a minority in the Senate does not. Find 60 votes or find someone else or leave the position empty. That is not the tradition of the Senate.

That is not advise and consent, it is obstruct and delay. In the end, it is the people of this country who are kept waiting.

These are qualified nominees. They should not be blocked yet again simply because you don't like their policy or their program, or the law they are commanded to uphold.

We have a chance here today--a historic chance--to restore the confirmation process. We have a chance to restore the Senate to how it has worked for over 200 years. I hope we will take this opportunity.

New Mexicans want a government that works, the American people want a government that works, and today they will be watching to see if, finally, it actually does.

In conclusion, I want to talk about the rules and what we engaged in yesterday, which I thought was a very productive endeavor. We had 3 hours with most Senators in the room in the Old Senate Chamber. We were able to exchange our thoughts outside of the limelight. I believe it was very productive.

We had a lot of ideas come forward. Some of those ideas to resolve this situation may end up being adopted in a little bit. It looks as though Richard Cordray, the attorney general from Ohio, will get cloture at this point--at least that is the way it is looking--and then we will have some debate on that nomination.

I have a couple of other points. First of all, Leader Reid has incredible patience when it comes to this whole issue of executive nominations. I have seen him over and over go beyond the pale when it comes to patience. At this point he realized we were getting things clogged up, there was too much obstruction, so he needed to force the issue.

I am very proud he has done this because I think it has pushed us in the right direction. As a result, we are going to get executive nominees in place on a timely basis, and we are going to get rid of all the delay we have had.

I looked back in history at executive nominees. I remember my father when he became Secretary of the Interior in 1961. When I was first sworn into the Senate and came home, I told him we were having a hard time getting executive nominees in place. He said: Tom, the amazing thing, if you highlight the 50 years ago and 50 years later, is I had my whole team in place within 2 weeks. My entire team was in place in 2 weeks.

This is President Obama's fifth year as President, and he doesn't have his team in place. That is the issue. I know we are focusing on trying to do everything we can to find a solution as to how we allow a President who has been reelected--and by a pretty good margin--to have his team in place.

I am very confident that Senator John McCain is working on a compromise. He is a good friend to the family and somebody who cares about moving forward with the issues rather than obstructing the issues.

As everybody knows, he was part of the Gang of 14. Senator McCain with 13 other Senators came up with that compromise to move us forward in terms of the gridlock that we were facing with judicial nominations. So I hope the discussions that are taking place are going to produce something.

I think it is a big breakthrough to see we are at the point where Richard Cordray, who has been waiting for 2 years--he is a very competent individual. He has served as the attorney general of Ohio, one of our biggest States. He is a great consumer protection person--is going to get cloture, we will have debate, and my sense is we are going to get him into that consumer agency, and it will make a big difference.

I see my good friend Senator Corker, so I want to make sure he gets to speak before we have this 11 a.m. vote.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, today we are here debating the issue of rules. I have listened to this debate about the Senate rules, and the word ``broken'' gets tossed around a lot--broken agreements, breaking the rules to change the rules. Those are the sideline comments and they miss the real point, because what is broken is the Senate itself.

I have said for a long time the Senate is a graveyard for good ideas, and the shovel is unprecedented abuse of filibusters, of delay and obstruction. It all adds up to one thing: broken.

We called for changes in the Senate rules at the beginning of this Congress. We should have put in place a talking filibuster and other changes, but we didn't. So we have this tyranny of the minority, where the minority governs--just the situation our Founding Fathers feared.

Too often the Senate is still a graveyard for good ideas, and the bodies keep piling up, especially with executive branch nominees.

In January, the two leaders agreed to--

. . . work together to schedule votes on nominees in a

timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary

circumstances.

The minority leader said,

On the subject of nominations, Senate Republicans will

continue to work with the majority to process nominations,

consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate.

That was the agreement, and it has not been kept. The only extraordinary circumstance has been continual obstruction, and it all began very early on.

For openers, we saw the filibuster of Chuck Hagel's nomination--the first time a Secretary of Defense was filibustered. But this is part and parcel for President Obama's Cabinet secretaries.

By way of comparison, looking at other Presidents, not one of President Carter's Cabinet nominees was filibustered; President George H.W. Bush, zero; President Reagan, one; President George W. Bush, one; President Obama, four and still counting.

I am old enough to remember the era when my father was Secretary of Interior in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. When I joined the Senate, I told my dad when I went home one weekend, We can't get executive nominees in place. The President and Cabinet secretaries don't have their teams in place. He said, Tom, I had virtually my whole team in place in the first 2 weeks. Imagine that. Imagine if the whole team for the Department of the Interior--or any other Department, for that matter--was confirmed in the first 2 weeks. Agencies could function, our government could do its work.

Instead, the President's nominations are ambushed by filibusters. Confirmation now almost always requires 60 votes, contrary to the historical practice of the Senate and, more importantly, contrary to the explicit simple majority requirement in the Constitution. These are not the traditions and norms the Republicans committed to. It is anything but. Still, that is what we have seen, one nominee after another blocked and key leadership posts left unfilled.

Americans thought they spoke with a clear voice last November. No doubt they now wonder. And why wouldn't they? The will of the majority is drowned out by a small minority. People in my home State of New Mexico want to know--Americans want to know--who is minding the store? The answer, in too many cases, is no one. We still don't have a Secretary of Labor. The National Labor Relations Board is an empty shell. The Senate has failed to confirm a full five-member board and general counsel. Two of these nominees are Republicans. Even they couldn't get through. This has real impact for 80 million Americans who rely on workplace protections, for the rights of workers, and the integrity of the collective bargaining process.

Some believe it is a good thing that we toss out the enforcement of labor law in this country. I don't share that view. But it isn't just workers who are left hanging. Leadership positions at other vital agencies remain unfilled: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Federal Election Commission. These are important jobs-- important work--for the American people, affecting the environment, consumers, health care, and even our elections.

Earlier this year we debated gun safety legislation. Republicans argued that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the existing laws. Unfortunately, the agency responsible for enforcing many of those laws--the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives--has not had a Senate-confirmed Director in 7 years. Why? Because Republicans do not want the ATF to function.

Many of these highly qualified Americans get tired of having their lives put on hold because of partisan obstruction. Rather than continue to languish in a dysfunctional system, they withdraw from consideration.

One such example was Dawn Johnson, nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson was a respected law professor and former top assistant in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration. But Republicans blocked her nomination. In 2010, after her nomination was stalled in the Senate over a year, she withdrew.

Another example is Peter Diamond. In 2011, he withdrew as President Obama's nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. Diamond's nomination was blocked because a small minority

of Senators questioned whether he was qualified. I tend to believe he was, as he won the Nobel Prize in economics the year before.

It makes you wonder why anyone would subject themselves to a Senate confirmation, people who want to serve their country, often at a significant pay cut from their private sector careers, who know they will be subjected to a partisan fight that may have nothing to do with their qualifications. So months and years go by, work is left undone, with no one at the helm of major government agencies.

That is why the Senate is in crisis. That is why we are here today. The American people deserve better. We need a government that does its job. That is not possible without leadership. Congress's approval ratings remain in the cellar. Why? Because of a failure to get things done, even things as basic as allowing the President to select his own team. Find 60 votes or find someone else or leave the position empty-- this is the status quo, and it must change.

It is time for us to act. It is time to restore the confirmation process--restore it to how it has worked for over 200 years. Doing so is not breaking the rules to change the rules. They have been changed before and it is often done by a simple majority--when the minority is abusing Senate procedure. As Senator Merkley pointed out last week, it has been done at least 18 times since 1977.

Contrary to the Republicans' dire warnings, making these changes has never led to the death of the Senate. In fact, the Republicans themselves made a strong argument for such changes back in 2005. They were up in arms. Why? Because 10 judicial nominations had been blocked. That number seems quaint now, but it was enough for the Republicans, and they were very clear about it. That is what the Republican Policy Committee said in 2005:

This breakdown in Senate norms is profound. There is now a

risk that the Senate is creating a new, 60-vote confirmation

standard. The Constitution plainly requires no more than a

majority vote to confirm any executive nomination, but some

Senators have shown that they are determined to override this

constitutional standard. . . . Exercising the constitutional

option in response to judicial nomination filibusters would

restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices

governing judicial nominations, and guarantee that a minority

does not transform the fundamental nature of the Senate's

advice and consent responsibility. This approach, therefore,

would be both reactive and restorative.

``Restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices.'' It would be difficult to state the case more clearly.

This isn't just about the rules; it is about the traditions and norms of the Senate and their collapse under the weight of filibusters. I know the winds can change, positions can change. Neither side is 100- percent pure. Both sides have had their moments of obstruction and, no doubt, their reasons at the time. But I don't think the American people care much about that. They don't want a history lesson. They don't want a primer on parliamentary procedure. They want a government that works, that gets things done, period.

I came to the Senate in 2009. My position has not changed since then: The Senate needs to do its job, and it is missing in action.

When we proposed to change the rules at the beginning of the Congress, we were very clear: We called for a talking filibuster. If you want to hold up legislation, you should have to stand here in this Chamber, on the floor, and make your case. We did not intend to trample on the legitimate rights of the minority, and we were willing to live with these rules, no matter if we were in the majority or the minority.

I do not believe the Constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee no matter who is in the White House. I say that today, and I will say it if I am in the minority tomorrow. A Republican President may have nominees I disagree with--most likely so. But the people elect a President, we only have one President at a time, and they give him or her the right to select a team to govern.

If those nominees are qualified, a minority in the Senate should not be able to block them--on either side of the aisle. Oversight, yes; review, yes, but not block because you don't like their policy or their program or the law they are committed to enforce. This is not advice and consent, this is obstruction and delay.

New Mexicans want a government that works, the American people want a government that works, and they are tired of waiting.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about the rules issue that has come to a head in the Senate. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by the other side of the aisle. They have continually blocked nominations--and I will get into the numbers--and this is something that has been building since we came in, in this Congress. We had a debate about rules, and we didn't do the things we should have done. We should have put in place a talking filibuster. There is no doubt about it. We should have put in other rules changes. What has happened is we find ourselves in the situation of a tyranny of the minority.

What is a tyranny of the minority? The Founders talked about it. The Founders saw that if a situation was created where a minority could block the action of the Senate, then the minority would actually be governing, and that is the situation we have before us. The minority governs when it comes to nominees, and they have blocked nominees in a very significant way. I can't repeat enough that this is unprecedented in the history of the country.

The President can't get his team. What is at issue is we have a President of the United States who had a very big win in the last election. He put himself out there, he campaigned on a number of issues, and he won the election. So one would think he can now get his team in place, but he is unable to get his team in place. He tries to propose people.

For example, in talking about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we have a very qualified attorney general--and I was a former attorney general a few years back--a young man the President put forward from Ohio who was very well qualified. He has not been able to get a vote. He is in an agency that is tremendously important to the middle class, he is in an agency that is important to consumers, and he is able to do things that are very important for consumers across this Nation when it comes to bank loans, when it comes to safety issues, and all across the board. Yet we have a situation where he cannot be sworn in and do his job as a full-time appointee for that agency. This is absolutely unprecedented, and we have to tackle this issue.

What is happening with the minority side is, if they do not like a nominee or they do not like the policies the nominee stands for or they do not like the administration's policies, they prevent the nominee from taking office at all. In effect, through the minority process that is being utilized, they are determining policy.

That is what the big objection is, and I think we are going to have to address this. I am very supportive of Leader Reid coming out and saying we have to address this, we have to deal with this, and I think we are going to deal with it starting today and flowing into the next week or so.

It was mentioned here recently that the Republican policy committee put out a document entitled ``The Senate's Power to Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote.'' I believe that document was put into the Record.

Earlier in the debate this document was referred to, and I just want to make sure everyone understands it is very clear, in reading this document, that at the time of April 2005 and in that period, the Republicans were making very strong arguments that we could go forward with rule changes during the middle of a session. They were pointing out that Majority Leader Robert Byrd--and we all know Robert Byrd was one of the Senators in this institution who studied and knew the rules; most people believe Robert Byrd knew the rules better than any Senator in the last 100 years--always felt we had the right, under the constitutional option, to make changes that needed to be made.

In 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987, Majority Leader Byrd established precedence that changed Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress, and I think that is what we are talking about, something along those lines. This is a critical issue for us as we try to move forward and we try to govern.

The Democrats have a majority and a big majority, if we consider the Independents who have joined with us, no doubt about it. Yet we cannot govern because of the procedures being utilized today.

I wish to highlight a little of this unprecedented Republican obstruction. Executive nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the Senate have been pending, on average, for 260 days--more than 8 months since they were first nominated. The Senate confirmed only 34 executive nominees by the July 4 recess compared to 118 at this point in the Bush administration. There are 184 pending executive nominees.

Since President Obama took office, Senate Republicans have filibustered 16 executive nominations and two nominees, including Mr. Cordray to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, via filibuster. For the first time ever, Senate Republicans filibustered a nomination for the Secretary of Defense. As the New York Times noted, ``The vote represented the first time in history that the Senate has required that a nominee for Secretary of Defense clear the 60-vote hurdle before a final simple majority vote.''

That is the New York Times.

Senate Republicans continue to block the nomination of Gina McCarthy to be EPA Administrator, claiming she has been unresponsive. Mrs. McCarthy was forced to answer more questions than ever before--more than 1,100 questions--since Senate Republicans boycotted her hearing at the committee I serve on, the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mrs. McCarthy was previously environmental adviser to Mitt Romney. She has very good credentials.

I urge my colleagues to look at what she did in New Mexico. Here you have Gina McCarthy. There is a potential for a lawsuit. It is an issue that has to do with air quality in New Mexico. She ended up pulling all the parties together through her Regional Administrator and reached a compromise where we closed down two coal-fired plants and opened in their place two natural gas-fired plants. It was considered by the Governor, the EPA Regional Administrator, and everybody as a win-win for everyone, and she engineered that from her position at air quality there in the EPA.

Another point that should be made about Gina McCarthy is Gina McCarthy is a woman who has already been approved by the Senate. She was approved in a lopsided vote and has been doing her job for 4 years.

So what are we doing that they are saying she has to be filibustered, she has to be stopped because they don't like the policies she is going to put in place. It is absolutely outrageous what is happening, and we need to rein this in. I agree Senator Reid is headed in the right direction to do this.

I applaud Senator Murray for her good work with Senator Reid and the leadership team in terms of trying to address how we govern and very much appreciate how she has tried to shape this issue and tries to always work with the Republicans on this issue. We have tried to work through these things and haven't been able to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2013, at 11 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Mitigating Systemic Risk Through Wall Street Reforms.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 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 July 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Assessing the Transition in Afghanistan.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2013, at 2:15 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 July 11, 2013, at 11 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.