[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6490-6496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H. CON. RES. 25

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks and to make a 
motion. Everyone in this body knows one of the issues, the issue I 
believe is most holding back our economic recovery and most holding 
back our ability to sort through so many issues our country faces, is 
the issue of our debt and deficit. We are like $17 trillion in debt. 
The debt goes up over $4 billion every night when we go to sleep. This 
problem is structural in nature. Time alone will not solve this issue.
  In the last 4 years, my time in the Senate, there has been no issue 
on which I have spent more time, spent more effort trying to reach out. 
I understand many of my colleagues actually try to avoid me in the 
hallways now because they fear they are going to get a Mark Warner 
harangue on the debt and deficit.
  I also know the only way we are going to get this issue resolved is 
if both sides are willing to meet each other in the middle. This is a 
problem that cannot be solved by continuing to cut back on 
discretionary spending. It will require, yes, more revenues, and it

[[Page 6491]]

will require entitlement reform. Those are issues where, unfortunately, 
in many ways our parties have not found agreement.
  We have all agreed as well at least that, while we do not have to 
solve this problem overnight, we need at least $4 trillion in debt 
reduction over the next 10 years. The good thing is, while we have been 
lurching from budget crisis to budget crisis, we have gotten halfway to 
our goal. The good news as well is that this year both the Senate and 
the House adopted budget resolutions. As I said on the floor in March, 
I believe the Senate budget was a solid first chapter toward producing 
a balanced fiscal plan for our country. My vote for the Senate budget--
and it was not a budget on which I would agree with every component 
part--was a vote for progress, a vote for regular order, regular order 
that so many of my distinguished colleagues who served here much longer 
than I say is the glue that holds this institution together.
  It has now been 46 days since the Senate passed its budget. 
Unfortunately, there are certain colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who seem to block our ability to go to conference. In a few 
minutes--just 2 minutes--I will ask my colleagues to agree to authorize 
the Chair to name a conference to the Budget Committee. Unfortunately, 
I expect that request to be objected to. I find that extremely 
disappointing. I can only speak at this point for folks from Virginia, 
but no single other issue is as overriding, as I travel across Virginia 
and I imagine for most of my colleagues as they travel across their 
States. At the end of the day, Americans, Virginians, want us to work 
together and get this issue solved.
  We have seen, over the last 2\1/2\ years, as we have lurched from 
manufactured budget crisis to budget crisis, the effects on the stock 
market, on job creation, and our overall recovery. We have a chance to 
put this behind us. We need to find the kind of common ground between 
the House budget proposal and the Senate budget proposal on which so 
many have called upon us to work.
  Again, I am going to make this motion in a moment. I want to add one 
last point. I appreciate some of the calls we have had from colleagues 
on the Republican side over the last couple of years for the Senate to 
pass a budget. I believed we needed to pass that budget. Mr. President, 
46 days ago, after 100 amendments and a session that went until 5 
o'clock in the morning, we passed such a document. I think it is time 
now that we allow the Senate to announce its conferees to meet with the 
House, to get a budget resolved for the United States of America so we 
have a framework to make sure we get this issue of debt and deficit 
behind us; that we allow the economy to recover in a way that it needs.
  Mr. President, 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, and H. Con. Res. 25, 
as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, 
request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to 
modify his request so it not be in order for the Senate to consider a 
conference report that includes tax increases or reconciliation 
instructions to increase taxes or raise the debt limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I point 
out what the Senator requests is for us to redo the budget debate where 
those amendments were considered and defeated in the Senate, and it is 
now up to us to go to conference to work out our differences with the 
House. There is no need to go back through another 50 hours of debate 
and 100-plus amendments to be considered. This body needs to go to 
work. We have been told time and time again we need a budget, we need a 
solution. We do not need to manage by crisis. There is no need to 
relitigate the budget on this side. We need to go to conference and 
litigate our differences with the House Republicans.
  I object to the Senator's request and urge we move to conference and 
allow the request of the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, to go 
forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Virginia?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while it is not unexpected, I am 
disappointed. The nub of this issue, as commentators from left to 
right, Democrat and Republican, pointed out, is if we are going to 
avoid the path we are on, the path of sequestration, which was set up 
to be literally the worst possible option--which right now is seeing 
cuts made in the most unsophisticated, unplanned, and inefficient way 
possible, plans that, if we continue on the path we are on, would so 
dramatically cut back this country's investments in education, 
infrastructure, research and development, that I don't believe, as a 
former business person, that America will be able to compete with the 
kind of economic growth we need to maintain our economy.
  If we are going to avoid those kinds of draconian cuts, if we are 
going to have a rational business plan for our country, I think most of 
us, or at least an overwhelming majority of the Senate, would recognize 
we have to generate both some additional revenues and--while there may 
be some on my side who disagree--we have to find ways to reform 
entitlement programs to make sure Medicare and Social Security are 
going to be there 30 years from now.
  The only way to get that done is to take the House product, which 
focuses particularly on entitlement reform, combine it with the Senate 
product that makes reasonable increases in revenues and starts us on a 
path on changes in some of our entitlement programs but also puts in 
place a more reasonable and balanced approach on cuts. The only way we 
are going to get to that finish line, particularly for those who have 
advocated for regular order, is to have a conference.
  It is with great distress that we heard opposition raised to regular 
order, an appeal for regular order, an appeal that was made 
consistently for the past 2\1/2\ years. I don't understand why my 
colleagues on the other side will not take yes for an answer. They 
asked for us to pass a budget. We passed that budget. I think it is a 
good first step in the process and I hope in the coming days there will 
be a change of heart, that the regular order will be allowed to 
proceed, conferees will be named for both the House and Senate, and 
that we can reach agreement on this issue that I think is important, 
not only to the future of our economy but quite honestly now has taken 
on the metaphor for whether institutions can actually function in the 
21st century.
  I see my good friend, the Senator from Virginia, who may want to add 
some comments to this discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion of Senator 
Warner and his argument for budget compromise and a budget conference 
that would enable us to find that compromise for the Nation. During my 
campaign for the Senate I heard this over and over. Every time I would 
turn on the TV it seemed there would be someone, even a colleague from 
this body, arguing that the Senate had not passed a budget in 2 years 
or 3 years or 4 years. That was a point that was repeated over and 
over. Then, coming into this body, often sitting there in the 
presider's chair, I have heard that speech delivered from the floor of 
this body in January and February, often with charts demonstrating the 
number of days it had been since the Senate passed a budget.

[[Page 6492]]

  We know as part of the debt ceiling deal a bill was passed, signed by 
the President so, arguably, even the claim of no Senate budget was 
inaccurate. But taking that claim at its word, that the Senate had not 
passed a budget in 4 years, you would think that, having passed a 
budget, everyone would be excited and would be willing now to move 
forward to try to find a compromise for the good of the Nation.
  Instead, what we have is an abuse of a Senate rule, an individual 
Senator standing up--even though they had a chance to vote against a 
budget and to vote on 100 amendments about a budget--they are utilizing 
and abusing a prerogative to block a budget conference.
  For those listening to this who do not understand what a conference 
is, it is exactly what it sounds like. We passed a budget. The House 
passed a budget. The next step in normal business would be for the two 
budgets to be put in a conference and House and Senate Members to sit 
down and, God forbid, listen to one another and dialog and hopefully 
find compromise.
  That is all we are asking to do, to have a process of listening and 
compromise. Yet individual Senators are objecting, blocking even the 
opportunity to have this discussion. In the 4 months I have been in 
this body we have had two major budgetary issues and I think it is 
important to point them both out. The first was the issue surrounding 
the sequester, a designed regimen of nonstrategic, stupid, across-the-
board budget cuts that were never supposed to go into place. In late 
February this body developed a plan that was able to attain more than 
50 votes, to turn off the sequester, to avoid the harm to the economy 
and other key aspects of the military, and to do it and find first year 
savings. That proposal was able to get more than 50 votes in this body. 
It had sufficient votes to pass. But the minority chose to invoke the 
paper filibuster process to block it from passing. They were not 
required to. Fifty votes is normally enough for something to pass. We 
could have avoided the filibuster altogether. We could have avoided the 
sequester altogether and the harmful cuts. Yet the other side decided: 
We are going to invoke the filibuster to block it from happening. That 
was the first instance of an abuse of the Senate rules to proceed with 
normal budgetary order.
  Now we are in the second such instance. On March 23, this body passed 
a budget in accord with normal Senate order, and as we have seen over 
the past few days, the very group of people who criticize the Senate 
for not wanting to pass a budget have done everything they can and 
pulled out every procedural mechanism they can come up with to block 
the us from coming up with a budget. This is an abuse of rules, and it 
is directly contrary to the Members' claims--now for years--that they 
wanted to pass a budget. This is not just a matter of budget nor is it 
a matter of numbers on a page. This is hurting our economy.
  Everyone in this Chamber will remember that when the American credit 
rating was downgraded in the summer of 2011--in the aftermath of the 
discussion about the debt ceiling limitation--the reason cited for the 
downgrade was not that the mechanics of the deal were bad; instead, our 
credit was downgraded because of the perception that legislators were 
engaging in foolish behavior and threatening to repudiate American debt 
instead of focusing upon their jobs and trying to do the right thing 
for the economy.
  It was legislative gimmickry, not the details of the deal, that 
caused us to have a bond rating downgrade for the first time in the 
history of the United States. It hurts the economy when we elevate 
legislative gimmickry above doing the Nation's business, especially on 
matters such as the budget.
  There are some signs of economic progress these days. The 
unemployment rate is moving down, the stock market is moving up, the 
deficit projections going forward are moving down, but we know we have 
a long way to go. There is more work to be done, and finding a budget 
deal that addresses the components which Senator Warner mentioned is 
one of the factors that can create confidence to additionally 
accelerate the economy.
  A budget deal will provide an additional acceleration to the economy. 
I have to ask the question: Is that what people are truly worried 
about? Are they worried about doing the budget deal that will 
accelerate the economy because it might not work to their particular 
political advantage? That is the concern I have; otherwise, why 
wouldn't they be true to the cause they have had for the past few years 
to actually have a conference and find a deal?
  This is not only hurting the economy, this is hurting defense. The 
hearing I had earlier with Senator King was the hearing of the Seapower 
Subcommittee of Armed Services. In that hearing we talked about the 
effect on the Nation's security and on our defense that is being 
visited upon us as we are going through budgetary challenges, including 
the sequester.
  We talked about the effect of the sequester on what the witnesses 
called the platform, the shipbuilding, and the assets we need to keep 
us safe in a challenging world. We talked about these budget crises and 
how they hurt our planning. Because instead of planning in a forward-
looking way, we are tying up all of our planning time to meet one self-
imposed crisis after the next. We talked about the effect on readiness. 
Because of the sequester, one-third of the air combat command units in 
this country are standing down at a time when we may well need them 
today or tomorrow.
  Finally, and most important, we talked about the effect of this 
budgetary uncertainty on our people, whether it is civilians being 
furloughed, whether it is private sector ship repairers getting warning 
notices because the ship repairing accounts cannot be done consistent 
with the sequester. This also affects people who are trying to make a 
decision about whether they want to make the military a career, and 
they look at Congress's unwillingness to provide budgetary certainty so 
they may decide maybe it is not the best thing to do right now.
  Whether it is our platform, whether it is our readiness, whether it 
is our planning or whether it is our people, this sequester and these 
budgetary challenges and crises are hurting our ability to defend our 
Nation at the very time when the world is not getting simpler or safer 
but it is getting more challenging.
  Many of my colleagues came from a joint session this morning with the 
President of South Korea, who is visiting at a time of incredible 
concern because of Northern Korea's nuclear ambitions that will call 
upon us, the United States--just as with so many other challenges 
around the world--to have a well-planned and well-financed defense of 
the Nation.
  I join Senator Warner in expressing disappointment. We passed this 
budget. We passed it 46 days ago. We were here until 5 in the morning. 
We voted on 100 amendments. Everyone had a chance to have their say and 
have their vote. Guess what. After our conference, they will have a 
chance to have their say and vote again. They will have a chance to 
express their opinions.
  I urge my colleagues to rethink their position and allow this budget 
to move into conference so we can do the business of the United States 
of America.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank my budget colleagues who 
are here with me today. They have spent many hours putting together a 
budget and coming to the floor with all of the Senate to work on over 
100 amendments way into the middle of the night in order to get a 
budget passed. We are all here ready because we came to the Senate--to 
this Congress--to solve problems. We decided, as a committee and as a 
Democratic caucus, it is very important we move forward on a budget.
  We want to solve this problem so we can get back to regular order so 
our country--businesses, communities, and everyone--knows where our 
priorities are and what path we are on so we can bring some certainty 
to this country again.

[[Page 6493]]

  It is so disappointing to me that four times now the Republicans have 
objected to us now taking the necessary next step, which is to work 
together with our House colleagues, find a compromise, and move 
forward. We are working for certainty. It is disappointing to me that 
those on the other side of the aisle--and we all remember they spent 
month after month and had chart after chart on the floor telling us we 
had not passed a budget, we need to go to regular order--are now 
saying: No. No regular order, no budget, no process, no certainty, no 
conclusion to this very important problem on which we have all come 
together to work. This is disturbing for a number of reasons, and my 
colleagues have talked about it.
  We have constituents at home--whether it is a business, a school, 
delivering Meals On Wheels, planning their military operations for the 
next year, as well as the agricultural industry--wondering what their 
plan is for the future. What they are being told--now for the fourth 
time in a row--by the Republicans in the Senate is: We are not going to 
give you any certainty. We like to live with uncertainty.
  There is no doubt that moving to conference is not going to be easy; 
solving this problem is not going to be easy. I want our colleagues to 
know what I have consistently heard from the Democratic side is that we 
understand the word ``compromise.'' We know that in order to solve this 
huge problem, we have to come to the table and compromise and listen to 
the other side.
  We cannot do this in the dead of night. We cannot do it with a couple 
of people sitting in a room. That has been done before, and it doesn't 
work. We need to have regular order, and we need to have this process 
out in the open. We need to have the American people hear what the 
different sides say, and then we are all going to have to take some 
tough votes.
  I can assure the American people that on this side we understand what 
it means to take tough votes and we understand the word ``compromise'' 
and the need to get our country back on track.
  As the Senator from Virginia said, we need to show the country that 
democracy can work. We are willing to take that step to make it work, 
and I urge our Republican colleagues to step forward and allow us to 
make that move. Do not object to us trying to solve problems because 
that is what is happening.
  I urge our Republican colleagues--and the House as well--to move to 
conference so we can have a debate and discussion on this deeply urgent 
matter for our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the chair of our 
Budget Committee for doing such a terrific job in bringing us all 
together. I wish to thank my colleagues on the committee. We worked 
very hard together in order to be able to put together a balanced 
budget that reflects the values of the American people. It is fair and 
balanced in values as well as in numbers, and we did that 46 days ago.
  So we passed that 46 days ago after hearing for over 3 years about 
how the Senate had not passed a budget. By the way, we did pass a law--
this is a caveat--called the Budget Control Act which actually had done 
the same thing as a budget. Those of us who were on the ballot this 
last time heard that over and over from our opponents.
  So I am stunned that we would now be 46 days--and counting--into a 
situation where we have been trying to take the budget we passed by a 
majority vote--by the way, this passed on a majority vote. Each one of 
us ran for election, and we can win by one vote, and that is the 
majority. Decisions are made by a majority vote.
  We went through 110 amendments. We were here all hours of the night. 
There were a lot of tired faces by the time we got done, but we got it 
done, and we made the commitment we were going to get a budget done.
  The House did a budget--a very different budget, no question about 
it. There is no question we have a very different vision of the 
country. The budget in the House eliminates Medicare as an insurance 
plan. That is certainly not something I or the majority here would 
support. We rejected that approach, but that was in their budget. They 
have a right to put forward their vision for how things should be done.
  There were many differences in values and perspectives, and that is 
what the Democratic process is all about. So we passed a budget by a 
majority and they passed a budget by a majority. The next step is to 
negotiate and come up with a final budget. That is the next step, and 
that is how the process works. We have different views, different 
perspectives, and then we sit down in something called a conference 
committee.
  We cannot get to that next step. We have had 46 days of trying to get 
to a point to get it done by working with the House, and all we get is 
objection after objection after objection. I appreciate that colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle who have voted for similar budgets to 
the Ryan Republican budget would have preferred if we would have 
eliminated Medicare. We didn't do that, and we are not going to do 
that.
  The majority here said we are putting forward a budget that is going 
to move the country forward and address the deficit and reflect the 
values around education and innovation and outbuilding the competition 
in a global economy. We are putting forward our vision. The House has 
their vision, which cuts innovation and cuts education and does not 
allow us to build.
  We have very different visions. The Democracy we have says: We take 
both of those visions and then we sit down and try to figure something 
out. That is the next step.
  We are not interested in just being on the floor and counting the 
days, although we will be on the floor and counting the days. That is 
not how we want to spend our time. We would rather spend our time 
listening to our colleagues in a respectful way about very different 
visions and very different values so we can find a way--if we can--to 
come together. We need to come together so we can tackle the last part 
of deficit reduction.
  We have gone about $2.5 trillion toward the $4 trillion that everyone 
says we need to do to begin to turn the corner as it relates to the 
economy and the deficit. In order to get the rest of it, we need to sit 
down in a room together and figure it out.
  We are going to continue to come to the floor and ask for an 
agreement. Unfortunately, if there is an objection, we have to go 
through the whole process of trying to get it done. We are going to 
keep pushing and pushing until we can get a budget done.
  Why is this so important? It is very important because in our bill we 
stop what everyone feels is a very crazy approach to the final step in 
deficit reduction, which is to have across-the-board--regardless of 
value, importance or impact--cuts in the investments and in the 
discretionary budget of our country.
  We know there needs to be spending reductions. We have voted for 
them. We have already put in place about $2.5 trillion in deficit 
reduction, and right now about 70 percent of that has been in spending 
reductions.
  The concern that I have and that others in the majority have is that 
most of those have fallen right in the laps of the middle class, our 
children, the future through innovation, and seniors. We have said in 
our budget: No more. No more. We have to look at an approach that is 
balanced and that says to those who are the wealthiest in our country, 
who are the most blessed economically: You have to be a part of the 
solution in a significant way.
  We want to look at spending under the Tax Code. How many times do we 
talk about special deals in the Tax Code, things that don't make sense 
in terms of spending, special deals that support jobs going overseas 
rather than keeping them here at home. There is spending in the Tax 
Code that needs to be addressed so it is more fair for American 
businesses, for small businesses, for families, for the future of

[[Page 6494]]

the country. Our budget does that by saying we are going to tackle 
spending in the Tax Code, we are going to tackle the question of 
fairness in the code and asking those who are the wealthiest among us 
to contribute a little bit more to be able to help pay down this 
deficit, not just cutting Meals On Wheels or Head Start or cancer 
research, which is what is happening right now.
  So the intensity we feel about getting this budget done is to be able 
to stop the things happening now that are very harmful. We saw the 
lines at the airports. We don't as readily see the lines of people who 
can no longer participate, such as people I know, in cancer research 
efforts that may save lives. We know there is incredibly important 
research going on in science, in medicine, in agriculture, including 
food safety and pest and disease control and every area of research 
where our country, the United States of America, has led the world. And 
that doesn't show up in lines at the airport, but it does show up in 
the future of our country. It does show up in the lives of someone who 
has Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease or breast cancer or other 
diseases where we are this close to cures, where there is treatment 
going on that can save lives--is saving lives--and it is stopping.
  We don't see the seniors who get Meals On Wheels lining up. They are 
getting one meal a day right now--one meal a day that allows them a 
little bit of a visit from a volunteer and one meal a day to eat 
through Meals On Wheels. Now, because of these irrational cuts, we are 
told there are waiting lists for one meal a day. How do we have a 
waiting list for one meal a day? I don't get that.
  So we are saying we want to fix the airports; we appreciate that. We 
want to fix the one meal a day going to somebody's grandma who can't 
figure out what is going on in terms of the priorities of this country. 
The children who are getting a head start to be successful in school--
how many times do we all say: Education, the most important thing; 
children, the most important thing. But because they don't directly 
have a voice here, as do a lot of other special interest groups, who 
gets cut first? Our budget values children and families, opportunity, 
innovation, fairness, and the ability to grow this economy, to create 
jobs so everyone has the dignity of work.
  We want to get to conference committee. We want to get about the 
business of negotiating a final budget because we do not accept what is 
happening right now without a budget. Tackle the deficit, yes. Do it in 
a way that works for growth in America and jobs, do it in a way that 
supports families, that lifts our children, that respects our elders, 
yes. That is the budget we voted for in the Senate and the budget we 
want to see come to completion in this process. We can't get there 
unless we can negotiate, and that is what this whole discussion is 
about.
  It has been 46 days since we passed a budget. We are ready to go. We 
are more than ready to go. Let's sit down in a room and work it out. We 
know it is a negotiation. We know we have to have give-and-take. But we 
are blocked right now from even getting in the room, and that is wrong. 
We are going to keep coming every day, and we are going to keep 
counting the days until our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
decide they are willing to get in the room and get a budget done that 
works for the growth and the families of our country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, this discussion, this debate isn't about 
budgets. It is not about deficits. It is about governing. That is the 
fundamental question that is before this body. It is about governing.
  I rise surprised and disappointed. I expected to come here and debate 
issues. Instead, we are debating debating. We are having to argue and 
debate about the very act of getting to talk about these issues. And 
the problem with the economy of this country right now, to my mind, is 
very largely attributable to the uncertainty about whether the 
government in Washington is competent. It is the uncertainty that is 
killing us.
  A reporter asked me this last week in Maine: What do you think you 
can do in Washington to help us create jobs?
  My immediate answer was that the most important thing we can do is 
pass a budget in a kind of rational process, in the normal way it has 
been done for 200 years, and show the country we can govern. What is in 
the budget is less important than whether we can do it at all. That is 
why I am so surprised and disappointed to have come to this impasse 
where we can't even get to the point of negotiating with the majority 
about the budget in the other body. It makes me wonder if the Members 
on the opposite side of the aisle in the Senate lack so much confidence 
in their colleagues in the House that they don't think they can hold 
the line on whatever issues they believe are important.
  These two budgets are very different, but I think there are items of 
value in both, and I can see the outlines of a compromise. We need 
deficit reduction. We need to clean up the Tax Code. We need a tax rate 
reduction as part of cleaning up the Tax Code. We need to make 
investments in the future of this country. But the idea that we can't 
even get to talk--I, frankly, am perplexed. I don't understand what the 
strategy is because when I was running last year and when I was in 
Maine just last week, the single question I got more than anything else 
was, why in the heck can't you people do something down there--only 
they stated it a little less elegantly than I just did. Why can't you 
get anything done?
  The question that was raised in the hearing this morning was from 
people in the street: We are having a hard time understanding what is 
happening and why.
  Well, I am a U.S. Senator, and I am having a hard time understanding 
what is happening and why.
  Budgeting is one of the most fundamental obligations of government. I 
was a Governor. I know about putting budgets together. I know about 
making choices. It is not easy. It is not going to be easy to make the 
choices required for this budget. It is going to be very difficult, but 
that is what we were sent here to do. That is our job. That is our 
obligation to the American people. I believe there are areas of 
consensus and there are some areas in the House budget that I think are 
ideas worth considering.
  The American people simply want us to act. Sure, everybody in this 
body has different views, and they are partisan views, but as somebody 
who was sent down here explicitly to try to make the place work--I 
think that was why I was elected as an Independent, because people are 
so frustrated with this warfare that they don't understand and that 
doesn't contribute to the welfare of the country.
  So I hope, from the point of view of someone who sees values on both 
sides and believes that the only way we are going to solve these 
problems is by discussion and, yes, by compromise, that is what we move 
forward toward. That is what we have to do in order to regain the 
confidence of the American people.
  We have a long way to go, but I believe that if we can move in a 
regular, orderly way to go to conference, which is what my civics book 
always told me we are supposed to do next--the House passes a bill, the 
Senate passes a bill, they have differences, they go to conference, 
they resolve the differences, both Houses then vote, and it goes to the 
President. That is the way the system was designed. If we could do 
that, almost regardless of what the content of the budget is, that in 
itself would electrify the country. It would be so remarkable, and 
people would say: Oh, now they are finally doing something.
  So I hope my colleagues on the other side will decide to engage, to 
allow the conference to go forward with Members of both parties who go 
over to the House and sit down and try to work something out. We all 
know what the issues are. We all know what the amounts are. We all know 
what the dollars are.
  I believe that people who enter a room in good faith could solve this 
in

[[Page 6495]]

about an afternoon if they left their ideological blinders at the door. 
I believe there are solutions to be had, and we have a responsibility 
to find them. But today we can't even begin to talk about it, and that 
is what is so puzzling to the American people. That is what is puzzling 
to me. I don't understand what is wrong with debating, what is wrong 
with working on the problem. And to just say: Oh, well, we can't do it; 
the sequester is going to be with us, and it is going to be with us for 
another couple of years--I think that doesn't meet our fundamental 
responsibility as people who came here to govern.
  We all know there was something passed last year about no budget, no 
pay. Well, unfortunately, it only said that if you pass a budget in the 
House, they get it, and if you pass a budget--well, we have done that. 
It should have been no budget that finally gets done, no pay, because 
now we are just stuck at an impasse.
  I don't know what the outcome of the negotiations would be. I am not 
sure I would like them. But I believe the real task before us today is 
not budgets and deficits. The question before us is, Is this experiment 
in democracy that is an aberration in world history, is it still 
working? Are we able to make this idea work in the 21st century and 
meet the challenges of this country? It seems to me the only way to 
begin that process is to talk and debate and argue and work through the 
process the Framers gave us in order to solve the problems of the 
country.
  I hope that before long we will reach a point where all of us can 
agree in this body that it is time to go to work on trying to bring a 
budget back to both Houses that we can all support and move this 
country forward. The act of at least coming up with a solution--not a 
perfect solution but a solution--would be the most important gift we 
could provide today to the people of this country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                              Health Care

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, Senator Baucus of Montana, warned that the 
President's premier domestic legislative accomplishment--ObamaCare--was 
turning into a huge train wreck. Now, that is pretty remarkable for a 
number of reasons, one of which is that Senator Baucus was one of the 
principal authors of ObamaCare. So his comments cannot be dismissed as 
simply partisan rhetoric or politics as usual.
  A few days after he made those comments, another important 
contributor to ObamaCare, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, 
the President's former Chief of Staff, acknowledged that the massive 
uncertainty generated by the health care law is already causing 
insurance premiums to go up. Here is the scary part: ObamaCare hasn't 
actually been fully implemented and won't be until next year, 2014. So 
when it does take effect in 2014, we can expect insurance premiums to 
continue to rise, particularly for young people who are being asked 
once again to subsidize their elders, this time in the context of 
health care premiums.
  So much for the President's promise that the average family of four 
would see a reduction in their insurance premiums under his premier 
health care law by $2,500. That is right. If people remember, the 
President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it, which is 
proving not to be true as employers are going to be shedding the 
employer-provided coverage and dropping their employees into the 
exchange. He also said the average family of four would see a reduction 
in their health care costs of $2,500. Neither one of these is proving 
to be true.
  It gets worse from there. According to a new study, there is a new 
tax that was created by ObamaCare on insurance premiums. So we have to 
pay a tax on our insurance premiums too, which will reduce private 
sector employment anywhere from 146,000 jobs to 262,000 jobs by the 
year 2022. And, of course, the majority of those jobs will be in small 
businesses. It is not surprising, since small businesses are actually 
the engine of job creation in America, that they will be 
disproportionately hit.
  To make matters worse, ObamaCare's looming employer regulations are 
already prompting businesses to lay off workers, to reduce their 
working hours, and transform many full-time jobs into part-time jobs 
just so they can avoid the penalties and the sanctions in ObamaCare for 
employers.
  Last month alone the number of Americans doing part-time work 
``because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to 
find a full-time job'' increased by 278,000--more than a quarter 
million Americans. Indeed, the total number of involuntary part-time 
workers was higher in April 2013 than it was in April 2012, just a year 
before.
  So the message for President Obama could not be any more obvious: His 
signature domestic legislative initiative is driving up health care 
costs, destroying jobs, and damaging our economic recovery. That is why 
it is so important we repeal this law, which I will grant the President 
his best intentions but in practice has shown to be the opposite of 
what he promised in so many different instances.
  But the consequences on long-term unemployment are what most people 
will feel; and that is the story of a very human tragedy for many 
people, some of whom have just simply given up looking for work. In 
fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has something called the labor 
participation rate. You can search it on the Internet. Look under 
``labor participation rate.'' It will reveal that the percentage of 
Americans actually in the workforce and looking for work is at a 30-
year low.
  What that means is some people have simply given up. We all know the 
longer you are out of work, the harder it is to find a job because your 
skills have gotten rusty. Others may, in fact, be more qualified to get 
a job opening if one presents itself.
  I cannot imagine the pain and frustration felt by millions of 
Americans who have been jobless for more than half a year. That is a 
long time. Unfortunately, the President does not seem to have an answer 
to this unemployment crisis--and that is exactly what it is--other than 
more taxes, after he got $620 billion in January as a result of the 
fiscal cliff negotiations, the expiration of temporary tax provisions. 
The President seems to believe more spending--even after his failed 
stimulus of a $1 trillion, which ratcheted up the debt even more--and 
more regulations is the answer to the unemployment crisis: more taxes, 
more spending, more regulations.
  Since the President has taken office, he has raised taxes by $1.7 
trillion already. That includes the $620 billion I just mentioned--but 
$1.7 trillion. His policies have increased our national debt by $6.2 
trillion. He has added another $518 billion worth of costly new 
regulations on the very people we are depending on to create the jobs 
and provide employment opportunities. The consequence is the longest 
period of high unemployment since the Great Depression.
  Now for some good news: Tomorrow the President is traveling to Texas, 
to the city of Austin where my family and I live. According to Forbes 
magazine, Austin is one of America's 10 Best Cities for Good Jobs. In 
fact, half of the top 10 Best Cities for Good Jobs in America include 
Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. So, yes, I am bragging. 
But we must be doing something right, and I hope the President goes 
with an open mind to try to learn what is the cause of the Texas 
miracle when it comes to job creation and economic growth.
  Let me just point out that for 8 consecutive years Texas has been 
ranked as the best State for business by Chief Executive magazine. That 
explains why between 2002 and 2011 Texas accounted for almost one-third 
of all private sector job growth in America--one-third--many of these 
in high-paying industries. I know we like the claim about being big, 
but we are only 8 percent of the population, and we accounted for one-
third of all of the U.S. private sector job growth between 2002 and 
2011.
  Now, there is not a secret sauce or a secret formula. It is pretty 
clear why

[[Page 6496]]

we have enjoyed that sort of job growth in America, and it is something 
I think the rest of the country could learn. It is low taxes on the 
very people we are depending upon to create jobs; it is limited 
government; it is the belief in the free enterprise system as the best 
pathway to achieve the American dream; and it is sensible regulations.
  We also believe in taking advantage of the abundant natural resources 
we have in our State and using those resources to expand the domestic 
energy supply, to bring down costs for consumers, and to create jobs in 
the process.
  I was recently in the Permian Basin--that is the Midland-Odessa 
region, as the Presiding Officer knows. This is an area that since 1920 
has been one of the most prolific energy-producing regions of our State 
and the country. But because of new drilling technology--horizontal 
drilling and fracking--it is anticipated that from this point forward 
that region will produce as much as it has since 1920. That is amazing. 
That is something we ought to be very excited about, and it has created 
a lot of jobs.
  The nominal unemployment rate in the Permian Basin is about 3.2 
percent. But employers will tell you they are hiring everybody they can 
get their hands on. Some of these folks have had problems in the past 
that might otherwise disqualify them for work, but as one employer told 
me: There is nothing like a job to provide an opportunity for people to 
rehabilitate themselves and get themselves on the right track.
  Well, President Obama's policies, in contrast to what we are seeing 
in Texas, seem to send the message that only Washington knows how to 
revive our economy, and by raising taxes and spending more money we do 
not have to boot. In other words, with all due respect to my colleagues 
from the west coast, he favors the California model. Unfortunately, 
that model has not worked too well for even our friends in California, 
and it will not work well for the rest of America either.
  By comparison, in that laboratory of democracy known as the State of 
Texas, our State has become a powerhouse for job creation, and it would 
go a long way to restoring the fiscal and economic health of the United 
States. Yes it would help those people who have been unemployed for 6 
months or more, or even a shorter period of time, find work that will 
help them regain their sense of dignity and productivity and allow them 
to provide for their families, which is a goal I know we all share.


                       Nomination of Thomas Perez

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another matter--but it is an important 
matter--I want to share a few words and a few observations about the 
President's nominee to be the Secretary of the Department of Labor, who 
is currently serving in the Justice Department. I am talking about 
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.
  Of course, we know the Department of Labor plays a very significant 
role in our economic policy and even U.S. immigration policy, which is 
a very controversial topic that we are just getting to take up tomorrow 
in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.
  During his tenure at the Justice Department, Mr. Perez has been in 
charge of the Civil Rights Division, which includes the Voting 
Section--obviously, a very important responsibility, but one that ought 
to eschew politics. Unfortunately, under his watch as head of the Civil 
Rights Division and Voting Section, that section has compiled a 
disturbing record of political discrimination and selective enforcement 
of our laws--something antithetical to what we consider to be one of 
the best things we have going for us in America, which is the rule of 
law: that all of us, no matter who we are, are subject to the same 
rules and play by those rules.
  You do not have to take my word for it--how the Voting Section and 
the Civil Rights Division have gotten dangerously off track under Mr. 
Perez's leadership. The Department of Justice inspector general 
published a 258-page report that said the Voting Section under Mr. 
Perez's leadership had become so politicized and so unprofessional that 
at times it became simply dysfunctional, it could not function 
properly.
  This 258-page report by the Department of Justice inspector general 
cited ``deep ideological polarization,'' which began under his 
predecessors and which has continued under Mr. Perez's leadership. The 
inspector general said this polarization ``has at times been a 
significant impediment to the operation of the Section and has 
exacerbated the potential appearance of politicized decision-making.''
  This is at the Department of Justice. So instead of upholding and 
enforcing all laws equally, the Department of Justice, Civil Rights 
Division--the Voting Section--under Mr. Perez, has launched politically 
motivated campaigns against commonsense constitutional laws, such as 
the voter ID laws adopted by the States of Texas and South Carolina.
  In addition, he delivered misleading testimony to the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights back in 2010. The inspector general said Mr. Perez's 
testimony about a prominent voting rights case ``did not reflect the 
entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees.'' So 
when you are not telling the whole truth, you are not telling the 
truth.
  Before joining the Department of Justice--and this is part of his 
unfortunate track record--he served as a local official in Montgomery 
County, MD. During those years, he consistently opposed the proper 
enforcement of our immigration laws. In fact, Mr. Perez testified 
against enforcement measures that were being considered by the Maryland 
State Legislature.
  I would ask my colleagues, because we have an important function to 
play under our constitutional system, one of advice and consent--that 
is the confirmation process for Presidential nominees--is this really 
the type of person we want running the Department of Labor, especially 
at a time when Congress is contemplating passage of important 
immigration reform laws?
  Given his record, I am concerned Mr. Perez does not have the 
temperament or the competence we need in our Secretary of the 
Department of Labor. I fear that, just like he has at the Department of 
Justice, he would invariably politicize the Department of Labor and 
impose ideological litmus tests. For all these reasons, and more, I 
will oppose his nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________