Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 19, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Social Security Payments Go Paperless: Protecting Seniors from Fraud and Confusion.'' The Committee will meet in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Airline Industry Consolidation.''

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, a few months ago I met two sisters from my home State. They are Mari and Adriana Barrera. These two sisters were brought here by their parents when Mari was 7 and Adriana was 3 years old. They were raised by a single mother who spoke no English after their father left the family behind. Growing up, their mother, who worked at a local hotel, did whatever she could to support her family, but Mari and Adriana often had to depend on themselves. Unlike other children her age, Mari told me she grew up the moment her father left. She told me about how she scheduled all of her family's doctors' appointments and how she translated legal documents, and how, at the age of 13, she started working as a hostess at a local restaurant, and not for money, as most teenagers want for their own indulgences, but to support her family. Mari also told me when she was about to enter high school Adriana had to have life-threatening surgery, and a dream was born within herself. As her sister's life hung in the balance, Mari realized she wanted to become a pediatric cardiothoracic surgeon. She wanted to help others the way she watched doctors help her sister that day, and she decided she would commit herself to getting the education and work toward that dream. When I talked to Mari that day a few months ago it was just after she had been forced to drop out of the University of Washington because she could no longer afford it. Living in Seattle, she told me about how she had been unable to find a job to support her studies. Why? Because she lacks a Social Security number. Mari's dream, it turns out--the same as for many like her--has been put on hold. It has been put on hold because our immigration system remains broken. All those dreams have been put on hold because for far too long Congress has failed to act. They have been put on hold because, despite the fact that young women such as the Barrera sisters want to contribute to our Nation, our current system won't let them. It is not only stories such as those of the Barrera sisters that point to a system badly in need of reform, I see it everywhere in my State. I see it in rural parts of my State, in cities such as Yakima and Moses Lake, where farmers can't get the seasonal agricultural workers they need to support one of our State's largest industries. I see it in big cities such as Seattle and Vancouver and Spokane, where high-tech businesses struggle to hire the world's best and brightest. I see it in neighborhoods throughout my State where families have been ripped apart by a system that forces them to choose between legal immigration and long-term separation from the people they love. I see it along our northern border in Washington State where the need to secure a long, porous border must be balanced with smart enforcement policies that don't use intimidation and fear as a weapon. And I see it in my State's LGBT community--a community that badly lacks fairness and equality under today's broken system. But these aren't problems that cannot be fixed. Although previous reform efforts have fallen short, this Senate is not incapable of this task, especially now. And that is because today--due to the changing demographics of our Nation, because of the growing political voice of a new generation of Americans, and because of the energy, determination, and hard work of immigration advocates in my home State and across the Nation--we are at a historic moment of opportunity. For the first time in the history of this debate there is broad bipartisan agreement this system must be fixed and that a bipartisan solution is within reach. No one in this country needs to be reminded it is a rarity here when Senators from different parties and from very different States come together to agree on common solutions to a big issue. So it is truly remarkable that over the course of the past year the bipartisan so- called Gang of 8 has worked to craft this bill that is now before the Senate. The bill we are considering is focused on four bipartisan pillars that have drawn consensus support from Members of Congress and the American people. First of all, this bill includes a path to citizenship, so that with a lot of hard work many of the immigrants living in this country who are dreaming of citizenship can achieve that goal over time. Second, the bill provides employers certainty in a system that has often left them without any answers. Third, this bill will help continue the progress we have made in securing our borders by focusing on the most serious security threats and by utilizing new technology. Finally, this bill helps to reform our legal immigration system so it meets the needs of our families and our Nation going forward. These are all important steps. But this bill is only the beginning of a full, fair, and open public debate over reforming immigration in this country. And while it will be tempting to get caught up in the specifics of one amendment or policy in this debate, we can't forget about the larger questions this bill addresses, because at its heart this is a bill that touches nearly every aspect of American life, from our economy to our security, from our classrooms to our workplaces. It is about what type of country we want to be, what we stand for, and what type of future we all want to build. These are the questions I have actually posed in meetings with advocates and businesses and leaders in meetings all over my State, both in recent weeks and going back many years. Those conversations have stirred a lot of passion, brought new facts to light, and helped me bring the voices of countless advocates to this debate today. They have also helped me to arrive at the core issues I believe are essential to repairing our broken immigration system--the issues I will fight for as we debate in the weeks to come. Sitting and talking about the aspiring Americans this bill will affect has made clear that protecting families must be a central priority in comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration reform isn't just about a person's status, it is about sons and daughters and mothers and fathers and families who want to live full, productive lives together in this country. We know when workers have their families nearby they are more likely to be satisfied with their job, they are healthier, they work harder, and they contribute to our economy. We know families are the building block of strong communities. Yet under today's broken system, family-based immigration has been pitted against employment-based immigration, and far too often immigrant families are being forced to choose between the country they love and the ones they love. I firmly believe it is in our long-term national interest to change this approach. For immigration reform to best meet our national ideals we have to keep our focus on keeping our families together, reducing these backlogs, giving women immigrants access to green cards, and reuniting immigrants with their families. Immigration reform must also include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in this country. Many of our undocumented immigrants have lived in this country for more than a decade. They are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues. They go to church with us, they pay their taxes, and they follow our laws. But our current system creates a permanent underclass of people that are caught between the law and earning a living. While citizenship has to be earned, it is simply not feasible to deport this entire population or expect them to return to their nation of citizenship. We certainly can't make this pathway contingent on enforcement measures that are unachieveable or unrealistic. I believe the bill before us lays the foundation for a pathway to citizenship that will bring aspiring Americans out from the shadows. Immigration reform must also meet the needs of our changing economy. This need is perhaps best on display in my home State where the diversity of our economy creates diverse immigration needs. Washington is home to some of our Nation's largest high-tech, aerospace, and composite manufacturing firms. These are businesses that demand a robust employment-based visa system that attracts the best and brightest from across the world. However, just across the Cascade mountains lie miles and miles of fertile farmlands and orchards that demand a flexible and pragmatic agricultural worker program. I plan to support changes that help meet both of those needs while also working to invest in job opportunities for American workers through the STEM investments that are provided in this bill. We also need a smart and humane system of securing our Nation's borders, including my State's many land border crossings. But we must balance the necessity of securing our borders and enforcing our laws with the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect, and that includes ensuring access to due process in our immigration hearings, restrictions on the use of unnecessary restraints on pregnant women, the use of less costly alternatives to detention whenever possible, and humane conditions and strict oversight and reporting requirements at our detention centers. Our strategy for enforcement and border security should focus on keeping Americans safe, fighting violent crime, reducing smuggling, and stopping terrorists. We should always be doing it in a way that upholds our commitment to civil liberties and the rights of every American. Finally, I strongly support efforts to craft a system that will unite families by extending immigration sponsorship privileges for married binational LGBT couples. I was very proud of my home State of Washington when it voted last year for marriage equality. However, my heart breaks because each time a binational LGBT married Washingtonian is split apart because their marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government, it is just not right. The Defense of Marriage Act has long barred equal immigration sponsorship privileges for married binational LGBT couples. While I am hopeful the Supreme Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, I believe we should also move decisively to include these provisions in this bill. These are certainly not the only priorities I will be fighting for in the coming days. In fact, I am hoping to offer some amendments that will help open new doors to education for our DREAMers and that will expand investment in our STEM education. But I also know we will see amendments that will attempt to weaken and defeat this bill altogether, because as we saw in the exhaustive and inclusive committee process, there are those who are simply bent on standing in the way of a bill that Americans want and our economy needs--those who will say or do anything to defeat this bill. But I am confident this is a new day for immigration reform. I am confident of that because more Americans than ever before see the benefits of a modern immigration system that is coupled with the investments that help our families succeed. They see we are stronger when immigrant workers are contributing to our economy, when employers have the resources they need to grow, and when a path to citizenship is available to those who are already here. Too often in this debate it is difficult for some people to understand that the millions of undocumented families in our country are already an important part of our communities. Immigrants work hard. They send their children to schools throughout this country. They pay their taxes, and they help weave the fabric of our society. In all but name they are Americans. When John F. Kennedy was serving in this Chamber, he wrote a book about the fact that America is a nation of immigrants. In it, he wrote: Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the world, and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear conscience. Today, those words continue to ring true. It is not only the world we have to turn to. This effort is about living up to our own ideals. It is about, as then-Senator Kennedy said, living up to our own past. Our history has long been that of a beacon of hope for people throughout the world, from those who arrived at Ellis Island to start a new life decades ago to the DREAMers who want to contribute to the country they love today. As we once again take on this very difficult task of reforming our immigration policy, let's make sure our actions reflect our security, our economy, and our future. But let's also never forget the past and the fact that our Nation has long offered generations of immigrants the chance to achieve their dreams. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Senate Democrats have been waiting a very long time to go to conference on our budget. In fact, it has now been 73 days. Until recently, we have gotten pretty used to Senate Republicans simply standing and saying no. For months Republicans have been offering a lot of excuses for why they do not want to go to conference on the budget. They have said they want a preconference ``framework,'' which, by the way, is what a budget is. They have said they would not allow us to go to conference unless we guaranteed that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations would be protected from paying a penny more in taxes. They said they did not want a bipartisan conference to take away the leverage they have on the debt ceiling. And then they called for a do-over, which, actually, my ranking member on Budget called for again this morning--to bring up the House budget, have 50 hours of debate, a whole new round of unlimited amendments, go through the process all over, and they did this after they praised the very open and thorough floor debate we had on the Senate budget. The story keeps changing. But even as some Republicans were focused on finding excuses to move us closer and closer to this crisis rather than have a budget deal, we have a number of Republicans who are now joining with us to call on regular order. Senator Coburn said that blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator Wicker said weeks ago that ``by the end of next week, we . . . should be ready to go to conference.'' We have known for a while that blocking regular order--especially after calling for it so eagerly just a matter of months ago--was not sitting well with a number of our Republican colleagues, and now, according to Politico, ``more Republicans appear to favor heading to conference than blocking it.'' I welcome that. We need to move this to conference. It is the regular order. It will allow us to solve our country's problems, and we truly need a process to allow us to deal with our Nation's problems. Senator McCain is on the floor, and I thank him because he understands the importance not just for this bill but for all legislation in the Senate that we come here, we compromise, we fight hard for what we believe in, but at the end of the day just saying ``my way or the highway,'' even if you are a small minority, does not move this country to the place where we need it to get to, which is not a crisis-by-management place. I thank him for taking a lead and calling for regular order. He has said that Republican preconditions such as demanding that the conference agree to not raise the debt ceiling or raise taxes are ``absolutely out of line and unprecedented.'' Senator Collins joined us on the floor a few weeks ago to say that even though there is a lot we do not see eye to eye on, we should at least go to conference and make our best effort to get a deal. I could not agree more. The stalling that we have seen is, as some have said on their side, ``a little bizarre'' and ``ironic to say the least,'' especially after, I would remind everyone, 50 hours of debate, innumerable amendments that took us way into the early hours, and we offered everybody the chance to speak. After that session was over, many of our Republican colleagues came to me personally and thanked me for finally having an open process. If they want us to have an open process, then they have to take that process and take it to the next step. So I am deeply concerned. We are moving toward another manufactured crisis this fall. We have our Appropriations subcommittees that need to move forward. The country is very clearly tired of this country being managed by crisis. We just had a budget hearing this morning in which our witnesses, both Republicans and Democrats alike, said that moving us to a manufactured crisis would impact this economy in a horrific way this fall. We do not need to have that happen. I want to go to conference. Do I want to have a compromise? Not really. I love where I stand. But I have been here a long time. You do not get everything you want, but you do have to compromise in order to move the country forward. And I am willing to go to conference with my counterpart, Chairman Ryan, who is on a very different page than I am, and find our compromise and be willing to move that forward here in the Congress so we can get to a place that allows us to be able to lead this country again. So I think we are at a very critical point. I see Senator McCain is on the floor. I would be happy to yield to him for a comment.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is here.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his very heartfelt remarks. I know he and I do not agree on a lot, but we do agree that we want this country to work because the alternative is not great. The way for this country to work is for us to come together with our differences of opinion and move forward, and that is what the conference committee is all about. So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side: motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes, all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when Governor Christine Gregoire signed the Washington State marriage equality bill into law last year, it was a day of joy for all of the loving, committed LGBT couples of Washington--and for all who love, respect, and support them. And when voters approved the law in a referendum last November, we showed the Nation once again that we can change the course of history and give true voice and meaning to the idea that all are created equal. This law takes us one important step closer towards true equality for LGBT families across Washington State. It is proof of the incredible power a community can have when we come together to fight for equality. Washington is now 1 of 12 States to have affirmed the right for LGBT couples to marry--an amazing sign of progress in our Nation. I am proud to work with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve equal rights for LGBT Americans in Washington State and across the country. Earlier this year, I joined 172 Members of the House of Representatives and 39 Senators in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, arguing the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be struck down. And, as a senior member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I led a letter to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki calling for an expedited waiver process to grant every same-sex spouse of a veteran burial rights in our national cemeteries. There is much to celebrate today, but still so much more to be done to ensure equal rights for LGBT Americans. As we look back upon our recent victories, we must also recommit to our efforts and harness the energy we used to achieve marriage equality last year to continue this fight. From our immigration and employment laws to our policies for veterans and military families, there is still plenty of work to be done to ensure all Americans, including members of our LGBT community, are treated equally. Equal protection under the law is a fundamental right in our country. No one should suffer discrimination because of their race, religion, national origin, age, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Whether applying for a job, finding a home, eating in a restaurant, seeking credit, serving in our military, or attending school, we must ensure all citizens are treated fairly and equally. To me, the fight for equality for the LGBT community is a fight for what it means to be American. That is why Pride Month is so important. Each June, Pride Month brings our community together to honor diversity, equality, and love. And this year, we can celebrate some truly historic gains as LGBT couples are finally able to express their commitment to each other in the same way so many other Washingtonians have throughout our State's history--by joining in marriage and saying ``I do.'' Pride Month is a time to commemorate our accomplishments and recharge for the fight ahead. We have many more opportunities to advance our efforts in the coming months and years, and we will not give up until we have achieved full equality under the law for all Washingtonians and all Americans. I wish to thank the countless organizations that have led us to the victories and accomplishments we celebrate in June. When we gather together in moments such as this, we speak with one unified voice for the cause of equality and give true meaning to our Founders' belief that all are created equal. I am proud to fight for the LGBT community in Washington and across the country, and I will continue to ensure the voices of LGBT Americans and their allies are heard in the United States Senate.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening with a very sad heart to speak about one of our colleagues here in the Senate who gave tremendous service to his country and sadly passed away last night. Senator Frank Lautenberg was a true American. He earned a lot throughout his lifetime, but he came here to the Senate floor to fight for all of those people who didn't have the ability to fight for themselves. He was here in the Senate with us just a few weeks ago even though he himself was battling an extremely difficult illness. I think of Frank Lautenberg as a man of tremendous determination, an awful lot of grit, and someone who really embodies the term ``happy warrior.'' He wanted to be here to fight for those who didn't have what he did. Throughout his career, that is exactly what he did. Frank lived the American dream. He was the son of poor immigrants, and he rose to become a chief executive of a business that employed thousands of people around the world. He personally did very well, but he was never satisfied with just his own personal success. He understood, as so many other great Americans, that his success was based on the opportunities this country afforded him. So he chose over three decades to give back and to fight for people to make sure they had the opportunities he had. He started his career in the Senate back in 1982. As many of us who served with him know, he decided to retire, but he was not happy in retirement. He wanted to be here doing what he loved--being a Senator and fighting for the people of his home State of New Jersey and fighting for Americans all over to have the opportunities I just spoke about. He made it his mission to make sure the ladders that were there for him were there for the generations that came behind him. He was a proud World War II veteran--in fact, the last this body will know. He fought for the post-9/11 GI bill because, as did my dad, who was also a World War II veteran, he had used the GI bill after World War II. He knew it was the key to unlocking the knowledge that powered the ``greatest generation.'' He wanted that for those who came behind him. His desire to stand for the powerless is also why he championed legislation to protect families from gun violence, why he stood to safeguard families against dangerous chemicals time and time again, and why he took on the powerful to ban smoking on airplanes and to bring about tougher drunk driving protections. I personally will always remember Frank's passion for transportation. He chaired the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee before I did, and I spent many years working with him to make sure we funded the infrastructure of this country--rail, highway, airline safety issues. Frank's legacy really is that his direct work saved lives. He saved lives. He helped to build transportation networks that brought families, businesses, and communities together. He wanted a better life for families in America. He was a champion for the underserved and underrepresented. How many times have I been on the floor feeling like a lonely voice-- fighting for women's health care issues or fighting for the protection of families against hazardous chemicals or fighting for victims of domestic violence--and time and time again Frank Lautenberg would come over here to stand beside and fight with me, no matter what the time of day or the late hour of the night, because that was his passion and his cause. He was a passionate public servant. He was not afraid to fight and vote for what he believed. He could never understand anyone who came here and tried to figure out which way the winds were blowing in order to take a vote. Frank came and was passionate about whom he cared for, and he did not care about the political consequences. He wanted to fight for the underserved. He loved the Senate. In fact, he loved it so much that one tour of duty was not enough and service called him back, as I said. Up until just a few days ago, nothing could stop Frank from taking Amtrak down here to fight for the issues he believed in and the people of New Jersey whom he represented so well. Frank Lautenberg gave everything he had to public service, and those who served with him, as I was so fortunate to do, know it gave him all the satisfaction in the world. He is going to be missed by all of us. He will be missed for his determination, for his passion, for always caring, and for fighting for what was right for all the people in this country. I just wish to say tonight that my thoughts and prayers are with Bonnie and all of his family as they struggle with this loss but to know that his legacy lives on in the safety and caring of so many families in this country for whom he worked so passionately and hard. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate, not just today but for 61 days as we have been working extremely hard to get the budget passed and go to conference so we can work with our House colleagues--and, by the way, the majority are Republicans. We are working to do that because the American people have been very loud about not managing by crisis. We all know that what will happen if we don't go to conference is exactly what the Senator from Utah has been saying he doesn't want. If we go to conference we will have an open conference committee to discuss the differences between the House and the Senate budgets. They will then give those instructions to the conference committee on how to move forward on our appropriations bills that we are now looking at and how we are going to deal with sequestration. It will be an open debate that will come back here. If we are not allowed to go to conference--we do have to pass our appropriations and spending bills or move to a continuing resolution because we can't if we don't get a budget deal--we are going to have to have a closed-door and secret discussion to figure out what we are going to do when the debt ceiling hits. It will come down on them in the middle of the night, and they will not have had an opportunity to be a part of it because of the delay that is occurring right now. If the Senate allows us to go to conference, Members of the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, my counterpart Senator Sessions, and I, his committee, as well as Congressman Ryan from the Republican Party in the House and his committee members and Democrats will sit together in an open process and determine how we move our budget forward.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. MURRAY. Once the conference is set and we begin meeting in a conference, it is like any other committee hearing where the public will be able to come in and listen. They will able to watch on C-SPAN, and it will be an open process. I will tell the Senator from Arizona that if we don't get to conference, we are going to have to have discussions, as a country, about how we manage our finances and our government moving forward, and those will be behind closed doors. So what the Senator is objecting to as to the closed-door secret meetings he is causing. I hope our Republican colleagues would allow us to move forward. As the Senator from Missouri said, we had 50 hours of debate, we had over 100 amendments which were considered. Not one amendment was offered or considered on the debt ceiling, which is now what they are objecting to if we go to conference. The Senator from Texas, I believe, offered 17 amendments, and he has been objecting because of this. Not one of them was about the debt ceiling. I know the Senator wants to have a debt ceiling debate on the floor of the Senate. He is welcome to come to the floor anytime and talk about the debt ceiling. We welcome that discussion. We believe our bills should be paid, but that is separate from what we are talking about here. We are talking about a budget resolution.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Over 70 were agreed to.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I would add that what the Senator from Missouri has offered, after talking with the Senator from Arizona, is the ability now to have a vote, despite there wasn't any during that time. There was an offer, with our consent, that, yes, OK, fine. If you have to have that now, we want to get to conference so we will allow a vote on that and proceed to the conference. So I do not understand this argument that we are going into some secret meeting. I assure the Senator that we have seen secret meetings here when it comes to the budget in the past that have gotten us all to a very frustrating point. Let's move to conference so we do not have those secret meetings. The Senator is arguing for something--I say to the Senator from Utah--that the Senator from Utah is going to cause. I hope we can come to an agreement. We have offered a consent which offers two motions to be considered. We hope to have those, and we hope to go to conference. I assure the Senator that we will be as open and as transparent as possible. That budget resolution will come back to the Senate, everyone will have a chance to have their say if they want that, and then that budget resolution will give us our instructions so we can continue to move forward on regular order to fund the Defense Department, Agriculture, Education, and to fund the different aspects of government such as transportation and housing. That is our obligation as the United States Congress in order for the American public to be able to manage what they are required to do once we pass our budget. I urge our Republican colleagues to back off on their insistence on this matter. I am ready to go to conference. Am I going to like what comes out of conference as chair of the Budget Committee that worked very hard to get a budget passed in the Senate? Probably not. I know my responsibility as a Senator is to work with my House Republican colleagues and those on our conference committee to come to the best judgment we can mutually so we can move our country forward and get us out of this management by crisis that has been forced on us time and time again over the last several years. The American people deserve certainty. That certainty will come when we can move to conference with an open, transparent committee process which allows us to get the budget in order. Again, I urge my colleagues to reconsider their objections.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has now been 59 days since the Senate and the House passed our budget resolutions. The American people are now expecting us to get together and do everything possible to bridge the partisan divide and come to a bipartisan deal. On this side the Senate Democrats are ready to get to work. Unfortunately, despite their focus over the past 2 years on the need to return to regular order, Republicans have been refusing to allow us to move to a bipartisan budget conference. Many Republicans, including the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, had been very clear up until recently that after the Senate engages in an open and fair budget markup process--and these are his words--``the work of conferencing must begin.'' Minority Leader McConnell said in January that if the Senate budget is different from the House budget, then ``send it off to conference. That's how things used to work around here. We used to call it legislating.'' I could not agree more with Minority Leader McConnell's words from back in January. Over the past few weeks we have tried to move to conference eight times, and each time Senate Republicans have stood and said no. They have managed to stall for weeks now, but their excuses for not wanting to move to conference are changing. At first Republicans told us that we needed ``a framework'' before they would allow us to move to conference, although they never explained what that meant. And, frankly, a budget is a framework. Then the story changed, and they told us they would only let us move to conference if we made certain guarantees about the outcome. Then last week the story changed again, and Senate Republicans claimed that despite the fact that we engaged in a fair and open budget process in the Senate less than 2 months ago, they think we need a do-over, with another 50 hours of debate on top of the 50 hours we have already done and another round of unlimited amendments on top of the unlimited amendments that were moved already. This is absurd. First of all, to claim that regular order involves a second full Senate budget debate is simply not true. The Senate has never been forced to go through a full debate and open amendment process twice just to get to conference--not one case. Completely unprecedented. In fact, every single time since 1994 that the Senate moved to conference, it was done by unanimous consent, with bipartisan support, which is the way it ought to be done. Second of all, the Senate engaged in a full and open debate in which any Member could offer any budget amendment they wanted to. We did that a few months ago. I know all of my colleagues remember this. I certainly remember this. I would be happy to quote some of what was said about the process if any reminders are needed because as that debate came to a close in the wee hours of the morning, Minority Leader McConnell said the Senate had just engaged in ``an open and complete and full debate.'' He continued and said, ``I know everyone is exhausted, and people may not feel it at the moment, but this is one of the Senate's finest days in recent years, and I commend everyone who has participated in this extraordinary debate.'' My ranking member, Senator Sessions, said the Budget Committee markup was ``an open process'' where ``everybody had the ability to offer amendments.'' Senator Sessions said on the floor, as debate was wrapping up, he was thankful that the Republicans had ``free ability to speak and debate'' and for ``helping us move a lot of amendments fairly and equitably tonight.'' There is no question the Senate engaged in a fair and open and lengthy debate about the budget before we passed it. There is absolutely no good reason to ask that we do this all over unless the intention is to simply stall the process and push us closer to a crisis. Instead of scrambling to find new excuses for their budget conference flipflops, I hope Senate Republicans realize their opposition to bipartisan negotiations is not sustainable and will not allow us to get to the table and move on this matter. I know there are Members who do not agree with the budget that was passed. They will have another opportunity to fight for changes in a bipartisan conference, which is how we do this. That is the responsible and appropriate path forward, and I hope the Senate Republican leaders decide to move back to the position they maintained just a few months ago. I know a number of our colleagues on the Republican side have said to me privately and in public that they believe we should move to conference. I hope we can do that. The challenges before our country in terms of our debt and deficit and the investments that need to be made and the certainty that Americans are looking to us for cannot be completed until we go to conference and work out our differences and come back and move this forward. I hope this time when I ask for unanimous consent to go to conference Senate Republicans will join with us so the American people can see an open conference move to a debate and solve this very challenging problem we have in front of us. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and that the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator expect he would not have a vote at the end of a day after a conference comes back from the House of Representatives?