Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. And isn't that a democratic process?

Mrs. MURRAY. Can the Senator answer my question? Does the Senator from Texas understand the House of Representatives also would have to pass this? They are a Republican majority. And, by the way, we are not talking about whether we should pay the bills this country is already obliged to pay. We are talking about putting a budget framework forward for the next 10 years. We had a terrific debate about that and the Senator from Texas participated in that and offered amendments. He had an opportunity to do that. The House of Representatives did the exact same thing. At the end of the day, the way a legislative democratic process works is the two bodies come together and it will have to pass whatever our conference agrees to with a majority of Republicans in the House and a majority in the Senate with Democrats. That is going to be where the Senator from Texas will have an opportunity to say yes or no to a conference. So I don't understand the Senator saying he would not participate. He has a vote. That is how the Senate works.

Mrs. MURRAY. With your vote.

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for 1 additional minute.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 2013 Pride Foundation Scholars--a remarkable group of 89 students who share incredible perseverance, a strong desire to give back, and a focus on how education can improve their lives and their communities. Pride Foundation plays a crucial role in encouraging and supporting the next generation of leaders in the LGBT community. Students who have been stigmatized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity sometimes do not receive the support they need from their families and communities, and too often, individuals of great promise give up on their dreams because they do not believe success is possible. Over the past 20 years, Pride Foundation has worked to lift up future leaders by giving over $3 million in educational scholarships to LGBT and allied students in Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. They have provided these students with financial support, mentorship opportunities, and a community that focuses on generosity, encouragement, and acceptance. As Pride Foundation marks the 20th anniversary of their scholarship program and honors these students at the 2013 Scholarship Celebration Reception, I wish to congratulate this year's scholars on all their achievements. Pride Foundation's longstanding determination to help students succeed mirrors the LGBT community's tireless efforts in the fight for equality. And as we commemorate this year's Pride Month, we should look back and celebrate the tremendous strides that we have made toward equality in Washington State and across the Northwest. I join with many in Washington State in congratulating this year's Pride Foundation Scholars on all they have achieved so far. I look forward to seeing all they will accomplish as leaders in their communities. Although we have a long way to go to move our country in the right direction, working together we have accomplished so much. I am proud to stand up and fight for the LGBT community, and I will continue to make sure that your stories are heard in the Senate. Again, congratulations to the 2013 Pride Foundation Scholars. I look forward to seeing all you will accomplish in the years to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I am here today on the floor again to ask that Senate Republicans stop blocking the next step in regular order and allow us to move to a bipartisan budget conference with the House of Representatives. We have waited long enough. In fact, we have now waited 54 days, and it is time to get to work on a bipartisan budget agreement. The Senate Democrats see no reason for delay. We are very proud of our budget, which puts forward a strong, fair vision for getting Americans back to work, tackling our long-term debt and deficit challenges, and laying a strong foundation for the middle class in the future. It seems that some of our Republican colleagues in the Senate and House would rather wait now until the next crisis and see if they can extract political concessions with the clock ticking--or maybe they don't want to air the details of the unpopular House budget. Either way, there is no excuse for putting the American people through another round of partisan brinkmanship. We have already seen that that hurts our economy, and it causes Americans to question whether their government is working for them. Yesterday the House Republicans met to talk about what they are going to demand in exchange for not tanking our economy. Apparently they are considering a ``laundry list,'' including repealing ObamaCare--which the House will vote on, by the way, for the 37th time today--and restrictions on women's health choices. House Republicans' practice of leveraging crises for their own gain died with the Boehner rule, and no amount of wishing is going to bring it back. House Republicans may think brinkmanship helps them win political fights, but it does not help the American families and communities we are here to serve. I urge our Republican colleagues in the Senate to take a step toward a responsible bipartisan budget agreement and a step away from governing by crisis. 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, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object, the Senator's request is asking to disregard what the Senate did on those days--54 days ago--to go through over 100 amendments and defeat those amendments time and time again; to go to conference--not behind closed doors, I would add. A conference committee is a committee that is out in the public. What is happening right now is closed-door agreements. What we are asking for is an open process where we are allowed to take the Senate- passed budget and the House-passed budget, go to conference, and find out where we can agree so we can put this behind us. I object to the Senator's request and ask again for our unanimous consent request to move to budget conference, as we do in regular order, which is what the Republicans have been demanding for a very long time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I object. I wish to respond to the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what the Senator is requesting us to do is to take up the House-passed budget. Remember, we have passed a Senate budget here. We had 50 hours of debate, over 100 amendments were offered. We voted on all of them way into the wee hours, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, as everyone here will rightly remember. He is asking us to disregard all that action in the Senate, take up the House bill and have 50 hours more of debate, unlimited amendments, sitting here for weeks at a time again to go through all the amendments. Madam President, that is a waste of taxpayer money and it is a waste of our time. We have done that work. It is time to go to conference. Therefore, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to address the Water Resources Development Act that we passed today. This important legislation authorizes Army Corp of Engineers projects that provide flood control, ensure navigation to get our goods to market, and help restore our ecosystems and environment. One component of this bill deals with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Shippers pay a Harbor Maintenance Tax, which goes into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and is then appropriated for operations and maintenance at ports throughout our country. Now, although this legislation does not address the Harbor Maintenance Tax, I want to take a moment to talk about it. Because unfortunately, this policy is encouraging cargo diversion from our ports. A Federal Maritime Commission report released last year, which I requested with Senator Cantwell, indicated that cargo coming into U.S. ports cost, on average, an additional $109 due to the Harbor Maintenance Tax. I find this report extremely troubling. While this bill does not address the tax, it does address the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The bill sets goals for additional expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and it includes a provision that I worked on closely with Chairman Boxer and Senator Cantwell. This provision will allow our ports to be more competitive internationally by providing payments to shippers entering or transporting cargo through an eligible donor port--one that takes in significantly more in Harbor Maintenance Taxes than it receives back for operations and maintenance, like the Port of Seattle or the Port of Tacoma. It is meant to reduce cargo diversion from United States ports to international ports, but not to induce cargo diversion within the United States. I appreciate the hard work by Chairman Boxer to include this provision in the manager's amendment and to keep the provision intact throughout consideration of the Water Resources Development Act. This provision is a step in the right direction. But we can do more, and we must. That is why I'm working on legislation that will comprehensively reform the Harbor Maintenance Tax and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. It will ensure full spend out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and ensure all cargo is treated equally as it moves through the supply chain. My goals are to increase our international competitiveness, ensure we are getting our goods to market, and provide good, family-wage jobs. I have been working with ports in Washington state and the Northwest, and I plan to introduce this legislation soon. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell and Chairman Baucus for coming down here today to discuss port competitiveness, infrastructure, and American jobs, issues which are close to my heart. I believe these are important issues to be addressed, which is why I have been working on this issue throughout my Senate tenure and why Senator Cantwell and I introduced the U.S. Port Opportunity and Revitalizing Trade Act in 2002. We appreciate that the legislation before us today, the Water Resources Development Act, works to improve expenditures from the harbor maintenance trust fund and that it includes provisions we championed to begin to address the competitive issues our ports face. I would like to say thank you to Chairwoman Boxer, who included a provision in the managers' amendment that would authorize payments to ``donor'' ports those ports that contribute a significant amount of funds, but receive less than 25 percent of the benefit that can be used to offset the cost of the HMT being paid by shippers. The language in the managers' amendment does not mean that the job is done. We do not believe this language will fully correct the challenges U.S. ports face now and will continue to face in the future. Rather, we believe this is an interim solution that will help until we can work together to find a larger, more permanent solution addressing cargo diversion. Senator Cantwell and I look forward to working with the Chairman Baucus to address comprehensive reform of the harbor maintenance tax.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minute as in morning business, and following me, the Senator from Rhode Island will speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware who spoke about the fact that we are now 53 days since passing the Senate budget. We are pushing very hard as Democrats to keep this process moving and get our budget to a conference committee. I appreciate his coming out and explaining why that is so important. I agree with him. We believe with all the urgent challenges we face today, there is every reason to get to work right away on a bipartisan budget deal. There is no reason to delay this until the next crisis. But we have come out here now seven times and asked for consent to go to conference to work on the budget with the House, and seven times the Senate Republicans have stood and said, no, we do not want to go to work on the budget. Given how much Senate Republicans have talked about regular order over the last several years, we are rather surprised on this side that they are now resisting this very important next step in this bipartisan negotiation. By the way, it is not just Democrats who are saying they want to go to conference. There are quite a few Senate Republicans who are surprised, as we are, that they are not allowing us to go. My colleague Senator McCain said blocking conference is ``incomprehensible'' and ``insane.'' Senator Corker said that to ``keep from appointing conferees is not consistent.'' Senator Flake said he ``would like to see a conference now.'' I sincerely hope the Republican leaders in the Senate will listen to the Members of their own party, because we have a lot of problems to solve and we have to get started. Our children today, young adults, need a world-class education to succeed in the global economy they are entering. Many of them are graduating in the next several weeks. Too many Americans are out of work yet or still underemployed. Our national infrastructure is quickly becoming an obstacle rather than an asset to our competitiveness. We need to do more to responsibly tackle our long-term deficit and debt challenges and make our Tax Code work better for our middle class. The debate about all of those challenges couldn't be more important. We should start working toward a bipartisan budget deal that works for our families, our economy. We should do it as soon as possible and engage the American people in a thorough and responsible debate. That is why I, frankly, was very disappointed to see that today, instead of meeting to discuss moving toward a bipartisan conference between the House and Senate, House Republicans are meeting to discuss what they will ask for in exchange for not tanking the economy a couple of months from now. Instead of moving with us toward the middle and joining us at the table ready to compromise, they spent their afternoon debating what to write on a ransom note and saying if they don't get what they want, they are going to allow the United States to default. That is an unprecedented event that would devastate our entire economy. I think a lot of families across our country are very concerned that House Republicans haven't learned any lessons at all from the past 2 years, and that we are looking at more brinkmanship, more governing by crisis, and more harm for our American families and our businesses. House Republicans are even telling us they are willing to put foreign creditors before our seniors, our veterans, and our businesses and claiming that somehow this plan will protect the economy. That is absurd. A default is a default. If the Federal Government pays its foreign creditors--but defaults on its obligations to our families and our communities--the results are going to be catastrophic. Rating agencies would rightly see that as a serious abdication of our responsibility. Our fragile economy would be seriously threatened, and people across the country would lose their faith again in our government's ability to function. Fortunately, I hope and think it will not come to all of that. Republicans have been saying default would be a ``financial disaster'' for the global economy and ``you can't not raise the debt ceiling.'' A few months ago, Republicans acknowledged how dangerous it would be to play games with the debt limit and how politically damaging it would be to play politics with the potential economic calamity and dropped their demands. What has changed since then? Why are Republicans once again issuing this empty threat that does nothing more than rattle the markets and increase uncertainty across our country. Maybe the House Republicans think since we won't hit the debt ceiling until later than we originally expected, there could be less pressure to get a deal and more opportunity for them to extract some kind of political concession. That is exactly the wrong way to look at this because even if we know they are going to reverse course eventually, the Republican strategy of holding our economy hostage and creating this uncertainty again and trying to push us toward another crisis has terrible consequences. All of us remember the summer of 2011 when extreme elements in the Republican Party demanded economically damaging policies, leading to a downgrade of our Nation's credit. Economic growth and job creation slowed to a halt, consumer confidence plummeted, and out of that summer came sequestration. That was a policy that was meant to serve only as a trigger and, in fact, was only implemented because Republicans were focused on protecting the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations from paying even a penny more in taxes rather than working with us on a deal to prevent sequester. Now what do we have? Sequestration. It is forcing families and communities across the country to cope with layoffs and cuts to services they count on, things such as childcare and public safety. Yesterday, we learned that DOD civilian employees, many of whom are veterans, by the way, are going to be furloughed. We have to replace sequestration. We need to do it with a balanced and responsible deficit reduction plan, but we also have to stop lurching from crisis to crisis that allows those kinds of policies to be enacted. There is absolutely no reason to double down on an approach that has those kinds of effects on the families and communities we serve and on those who bravely served our country. Contrary to what we are now, unfortunately, hearing from the House, I believe with more time to reach a fair and bipartisan agreement we have all the more reason for us to move to a conference quickly and get a budget agreement. Let's get to work. Our country's challenges--rather than a looming artificial deadline or crisis--should guide this debate, and it shouldn't be controversial. There are responsible Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle who agree. I hope Senate Republicans will listen to members of their own party who are calling for a conference and bring us one step closer to negotiating a bipartisan budget deal in a responsible way instead of insisting that we run down the clock. I know there are factions in our government that believe compromise is a dirty word and that getting a deal will not be easy, but I continue to believe it can and needs to be done because alongside those who refuse to compromise there are responsible leaders who came here to show Americans that their government works. It would be deeply irresponsible for the House to continue delaying a conference and for Senate Republicans to continue to cover for them, especially if they are doing it for political reasons or to keep the negotiations out of the public eye or to, what I have heard, avoid taking a few tough votes. I urge Republican colleagues to reconsider their approach. Join us in a budget conference ready to compromise and work with us toward a bipartisan deal the American people deserve. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. 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 of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what the Senator is asking is that we go back to what we had votes on throughout the entire budget debate way into the morning hours on the issues of reconciliation, on the issues of revenue that were all debated and voted on--some passed, some were defeated. We are not going to take those up again. We are going to go to conference with the budget that was passed by the majority in the Senate and by the majority in the House, and those views will be represented in conference. We cannot get to that debate and that discussion without moving to conference, so I object to his unanimous consent and ask for consent on my request again.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this is so challenging. It has now been 47 days since we passed our budget. Senate Democrats have now requested unanimous consent to move to conference--the next step--five times. We want to take the next step in this process. We want to move forward under regular order and continue this debate in an open and public way, but every time we try to take it to the next step, Senate Republicans stand and they say: No. I think this comes as a surprise to the American people. I think they are disappointed. I know I am. I think a lot of people, myself included, expected that after calling for regular order so consistently for so long, Republicans would be eager now to take the next step in the process. Some Republicans say they want to negotiate a framework behind closed doors before they agree on going to conference, but that is what a budget is. It is a framework that lays out our values and our priorities and helps us plan for our country's future. Why can't we discuss that framework in a formal, public conference, which is what we call regular order? I am sure Republicans are not excited about the prospect of defending their extreme budget all over again in a public conference committee. We all know Americans are not interested in more tax breaks for the wealthiest, they are not interested in Medicare vouchers, but Republicans wrote that budget, they voted for it, they passed it, and they ought to be happy to defend it. I know Senate Democrats are happy to stand and talk about ours. The American people now deserve to see those two visions. They need to see our visions side by side, contrasted with each other, and they need to see who is willing to compromise and who is not. We have heard the House Republican leadership doesn't want the Senate to appoint conferees because they don't want to go to conference because they might have to take a lot of difficult votes in the House. I am sure my colleagues remember the vote-arama we had before we passed our budget. We considered over 100 amendments. We were here until 5 in the morning, the entire time voting on amendments, until every Senator who wanted to be heard to offer an amendment did and we had a very thorough and open debate and we voted a lot. So I don't think the American people are going to be very sympathetic to the argument that the Republicans don't want to go to conference because they are afraid the House has to take a few votes. This is deeply disappointing to me. The Republicans are now running away from regular order. In fact, they are running right toward another crisis, and they are willing to take our American families and our economy along for the ride. It should be noted the House Republicans have announced a new conference, but it is not a conference on a budget deal; it is a conference of their Republican Members to decide what they are going to demand in exchange for taking our economy over the debt ceiling. It is absurd, and it is not going to happen. We know because we went through this same thing the last time we approached the debt limit. Just a few months ago, Republicans realized how dangerous it would be to play games with the debt limit and how politically damaging it would be to play politics with potential economic calamity for our country, and they finally dropped their demands. The so-called Boehner rule died, and no amount of wishing by the tea party is going to bring that back. The Republican strategy now of holding our economy hostage and trying to push us to another crisis is absolutely the wrong approach, and holding our budget conference hostage so they can get to that point is not going to be considered well by the American people. Getting a deal is not going to be easy. Any one of us knows that. It is going to take compromise. But this constant lurching from crisis to crisis that the House is demanding and is strategizing around is not what the American public wants or deserves. I am here to say Democrats are ready to take the next step. We need a negotiating party on the other side. They can bring all of their bills to conference and we can talk about it. We can come to a compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word. Oftentimes we don't hear it a lot around here. But I believe many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, frankly, want to return to regular order. They want to move away from these constant crises. I know that is what the American public wants. They want to see we can govern. I urge those who are coming here time and time again, blocking us from getting to a point to debate our two different budgets and from getting to a compromise, to allow us to get the work of the American people done and allow us to go to conference. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is stating it correctly.

Mrs. MURRAY. And no revenue.