Harry Reid

Mr. REID

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider these nominations: Calendar Nos. 93, 94, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, with the exception of COL Joseph J. Heck, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, and 140, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, any related statements be printed in the Record; and President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consider Calendar Nos. 11 and 12; that the Senate proceed to vote on the nominations listed with no intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record, and President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 129 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the Hirono amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 158.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has received a request from a Federal agency seeking access to records that the subcommittee obtained during its recent review of the expenditures of U.S. funds related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. This resolution would authorize the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, acting jointly, to provide records, obtained by the Subcommittee in the course of its review, in response to this request and requests from other government entities and officials with a legitimate need for the records.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. Con. Res. 17.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that from Friday, May 24, through Monday, June 3, Senators Levin and Rockefeller be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Senate's recess, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters on Tuesday, May 28, from 10 a.m. to noon.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to convene for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Friday, May 24, at 12:30 p.m.; Tuesday, May 28, at 12:00 p.m., and Friday, May 31, at 12 p.m.; and that the Senate adjourn on Friday, May 31, until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 3, 2013, unless the Senate receives a message from the House that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 17, the adjournment resolution, and that if the Senate receives such a message, the Senate adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 3, 2013; that on Monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the farm bill, S. 954.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow and Senator Cochran have arranged two votes that will begin on Monday, June 3, at 5:30.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told there are two bills at the desk. If that is the case, I ask for their first reading.

Mr. REID. I now ask for a second reading and object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. Republicans will control the first half, and the majority will control the final half. Following morning business the Senate will resume consideration of S. 954, the farm bill, managed by Senator Stabenow and Senator Cochran. We will continue working through amendments to the farm bill today. Progress was made yesterday, and we need to continue working on the amendments. At 4 p.m. today we will proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 65 regarding Iran sanctions, and the vote on that resolution will be at 5 p.m.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. REID. I object to any further proceedings to all three of these bills at this time.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night the Senate Judiciary Committee, after some 24 hearings and several weeks of markup, advanced a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to fix our broken immigration system. No one can dispute that it is broken. No one can dispute that it needs to be fixed. I commend the good work of the committee, and I am grateful to everyone who worked those long hours. I will bring this bill, which is a strong bipartisan bill, to the floor in June, sometime soon after we return from the Memorial Day work period. Although neither Republicans nor Democrats will support each and every aspect of this legislation, it is gratifying to see the momentum behind these reforms that will make our country safer and help 11 million undocumented immigrants get right with the law. I applaud significantly the efforts of the Gang of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--who showed bravery as they set aside partisanship to address the critical issues facing our Nation. I am confident that for everyone in that Gang of 8, Democrats and Republicans, there are parts of this bill they do not like. But that is how we move legislation forward for the greater good--compromise. I admire their legislative skills and appreciate very much their ability to set aside these partisan differences and move this extremely important bill to the floor. There was other courage on display on the Senate floor yesterday when two Republican Senators bucked the majority of their party for the good of the country. Senators McCain and Collins--two Senators I admire deeply--came to the floor to call on their own party to stop blocking bipartisan budget negotiations. John McCain and I came to Congress together. In 1982 we were elected. We spent two terms in the House together, and we have been in the Senate together since then. Over these many years, more than three decades, John McCain and I have disagreed on several things, but I have never lost my admiration for this patriotic man. He is courageous in battle--not only in the fights that take place in a war but legislative battles. I am so appreciative that he decided the right thing to do was to move forward and see what we could do to get this bipartisan negotiation started. Susan Collins and I have served together for a long time in this body. We have worked together on some extremely important measures. I don't need to run through all these, but there are parts of the law of this country that would not be law but for her willingness to move forward and move across the aisle. Susan Collins and I disagree on quite a few things, but we agree on quite a few things. The people of Arizona are very fortunate to have John McCain as a Senator, and the people of Maine are fortunate to have Susan Collins as a Senator. The reason they stepped forward is because it has now been 60 days--2 months--since the Senate passed its commonsense, progrowth budget. The question everyone raises is, Why are Republicans standing in the way? Not only are Democrats asking that question, Republicans are asking that question now. We passed a budget. Senators McCain and Collins do not think our budget is the best. They think they could do a better job. But they also understand the legislative process--that is, you have to work together. Just as the Gang of 8 did to get the bill on immigration to the floor, we need to work together to get a budget. The House has passed one. We have passed one. Let's go to conference and work out our differences. For 60 days Republican leaders have objected to a conference with the House of Representatives where we could work out our differences between our budget and our priorities. The differences between our budgets are there. We know that, but we need to work together on our priorities. The House Republicans and House Democrats need to come up with what they want, and we will come up with what we want, working with the Republicans here. That is what a conference is all about. In a conference it is not just the Democrats from the Senate on the conference committee, Republicans will be on it also. And just like in the House, it will not be all Republicans, it will be Democrats also. The only explanation their Republican leaders have given for their endless obstruction is this: They refuse to negotiate unless we agree in advance to let them have their way. Yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Maine--both Republicans--condemned that. They said it was hypocrisy. That is my word, not theirs; they can define it any way they want. But the point is that they have been calling for regular order for several years, and now they have the chance for regular order and they are walking away from it. Senator McCain called the obstruction by his fellow Republicans a little bizarre. I used that word also to describe the gridlock here. Senator Collins agreed that it was ironic at least. That is what she said. The senior Senator from Maine went on to say: We have called repeatedly for a return to the regular order in this body. Regular order is going to conference. We agree. We have a progrowth budget that we will proudly defend. House Republicans should be ready to do the same with theirs. I don't know why my Republican colleagues in the Senate are so afraid of an open conference. The conference committee report will need both Democratic and Republican votes to pass. Do my Senate Republican colleagues not trust their House Republican colleagues to hold the line on their priorities? Congress must set sound, long-term fiscal policy through the regular order of the budget process and through compromise, but Democrats and Republicans will never find common ground if we never get to the negotiating table. Student Loans On another subject, Congress has worked hard and compromised often over the last 4 years in order to reduce the deficit and reverse the trend of rising debt that began under President Bush. That work has paid off. We have reduced the deficit by about $2.5 trillion. But as our Nation has succeeded in setting a course for financial responsibility, students across the country have struggled to do the same. The rising price of higher education puts college out of reach for many promising young people, and it saddles those who do get an education with an unsustainable debt, a debt that causes them to delay buying their first home, put off having children, or give up the goal of starting a business. Today Americans have more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. There is more student loan debt than credit card debt, and the average graduate owes more than $25,000 when they get out of school. I think a college education should free young people to achieve their dreams, not saddle them with crushing debt for the rest of their lives. College is already unaffordable for too many young people, but if Congress fails to act soon, that cost will go up again. On July 1, interest rates on student loans are set to double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, effectively socking 7 million students with $1,000 a year in additional loan costs. In Nevada alone this will cost 26,000 students more than $21 million next year. We should be removing the obstacles keeping young people from getting an education, not raising more barriers. Raising interest rates would put higher education even further out of reach for many promising students. Last week Senate Democrats introduced a proposal to freeze student loan rates at current levels for 2 years without adding a penny to the deficit. This is paid for by closing wasteful tax loopholes. The legislation being pushed by House Republicans will take a different route, sticking it to students instead of closing loopholes. Rather than investing in the next generation of American workers, the House bill would cost students as much as $6,500 more in interest than the current rates. In fact, passing the House proposal would be worse than doing nothing at all. We would be better off letting the rates go up to 6.8 percent than passing the House bill. Passing the House bill or letting the rates go up to 6.8 percent is not the right thing to do. We need to do what we suggest; that is, keep the interest rates where they are. Under the House bill, students would pay up to $2,000 more if we allow the rates to double in July. But Democrats know an investment in education is an investment in our economy, so we will keep student rates low and hold back the rising price of education. Last year, after months of obstruction, the Republicans eventually conceded and helped us achieve that goal. After all, it was great election-year politics for them. This is what Mitt Romney said about the effort to keep loan rates low: ``I fully support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans.'' Even my friend the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said there was not a soul in Washington who thought student loan rates should go up. We agree. But unlike Republicans, we don't abandon our commitment to students just because the election is over. Can my Republican colleagues say the same? I hope they still share our goal of keeping the American dream affordable. If they do, there is an easy way to prove it: work with us to quickly pass the proposal to protect American students.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I object.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this good man, Sri Srinivasan, was first nominated in June of 2012. He is a brilliant man. He is an honors graduate from Stanford Law School. Justice Roberts left that court in 2005. We have been trying to fill spots on that court for all of these many years--6 or 7 years. The DC Circuit is the court that some say is more important than the Supreme Court. No judge has been confirmed in the DC Circuit since 2006. It is an 11-member court established by law, so to have a 7-member court is unfair. We have had one woman, for example, Caitlin Halligan, a highly qualified nominee, who has been filibustered twice by the Republicans. She was nominated to fill the seat of Justice Roberts. The man we are talking about today has been nominated to a seat that has been vacant for 5 years. The four seats were vacated in 2005, 2008 and have senior status by two other judges in the last year or two. His nomination has pending for 345 days. That is by far the longest wait of any of the judicial nominations currently awaiting confirmation by the full Senate. My friend the Republican leader talks about Bush's second term and how he didn't get many nominations. He didn't get many nominations at that time because we approved so many in the first term. It is just the opposite with President Obama. Eighteen Bush circuit court nominees were confirmed within 7 days or less after being reported by the committee. A Republican-controlled Senate filed cloture on three circuit court judges--including some real controversial ones, such as, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown. Cloture was filed in less than 1 week. There has been a stall going on in the Senate for years. It doesn't take a mathematician to figure it out. We are being held up on nominations and legislation. President Obama has been trying to have the people he wants as part of his team for 4\1/2\ years. There are multiple vacancies in this court. It has been reported out unanimously by the committee. There is all of this stalling and waiting so that maybe they will be able to render another couple of opinions over the next couple weeks and thwart the law which says there should be 11 people on the court. But to pack the court with what has been determined the number of people who should be on that court? Is it right to have a total of six members of the Circuit Court? Is it packing the court because we want to fill the court as it is called for in the Constitution? No. We should vote on the nomination of this young man today so he can go to work and help fill one of the four vacancies that has been long standing in that court for 5 or 6 or 7 years. Unless there is an agreement, we will have a cloture vote at the end of tomorrow, and if they want to use their 30 hours, which they are entitled to do under the arrangement we made at the beginning of this year, they can use the 30 hours. But we are going to get this young man confirmed. It is the right thing to do and we are going to get him confirmed as soon as possible. Having waited 345 days, I think he deserves it.

Mr. REID. We have to work together here, but it is mutual work, it is not all on one side. It is not my word versus somebody else's word. In 2005, we had a knockdown, drag-out battle here. My friend the Republican leader, along with others, gave speeches on the Senate floor that the process regarding judges wasn't moving along quickly enough. As a result of that crisis, in an effort to resolve the matter, we agreed to put some people on the bench we have regretted since then, including Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, and Brett Kavanaugh, but we agreed to that and they are on the court now. We need a balance. My friend has focused on judicial nominations. We have been doing better there. But other nominations, not so. We can talk about all the rights of the minority and all that. The President of the United States, whether it is George Bush or President Obama or Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, whoever it might be, deserves the right to have the people they want to work there and not be held up for months and months to fill some of these minor posts. I could run through a list of names that were held up and have been held up for a long time. My friend the Republican leader said during the squabble we had previously how he agreed with the fact we should change the rules. I am not saying we are going to change the rules, but I am saying we have to do a better job than what is going on around here. This is no threat. We need to look at the facts. Look at the facts. We are going to continue working to try to work through this morass we have here. But let's not focus only on the judiciary. We have a lot of problems with regular nominations. We haven't talked about legislation. We are doing a little better on that, but a perfect example of that is what is going on with the budget. People begged around here, yelled and screamed and fought, for regular order. They get it and then they don't want it. I am convinced we need to move forward. I think one of the things we should do with something that has been reported out of the committee 18 to nothing, and there have been vacancies for 6 or 7 years, is we should do that immediately, not wait for a couple of weeks to do it. If somebody cares about this good man, his record is available. They can read it in 10 minutes. I am sorry I had to object to my friend's unanimous consent request, but it was easy to do because the request is simply wrong.