Floor Statements

Mr. President, on March 16th, two of the Nation's great theatrical talents will be recognized when my friends Lily Tomlin and Jane Wagner are added to the Palm Springs Walk of Stars.

As we all know, Lily Tomlin is a dazzling star of stage, screen, and television. She first won the hearts of millions of Americans more than 40 years ago on ``Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In,'' where she created unforgettable characters such as the world famous telephone operator Ernestine and the precocious young child Edith Ann. Lily said of these characters, ``I don't necessarily admire them, but I do them all with love.'' From the beginning, audiences fell in love with Lily Tomlin.

In 1971, Lily began working on an Edith Ann comedy album with a brilliant, award-winning young playwright named Jane Wagner. They produced acclaimed hit recordings and television specials and went on to further triumphs on Broadway and in Hollywood.

It is fitting that Lily and Jane will be honored together on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars, not only because of their long personal and professional partnership, but because they have formed one of the most fruitful creative collaborations in the history of American performing arts. Over the past four decades, Jane Wagner has created unforgettable characters, and Lily has inhabited these characters and brought them fully to life.

Since 1985, much of their creative energy has focused on various productions of Jane's play ``The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe''. Through this timeless yet dynamic work of art--with insight, humor, and love for all that makes us human--these two extraordinary artists have expanded both the bounds of performance art and our understanding of the human condition.

I have known Lily Tomlin and Jane Wagner for many years. I am pleased to call them my friends, and I will be honored to join the Palm Springs Walk of Stars next month in paying tribute to their tremendous contributions to the Palm Springs area and to American culture.

Madam President, I oppose the two balanced budget amendments before us. Senator Hatch's proposal would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, forcing deep cuts to Social Security and other critical programs. Senator Udall's alternative, while less extreme, is still not a proposal I can support.

I have consistently opposed balanced budget amendment proposals because Congress doesn't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We have done it before.

In the 1990s, during President Clinton's term, we not only balanced the budget, but we created surpluses and 23 million new jobs. We cut wasteful spending, made smart investments, and ensured that everyone, including the wealthiest, paid their fair share.

In 1993, we passed a budget plan without a single Republican vote. By 1998, the budget had come into balance, and as President Clinton was leaving office in 2001, budget analysts were predicting surpluses as far as the eye could see.

Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts and two wars put on a credit card created huge deficits.

To get our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility, we don't need a balanced budget amendment. That is why the Senate has voted down balanced budget amendments many times--most recently in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Instead, we need the political will to come together and make responsible choices for our country's future.

Many economists believe that balanced budget amendments are bad policy because they limit the ability of the Federal Government to respond during times of economic crisis and recession.

Limiting our ability to make smart, job-creating investments is no way to set a foundation for our country's long-term economic growth.

Finally, while these proposals include exceptions for times of war, there is no exception for natural disasters. A minority of Senators or Representatives could block Federal assistance for any disaster, no matter how severe.

I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this balanced budget amendment and recommitting ourselves to our duty as a Congress to promote fiscal responsibility and economic growth.

Mr. President, I am going to eventually make a unanimous consent request. We have alerted our Republican friends to it. But before I do, I want to set the stage for why I am going to eventually ask we be allowed to go to H.R. 3630, which is at the desk, and that there be a debate and a vote on the Republican-passed payroll tax cut.

For the life of me, I don't understand why, as we approach the end of this year, Republicans do not want, right now, to have a vote on their own bill. Maybe it is because they do not have a lot of votes for it because it is a disaster. The President has spoken out very strongly for a payroll tax cut. We need that. It has been in effect, and if we don't extend it in this time of recovering from a deep dark recession, economists of all stripes have said we are going to see a reduction in economic growth. That is something we don't need right now.

Initially, Republicans said they didn't want anything to do with this tax cut. They loved the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires. Oh, that one they have a heart for but this one, they don't really like.

I think they took the heat back home, and good for the American people. They then decided they had to pass it because if they didn't pass it, working people were going to notice that $1,000 increase in their taxes.

So we are facing a very odd situation. Having served in the House for 10 years--I had left before Newt Gingrich became Speaker; I ran for the Senate. I know how things work over there. I can almost see--though I have no accuracy on this; it is simply my own feeling--the mindset: The President wants this tax cut so badly, let's do it, but let's load this up with things he is not going to be able to abide. Frankly, that is what they did.

Let's look at some of the things that are in this payroll tax cut. First of all, they added environmental riders. One of them I am very familiar with, and I want to spend a minute explaining.

The EPA passed a rule to control the filthiest and dirtiest boiler operations. These boilers are located in our communities. They spew forth things you really don't want to know about, but we better know. They are things such as mercury, arsenic, and lead. All these things cause cancer, and all of these things are dangerous to all of us, particularly to children and to pregnant women. So the EPA has crafted a rule--listen to this--that only goes after 5,500 of the 1.6 million boilers. Again, these are the filthiest and the dirtiest.

In crafting this rule, they had peer review science that showed this rule would prevent 8,100 premature deaths every single year. That is because we are talking about mercury, lead, and arsenic. These are not our friends.

Now, not being able to abide by this, those in the House are standing with the dirtiest polluters, and they put a stop to that rule. To me, this is shocking, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. If I saw you were driving a car in a certain direction, Mr. President, and I said to you, if you continue to drive your car in that direction, you are going to hurt people; you are actually going to be responsible for the deaths of 8,100 people in the course of a year, you would turn that car around. But, no, they are barreling forward. I am not even citing the stats--because I don't have them in my memory--on the number of missed workdays, the number of asthma cases, and the lost schooldays, but it is in the tens of thousands in a year.

So they attached what I call a real poison pill to the payroll tax cut. But that wasn't enough. Despite the objections from the Republican Governor of Nebraska, they pushed forward on the tar sands pipeline before the studies were done. By the way, the environmental impact report was done by a company that had ties to the developer. So before we rush to judgment on this, colleagues, we need to have more information. But, no, they are going to jam that through.

So those are two environmental riders that are in the bill that are very dangerous for the American people. So it is sort of like, here is $1,000 for you with the payroll tax cut, but we have just increased your risk of getting asthma or perhaps dying of cancer or a heart attack. Maybe that is why they object to having a vote on this bill.

Now, in this bill, the way they pay for things is unbelievable. They are so fearful of hurting the upper income people--those earning over $1 million a

year and paying for this payroll tax cut the way we do, with a small surtax on the millionaires and billionaires, which doesn't kick in until they get past the $1 million mark--they go after the middle class. They raise premiums on Medicare for 25 percent of Medicare recipients who earn $80,000 a year, and they raise it 15 percent for some of them in this time of recession. They cut the number of weeks an individual can get unemployment insurance, which also, at this time, is just plain cruel. They go after the salaries of middle-class workers, such as Federal firefighters, veterans, nurses, air traffic controllers, FBI agents, and all Federal employees while they allow government contractor employees to earn up to $700,000 a year.

Senator Grassley is here, and I know he probably disagrees with some of what I said, but I know he agrees on the Federal contractor issue. In this particular bill, which the House crafted, I say to my friends, they go after middle-class workers, but the government contractor workers can earn up to $700,000 a year. To me, that is the only reason I can see why Republicans are objecting to having a vote on this so- called payroll tax bill--because it is so loaded with things that are going to hurt the American people.

So I think we ought to have that vote and kill this Christmas turkey, because it is a turkey. It is harmful to the middle class. It is literally going to cause an increase in premature deaths, in asthma cases, and it is literally going to hurt middle-class workers while it leaves the millionaires and billionaires alone. What kind of value system is that? Merry Christmas to the middle class. No, it isn't.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3630, which was just received from the House; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill; that no amendments be in order prior to the vote; and that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; further, if the bill is not passed, it remain the pending business and the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We are buddies. We work together on a lot of good government issues. But the minority leader, the Republican leader, is objecting.

So in summing this up, as I leave the floor, I would ask rhetorically, why on Earth the Republican leader is afraid to vote on a Republican bill, other than the fact that that bill, in my view, exposes a set of values that are not consistent with the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the time remaining in Senator Sanders' block?

Is the Senator satisfied if I take about 7 minutes?

I want to say how proud I am of the Environment and Public Works Committee. To be chairman of the committee that has such incredible Senators, such as those you have heard from--Senator Sanders, Senator Whitehouse; we also have Senator Cardin, Senator Carper, Senator Baucus, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Merkley, and Senator Lautenberg. I hope I am not leaving anyone out. These are the environmental voices, the commonsense voices for jobs, for clean technology, for a bright future for our Nation, so to be the chairman of that committee is an honor beyond my every expectation.

It is not to say we don't work with Republicans; we do on public works matters. We work very well with Senator Inhofe and his team of Republicans on public works, but when it comes to the environment, there is nobody home over there. As a matter of fact, they do harm.

Today I am going to talk about the need to create jobs through this sector, but I also want to say, while my colleagues are here, an interesting development that has happened on the payroll tax cut bill that the House is about to pass. We have a kind of inside-the-Beltway term when extraneous provisions are added to a bill that will bring down the bill, and we call that a poison pill amendment. I have never said to you when I coined that phrase ``poison pill'' amendment that it is literal. In this case they have attached to the payroll tax cut-- which is on the one hand giving a tax cut to the middle class--a literal poison pill by rolling back a Clean Air Act provision that will require a very small percent of the boilers in this country to cut back on the filthiest of all pollution, including mercury, arsenic, and lead. I will say that again: mercury, arsenic, and lead.

If I were to stop anyone in the street, they don't need a degree in science to know if those are good things or bad things for you. They didn't even have to see the movie ``Arsenic and Old Lace'' to know that arsenic is bad. Lead damages the brains of our kids. Mercury has horrible impacts, particularly on children. So they have attached a poison pill, literally, because it will kill 8,100 more people than otherwise would have been killed from pollution. They have attached that to the payroll tax cut. How is that for a Christmas gift? Hi, I am your Senator, here is a tax cut for you of about $1,000, but, sorry, you might die from breathing in too much poison in the form of mercury, lead, and arsenic.

That is what is going on here. Honestly, we have asked for a lot from Santa in our day, but we never asked for lead, arsenic, and mercury.

The reason Senator Sanders took to the floor today--and the reason I am proud to be here--is because we all say here in this Chamber that we care about jobs. We all say here in this Chamber that we want to be energy independent. We should all add that we want less pollution. Our colleagues on the other side never mention it. We should add that we want less carbon pollution, which is leading us to extreme weather conditions, climate change, but they don't say that. We say that.

How do you do it? Well, there are many ways. One is to enforce the clean air laws we have, by the way, that will help get carbon out of the air. But a very easy way as we extend this payroll tax cut, which we all want for our middle class, is to say we should extend those clean energy tax breaks that allow us to move toward innovation. You hear a lot of talk from the other side about how solar energy is in decline and they talk about Solyndra and the problems there. Let me tell you something, that mindset would mean we never would have made it to the Moon because we know what happened to Apollo 1. It was not good. We didn't walk away from going to the Moon. We expected there would be problems with the program that we put together. That is why we had $2 billion to offset any companies that might not make it. Do we stop cancer research because a lot of the scientists' leads don't pan out? We don't walk away from cancer research. But our friends on the other side, the minute they can seize on something to walk away from clean energy, they do. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one reason for it, and that reason is they represent--and this is my opinion--big oil, big polluters, the people who, over the years, have tried to stop us from moving away from those fossil fuels.

All you have to do is read the history books to see how big oil teamed up with the auto industry to take out all the railroad tracks that they could to stop the competition. All you have to see is the movie ``Who Killed the Electric Car.'' You cannot even find those GM cars. They took them and literally flattened them and they bought time for the gas-guzzling cars until finally, with President Obama's leadership, we were able to influence the companies in Detroit to make them understand the very simple fact that if we move to cleaner burning fuels, if we move to fuel economy, they are going to make a lot more money because that is the future.

What we face here instead of seeing an extension of the clean energy provisions to help us move toward solar, to help us move away from fossil fuels, to help us get a better balance of payments, to move away from the Middle East dictators, we see nothing. What do we see? We see another poison pill in another one of their bills over there to repeal the standards for light bulbs. What are these people thinking? They need a light bulb to go off in their own head. We have to move toward energy efficiency. It is a win-win-win.

I am going to talk about California in my remaining time. We have seen great progress there. We have added 79,000 jobs in the clean energy sector in the past 7 years, and that clean energy sector remains one of the most promising industries in our State, and people are happy. We are going to put a million solar rooftops on in California. I know Senator Sanders has been calling for this for years. California is doing it with Governor Brown leading the way with the legislature. Do you know what that means? It means that people are going to work in California. You cannot be in China unless you have an extremely long arm and put a solar rooftop on in Los Angeles or in Riverside County or San Francisco or San Diego. So we need to reauthorize 1603, the Treasury grant program, which allows developers to receive a grant in lieu of a credit, in lieu of a writeoff. That means they will get the funding and they can move forward with their front. It is leveraged by $22 billion in private sector investment. If we extend the program, we will be creating 37,000 jobs.

I have to ask rhetorically: What is wrong with the Republican Party that they don't understand that when you extend these kinds of tax credits, you move away from the dictators who control the oil supply and who would turn on us in a minute, and instead you create jobs here at home, the air is less

polluted, the kids have less asthma? There are very few things that we could come to the floor and say are such a win-win-win.

There is 48-C in the manufacturing tax credit, which provides a credit for facilities that make clean energy equipment components. We know there is a demand for these programs.

I want to say to my colleagues on the other side who are on the EPW Committee, I hope they will join me at 2:30 p.m. We are going to have a press conference to talk about the need for protecting the air that we breathe and for the need to see a payroll tax cut that doesn't come over here loaded down with things that are going to lead to riders that are unrelated, that are going to lead to the death of our people.

Simple message: No poison pills that poison the people, please. I hope they will join me there. But I want them to know, and I want to say, Senator Whitehouse organized a letter that was critical to get all of us on this letter. I ask Senator Whitehouse, through the Chair, how many signatures did you get?

That is a very large number of Senators to have put their names on a letter. These letters are hard. People are busy. They do not have time. You get 30 names on a letter, and we say: Extend these tax cuts for jobs, for the environment, for all the good things. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter Senator Whitehouse organized printed in the Record.

I would yield back to our leader on this important block of time. I would yield my time back to Senator Sanders. We are determined to get this done right for the American people.

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the President's nomination of Richard Cordray to be the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. Mr. Cordray is an exceptionally well-qualified nominee who deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

The opposition to this nomination has nothing to do with Mr. Cordray's credentials and is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine the CFPB and stop it from cracking down on unscrupulous and fraudulent practices by big banks, credit card companies, payday lenders, and other financial firms.

The CFPB was established as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that overhauled our banking system. Before the financial crisis, no single agency coordinated Federal consumer protection. Banks and financial companies could choose their own regulator, which enabled them to avoid regulations with real teeth. The failure of Federal agencies to coordinate and the lack of any effective consumer watchdog agency allowed financial firms to pursue deceitful lending practices that hurt American families and caused the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The CFPB was created to solve this problem and to make sure that financial markets work for all Americans, not just big business. The CFPB has already begun reviewing many areas of consumer protection law, including mortgage disclosure forms. It will enforce new rules for credit cards, require mortgage servicers to better assist homeowners in avoiding foreclosure, and enforce new rules on bank overdraft fees.

President Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren, a respected law professor and dedicated consumer advocate, to set up the CFPB. Elizabeth Warren was selected for her long history of independent, unflinching consumer advocacy, and under her leadership the CFPB had a running start. But Republicans adamantly opposed her as CFPB director, before she had even been nominated. They knew she would crack down on abusive practices in the banking and credit card industries. And they know that by law, the CFPB cannot exercise its full authority without

a confirmed Director. That is why 44 Republican Senators signed a letter promising to oppose any nominee, of any party, until their demands to cut back the agency's power and independence are met.

Mr. Cordray would be an outstanding leader of the CFPB. He currently leads the CFPB's Enforcement Division. He has built his career around protecting the public interest, reflecting his commitment to consumers and his dedication to fairness. After having been a State Representative, Solicitor General and Treasurer in the State of Ohio, Mr. Cordray was elected Attorney General of Ohio in 2008. In this role, he prosecuted fraudulent foreclosures and predatory lending, and recovered more than $2 billion for Ohio's retirees, investors, and business owners.

Mr. Cordray's nomination has broad, bipartisan support. Attorneys General from 37 States, representing both political parties, signed a letter in support of this nomination, calling him ``both brilliant and balanced,'' with a ``superior knowledge of the financial services marketplace.'' Sixty-one mayors from around the country, led by Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, also wrote to support his confirmation. The California Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, Main Street Alliance, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, AFL-CIO, AFCSME, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, SEIU, UAW, and UFCW have all expressed support for Mr. Cordray, and for confirming a director so that the CFPB can operate as intended.

It is stunning that Republicans continue to block any effort to rein in the type of reckless and abusive behavior that caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last weekend California and the Nation lost one of our great environmental champions when Elden Hughes died at his desert home in Joshua Tree, CA, at age 80.

As a longtime activist with the Sierra Club and former president of its Angeles Chapter, Elden led successful campaigns to protect California's wild rivers and preserve the historic Union Pacific Railroad depot in the desert town of Kelso, CA.

But Elden Hughes is best known and fondly remembered as one of the tireless leaders of the long grassroots effort to enact the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which created a new national park in the Eastern Mojave Desert and established higher levels of protection for Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and other desert lands.

Elden was born in 1931 in Whittier, CA, the son of cattle farmers from Modoc County. When he was 13, the family moved out of town and bought a ranch where Elden made enough money raising hogs to buy an old car and begin a lifetime of exploring California's wild places. After earning his way through college, he worked in the family plumbing supply business, which he then sold to become the executive vice president of a major computer service company.

Elden's interest in river-running, spelunking, archaeology, nature photography, and the desert led him to join Sierra Club expeditions and gradually become involved in the club's conservation activities. In the early 1980s, he led a grassroots letter-writing campaign that convinced California Senator Pete Wilson to sponsor ``wild and scenic'' designation for a major stretch of the Tuolumne River. In the late 1980s, Elden led the successful ``three rivers campaign'' that obtained wild and scenic designations for portions of the Kings, Kern, and Merced Rivers.

Elden worked with Congressman Jerry Lewis to save the historic Kelso Depot, in what was then the Eastern Mojave National Scenic Area. Showing their usual flair and creativity, Elvin and his wife Patty galvanized public opinion on the depot issue by convincing Amtrak to run a special ``Desert Wind'' train from Los Angeles to Kelso, where Elden led the crowd in singing railroad songs.

In 1986, as the new chair of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Elden was invited to attend a press conference on the introduction of the first Desert Bill, authored by Senator Alan Cranston. He brought along some of his photos of the Mojave and was soon leading a group of amateur photographers on a 2-year project cataloguing the fragile beauty of this unique natural area.

In 1990, Elden retired from business to become the west coast spokesman for the Desert Bill. He was a natural, and the media loved him. As Frank Wheat noted in his book ``California Desert Miracle,'' Elden was also ``knowledgeable, quotable, pleasant to be with, and willing to go to great lengths to show members of the press what the Desert Bill was intended to protect. Soon he was drawing reporters as a lamp draws moths.''

Meanwhile, Elden and Patty had adopted a pair of abandoned pet tortoises and successfully bred a new family. When the babies were 5 months old, Elden and Patty took them on a cross-country tour to raise media and public interest in protecting the desert tortoise. Over the years, they made nine trips to Washington, DC, to gain congressional support for the Desert Bill. Once, when an airline security guard told them they couldn't bring pet tortoises on the plane, Patty said, ``They aren't pets, they're lobbyists.''

Finally, in 1994, Congress passed the California Desert Protection Act, and I was proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Feinstein. Elden Hughes was instrumental in passing this landmark legislation. Today, the Mojave National Preserve and the Kelso Depot stand as monuments to this joyous, creative, and inexhaustible man who did so much to protect California's priceless natural heritage.

On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from Elden's life work, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his wife Patty; his sons, Mark, Paul, and Charles; and his three grandchildren.

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for Caitlin Halligan, who has been nominated to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Ms. Halligan has an impressive background and broad support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and allow this nominee to receive an up-or-down confirmation vote.

Ms. Halligan has had a distinguished career in both the private and public sectors. She has served as the solicitor general of New York and as general counsel of the New York County District Attorney's Office. She has also been a senior appellate lawyer at the nationally recognized law firm of Weil Gotshal. She has argued five cases before the Supreme Court, where she also clerked after law school. It is no wonder the ABA unanimously rated her ``well-qualified''--the highest ranking to serve on the DC Circuit.

In addition to impressive credentials, Ms. Halligan has broad support. The National District Attorneys Association and district attorneys from the State of New York, including Republicans Derek Champagne, Daniel Donovan, and William Fitzpatrick, support her nomination. She is also supported by the New York Association of Chiefs of Police and the New York State Sheriff's Association.

Confirming a well-qualified nominee like Ms. Halligan would also be another step toward expanding the diversity of our Federal bench. Today, women hold 30 percent of Federal judicial seats--from district courts to the Supreme Court--the most at any time in this Nation's history. While this progress is to be celebrated, these words from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor remind us there is more to do:

About half of all law graduates today are women, and we

have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country

who are serving as lawyers. So they ought to be represented

on the Court.

I am proud to support the nomination of Ms. Halligan and hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for cloture today.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Is it necessary to lay aside the pending amendment so I may engage in a colloquy?

Senator Levin and Senator McCain, I wish to thank you very much. Before we engage in a colloquy, I simply want to show one chart which tells a story as to why Senator Grassley and I are so pleased the Senators are willing to accept this by voice vote.

If I could ask Senator Levin to take a peek at this because I think this tells the story. This is what our military leadership makes, about $200,000. This is what the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief makes every year. This is what we have limited, and that was a reform, the top five defense contractors to--almost $700,000. But all the rest of the contract employees have absolutely no limit and can make $1 million a year. This is from the taxpayers.

Senator Grassley and I feel, particularly in these times, but just as a matter of equity, we can fix it. We are very grateful to the two Senators for their willingness. So I would like to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Levin and, of course through him, Ranking Member McCain.

I greatly appreciate their willingness to accept the Boxer-Grassley amendment No. 1206 that limits contractor employees' salaries to no more than the salary of the Commander in Chief, who is, of course, the President of the United States.

That is a good question. We would be well below. We would be about here.

Mr. President, just in conclusion, did the Senator from Iowa and I have word from the Senator from Michigan that during conference negotiations with the House of Representatives regarding this bill, he will work to ensure that contractor employees are covered by a reasonable limit so taxpayers are not on the hook for excessive salary reimbursements?

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of James ``Jim'' Capoot, a dedicated husband, proud father, loving son, devoted friend, and respected colleague. Officer Capoot lost his life in the line of duty while serving the Vallejo Police Department on November 17, 2011. He was 45 years old.

Jim Capoot was originally from Little Rock, AR and served in the U.S. Marine Corps and as a California highway patrol officer before joining the Vallejo Police Department in 1992. Officer Capoot was a highly decorated officer having received the Vallejo Police Department Officer of the Year Award, the Medal of Merit, the Life Saving Medal, and twice awarded the Medal of Courage. In addition to his work with the police department, Officer Capoot was the volunteer coach of the Vallejo High School girls' basketball team and led the team to a section championship in 2010.

Officer Jim Capoot, like all those who serve in law enforcement across California, put his life on the line to protect his community. I extend my deepest condolences to his loving wife Jessica and three daughters. My thoughts and prayers are with them. We are forever indebted to him for his courage, service, and sacrifice.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Harry Pachon, one of our Nation's most dedicated scholars and civil rights leaders, who passed away on November 4, 2011.

Harry Pachon was born to immigrant parents in Miami, FL, in 1945 and spent part of his childhood in Colombia. He returned to the United States, where he completed high school in Montebello, CA, and earned a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in political science from California State University, Los Angeles, and a Ph.D. in government from Claremont Graduate University.

Mr. Pachon dedicated his life to public service and fought tirelessly to elevate the role of the Latino community in politics. After serving as the chief of staff for Los Angeles Representative Edward R. Roybal, Harry became a founding board member and executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Beginning in 1993, Mr. Pachon became the president of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute in California. Under his leadership, the institute conducted groundbreaking research on key issues facing the Latino community, including immigration, education, and political participation, and brought national attention to the needs of Latinos. In 2003, the institute moved to the University of Southern California, where Harry was a beloved and respected professor of public policy.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me in honoring Harry Pachon and extending our deepest condolences to his wife Barbara; his children, Marc, Melissa, Nicholas, and Andrew; and his four grandchildren. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 33 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since July 5, 2011. This brings to 309 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This represents 17 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan.

SSG Nicanor Amper IV, 36, of San Jose, CA, died July 5 in Khowst, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with a rocket propelled grenade. Staff Sergeant Amper was assigned to the 6th Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Knox, KY.

LCpl Norberto Mendez Hernandez, 22, of Logan, UT, died July 10 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Mendez Hernandez was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Christopher L. Camero, 19, of Kailua Kona, HI, died July 15 of wounds suffered July 6 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Camero was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

SSG James M. Christen, 29, of Loomis, CA, died July 19 in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Staff Sergeant Christen was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI.

SGT William B. Gross Paniagua, 28, of Daly City, CA, died July 31 in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Sergeant Gross Paniagua was assigned to the 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI.

SSgt Leon H. Lucas Jr., 32, of Wilson, NC, died August 1 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Lucas was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

SPC Jinsu Lee, 34, of Chatsworth, CA, died August 5 in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. Specialist Lee was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI.

SSgt Andrew W. Harvell, 26, of Long Beach, CA, died August 6 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed. Staff Sergeant Harvell was assigned to the 24th Special Tactics Squadron, Pope Field, NC.

PO1 (SEAL) Jesse D. Pittman, 27, of Ukiah, CA, died August 6 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed. Petty Officer Pittman was assigned to a west coast- based Naval Special Warfare Unit.

PO1 (SEAL) Darrik C. Benson, 28, of Angwin, CA, died August 6 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed. Petty Officer Benson was assigned to an east coast- based Naval Special Warfare Unit.

MCPO (SEAL) Louis J. Langlais, 44, of Santa Barbara, CA, died August 6 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed. Master Chief Petty Officer Langlais was assigned to an east coast-based Naval Special Warfare Unit.

Sgt Adan Gonzales Jr., 28, of Bakersfield, CA, died August 7 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Gonzales was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Joshua J. Robinson, 29, of Omaha, NE, died August 7 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Robinson was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division,

I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

PFC Rueben J. Lopez, 27, of Williams, CA, died August 11 in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Private First Class Lopez was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY.

SPC Kevin R. Shumaker, 24, of Livermore, CA, died August 31 in a stateside hospital of a noncombat related illness. Specialist Shumaker was assigned to the Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY.

SPC Koran P. Contreras, 21, of Lawndale, CA, died of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device September 8 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Specialist Contreras was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY.

SPC Douglas J. Jeffries Jr., 20, of Springville, CA, died of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device September 8 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Specialist Jeffries was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY.

SSG Daniel A. Quintana, 30, of Huntington Park, CA, died September 10 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire. Staff Sergeant Quintana was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade, Schweinfurt, Germany.

Cpl Michael J. Dutcher, 22, of Asheville, NC, died September 15 while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Corporal Dutcher was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

PFC Carlos A. Aparicio, 19, of San Bernadino, CA, died September 23 in Wardak, Province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device. Private First Class Aparicio was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Polk,

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families during Military Family Month 2011.

Each November marks Military Family Month. This is an important time for Americans to recognize and honor the commitment and sacrifices of our extraordinary military families.

And it is a time to express our gratitude. We know that when a servicemember puts on a uniform, the entire family sacrifices for our country. Military families endure frequent moves, long separations, interruptions in careers and education, and the anxiety that comes with having a loved one in harm's way. They face these unique challenges with grace and courage.

We also know that the security of our Nation and the readiness of our military are inextricably linked to the strength of our military families. Not only do these families support our brave men and women in uniform, they come together to support each other and generously dedicate their time to make a difference in their communities.

As cochair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, I am deeply grateful to these incredible men, women and children for their strength and their sacrifice. Their selfless service to their communities and our Nation is an example for us all.

President Obama eloquently stated in proclaiming Military Family Month 2011 that ``With every step we take on

American soil, we tread on ground made safer for us through the invaluable sacrifices of our servicemembers and their families.''

While we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude we owe our military families, we can do everything possible to lessen their burden and provide for their needs.

I encourage all Americans to take time this month and all year round to recognize and honor our military families for the countless contributions they make each and every day for our great Nation.

Mr. President, would the Chair let me know when I have used 5 minutes, and then I am going to yield to Senator Reed for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to be clear about this. If the Paul resolution passes--which I don't think it will, it is so extreme-- people in 38 States, 248 million people, will be adversely impacted with filthy, dirty air.

In the Senator's own State of Kentucky, the prediction is, based on science, that between 530 people and 1,400 people will succumb to premature death. So we are not talking about some political argument. We are talking about the very life and death of the people we represent. I wish to thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Shaheen, and Ayotte for already speaking out on the floor against the Paul resolution.

I hope we will have a big vote because we are dealing with the health of the people, with the health of the children, with the ability of people to work--because if we cannot breathe, we cannot work--and we are dealing with jobs, many jobs, over 1 million jobs that are created as a result of clean technology.

Senator Paul insulted the people of America. There was a poll just taken last month where 67 percent of voters support the cross-state air pollution rule. That is 85 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents, and 48 percent of Republicans. Are they extremists? No. They are mainstream. Are the groups who support this rule extremists?

I think the Senator owes an apology to the American Lung Association for making it sound as if they are for air pollution rules because they are getting some kind of payoff. It is an outrage, a complete outrage. Does he

think the National Association of County Health Officials is extremist? He said the American Lung Association. He already attacked them. How about the American Nurses Association, does he think they are extremists? Does he think President Richard Nixon was an extremist when he signed the Clean Air Act and he said: ``Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the birthright of every American.'' Does he think Richard Nixon was an extremist?

Let's talk about what he wants to do. He wants to repeal a very important rule that is going to clean up the air, that is going to reduce toxic poison soot and smog-forming air pollution that impacts air quality for over 240 million people.

Let me say this. I know all 100 of us in this Chamber would condemn it if somebody took all their garbage and put it on the lawn of the next-door neighbor. That is what this cross-air pollution rule is about. It is about States that don't crack down on pollution. They have smokestacks that blow the pollution into other States and they say: Isn't it wonderful? We don't have any problem here; it is your problem.

When I made this analogy, Senator Carper corrected me. He said: The Senator is right. It is a good analogy as far as it goes, but garbage is not usually poison. I will amend my analogy to say this: If we knew that someone had garbage that included poison and they took that garbage that included poison and put it on someone else's front lawn, that would be a terrible thing to do, and it would be the moral responsibility of that party to clean it up and not do it again. That is what this rule is about.

I wish to talk about specifics rather than be vague. This rule that Senator Paul seeks to cancel and repeal prevents up to 34,000 cases of premature death, 19,000 emergency room and hospital visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, and 1.8 million lost work and schooldays. It is estimated to provide up to $280 billion in annual benefits by 2014.

So all this flailing around of arms and calling people extremists simply cannot erase the fact that what Senator Paul is doing is extreme and is hurtful to our people.

How many people feel good when they look at a child such as this who is desperately seeking air? Here is the exhaler, this plant, and here is her inhaler. Exhale from these dirty plants and inhale clean air.

It reminds me of a story I just read in the New York Times that talks about China.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute, and then I will yield 8 minutes to Senator Reed.

In China, the leaders there are arrogant and they are elitists and they surround themselves with air purifiers in their offices, in their homes, in the great hall of the people where they work, which is opulent, but the rest of the people in China have to breathe filthy, dirty air. In a recent trip there, our group did not see the sun for 7 days.

``Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's famously foul air.'' That is the story in the Times. ``The privileges of China's elites include purified air.'' Well, I don't think anybody ought to be able to insulate themselves from the quality of the air. We have to clean up the air for everybody, not just an elite few. So I think Senator Paul's resolution under the CRA should be soundly defeated.

At this time, I yield 8 minutes to Senator Jack Reed.

Mr. President, I wish to address that, if I could for a moment, for the benefit of Senator Coats. I was going to speak for a much longer block, but I didn't. I yielded the time to Senator Reed, and I retain the time I have. So I only did it because he was trapped in a hearing. But it is up to the Senators, however they want to proceed.

I am happy to do that. I will retain my time and yield to the Senator from Indiana.

I am retaining my time.

Mr. President, if my colleague would withhold for just 50 seconds.

I thank the Senator.

I would like to make a quick point before my colleague, Senator Sessions, leaves the floor.

I want to first of all thank the Senator very much for working with us in the EPW Committee. As I said to the Senator privately, in our committee,

when it comes to infrastructure, we are all very closely tied, and we support each other. When it comes to the environment, we see things differently.

I want to say to my friend who is very wise in many ways, I do not know why he would question--he has a total right to question the EPA's assertion--that if we pass the Rand Paul repeal, it would result in 34,000 premature deaths. I want to point out he is not a cardiovascular specialist or a lung specialist. Neither am I. But I think it is important to rely on those who are, such as the American Association of Cardiovascular Pulmonary Rehab, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the College of Preventive Medicine, the Lung Association, the Nurses Association, and I will not go on because I only have 1 minute. But I will list these. I would hope we would look to these groups because I do not know of anyone in this body who is a specialist in cardiovascular or lung conditions. And these groups oppose the Paul resolution because they think people will get ill and they will die prematurely.

I yield 8 minutes to Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez go for 5 minutes and Senator Blunt for 10 minutes following that.

How much time remains on the Republican side and on this side?

Thank you. I will use some time on our side until we have another speaker, which will probably about be 5 minutes. I know Senator Reid will want to have the floor.

Mr. President, this is a very important vote that is coming up. I wish to put into perspective what we are talking about. In 1997--by my calculation, that is 14 years ago--several States went to the EPA and said their people were suffering because certain States were producing horrible pollution--toxic, dirty pollution--and it was floating right over to their States and then their States had to face the impact of that pollution, which was causing asthma attacks, heart attacks, cardiovascular problems, all sorts of problems and that their State, the recipient of the dirty air, was then expected to clean it up.

I liken that to this: If you had toxic garbage in your house and went and dumped it on your neighbor's front lawn and said now it is your problem. That is not what we believe in America. We believe in responsibility.

But the Paul amendment would say, no, we cannot ask those States that are producing pollution that is floating to other States and harming their people to do anything about it. That is what this rule is about. It is the cross-State air pollution rule. The pollution goes across one State into another. I believe 38 States would be adversely impacted if the Paul resolution were to pass.

Let's look at this. I am not just being rhetorical. The scientists have looked at this. They said that if the Paul amendment were to pass and we repeal this cross-State air pollution rule and States could feel very fine about dumping their pollution in another State, there would be 34,000 cases of premature death, there would be 19,000 emergency room and hospital visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, and 1.8 million lost work and schooldays, and we would lose up to $280 billion in annual benefits by 2014.

So anyone who stands in this Chamber and tells us that by voting for the Paul resolution we are helping people, don't fall for it. It is wrong. If anyone comes to this floor and says: Oh, this is about jobs, it is wrong--because if we cannot breathe, we cannot work. Lost days at work are an economic burden. If we turn the clock back, all this great clean-tech economy we have, which is exported to the rest of the world--and it is huge; it employs more than 1 million people--we hurt those jobs. So the Paul resolution, which would cancel out a very important protective air pollution rule that helps our people--that resolution is one of the worst things to come before this Senate.

Let me tell you who backs me on this: The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehab, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the National Association of Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National Home Oxygen Patients Association--which sees people gasping for air.

Have you ever seen a child gasp for air? It is something you don't forget. I will show a photo of a beautiful child who is forced to wear one of these inhalers too often because she cannot breathe. We hear lots of things: Oh, we need more time for this. How about the polluters knew about this since 1997? How about since 2005, when they learned the Bush administration rule was too weak--how about that?

I see Senator Carper. Since we are going back and forth, this would be a good time for Senator Lee to speak. How much time is Senator Lee going to need?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes for Senator Lee, followed by 8 minutes for Senator Carper.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. President, we have heard the same theme over and over from our Republican friends: We need time, give us time. The EPA is rushing this.

Well, how much time do they need to fix a problem that is forcing children to put on these inhalers? How much time do they need to enforce a rule that is keeping people from dying prematurely; that is keeping them from getting heart attacks?

Here is the deal. In 1997, several States went to the EPA and said: Something is really wrong. We have kids like this gasping for air, and the air pollution isn't coming from our State. It is coming from the States to the west of us.

Now, I want to make it clear that my State of California doesn't have a dog in this fight. We are not involved in this. We don't pollute. We don't have a lot of coal-powered plants. And we are in the far west. Frankly, having that ocean along our State helps us. We have plenty of air pollution, but we are not getting it from another State to our west. So I stand here speaking, frankly, as a Senator who cares about clean air, who cares about the public health, and who also sees this as a moral issue.

I have said this every way I can say it. It is immoral to take poison and put it on someone else's front yard. It is immoral to walk away from your responsibility, particularly if you have a truck to put it in and take it away.

Well, we have the technology to make cleaner utilities, to make cleaner power. And as my friend Tom Carper so eloquently stated, clean tech creates jobs.

We have the technology. We have the ability to create jobs cleaning up the environment. We have an ability to make sure fewer children, such as this beautiful child, don't have to resort to inhalers if we clean up our powerplants, and we have the ability to do that. The other side is crying, We need time. That is all we need, we need time. Well, I think 14 years is enough time.

Then in 2005, the courts said again how important it was to do this. So they knew about this in 1997, they knew about it in 2005, and now they are crying bitter tears and they want to continue to dump poison in States next door. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the Republican Party's desire to repeal important health and safety regulations. The American people do not agree with it.

Let me show you a poll that was taken last month in terms of where people stand. This cross-State air pollution rule is very popular with the people of this country because they see very clearly. I think when we were kids our moms always said, clean up your room. You know, you owe it to the rest of the family, clean up your room. Polluters have to clean up their room. Polluters can't pollute at will and, as Senator Carper said, build these big smokestacks and blow that pollution over to, in this case, 38 other States and hurt the people in those States. That is not the American way. What Senator Paul is doing is the height of irresponsibility.

I want to put back the picture of that child again.

How is it responsible to allow the pollution to go on and on and on when you have the technology developed to stop it, and when it is moving out of your State and going to another State and harming children?

I would be happy to yield.

It would.

I will respond on my time; the Senator can respond on his.

Let me tell you something. As far as I know, we do not have one person in this Senate who is a physician with a degree in lung specialty, thoracic specialty, cardiovascular specialty; therefore, we need to look to those people.

You are right. When you go to the hospital and talk to physicians, they will tell you about children dying in their arms. I have seen that testimony, I have heard it in front of our committee. The fact is, this rule will prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma

attacks and 1.8 million lost work and school days. This is factual.

I want to say that hearing people come on this floor questioning whether there is an association between soot in the air and asthma attacks, frankly, is to me unimaginable. And we have all of the health organizations that disagree with Senator Paul on that.

Absolutely. I don't know of any medical groups that support the Paul resolution. But I do have in my hand a letter signed by many groups, which I wish to quote from.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this important letter Senator Durbin is speaking of.

Blocking the cross-air pollution rule, cross-State pollution rule would force people living in downwind States to continue to suffer from high levels of unhealthy pollution from out-of-State powerplants. They say they express their strong opposition. They say ozone and particulate matter are associated with numerous adverse health effects, including lung disease, irreversible reductions in lung function--irreversible.

So it is not as though you have a bad day and you are gasping for air, and suddenly the next day it comes back. Irreversible reduction in lung function. Asthma attacks. And, by the way, we are told there will be 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if we go back on this rule. Aggravation of other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. And, I would say to the Senator, they add premature death. Here they are saying 34,000 cases of premature death. I will give you a few of the names of the people who signed this.

I am so glad the Senator came down here. He has been such a great leader on these issues and, I want to say for the record, led me and so many others, the majority of the House, in saying no more smoking on airplanes. And, boy, we remembered how it was in those days, and I know the Senator's personal experience with lack of lung function and his own dad. So the Senator coming over here today is very appreciated. I will give you the names of some of these organizations.

I will.

Absolutely. Well, first of all, I want people to know that since the Clean Air Act passed and there were all these predictions of a horrible recession, there has been a huge number of jobs created and it is all documented on one of these charts here. I can tell you, our GDP rose more than any other industrialized nation in the world as we cleaned up the air.

The Senator and I were on a trip to China. We did not see the Sun for days and days and days. I don't know if you missed this or caught this story in the New York Times. The Chinese elites in the government--many of whom we met with there to try to push our agenda, which is trade with China and all the other things we want and making sure their currency is floating--this is what we learned:

Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's

famously foul air.

In the Great Hall there they have all these fabulous clean air devices. In their homes they are protected, in their cars they are protected. But guess what. The people are suffering and struggling. They don't even get to see the Sun shine there. If I could say, I don't want to see elitism here. Every single person in our country deserves to have a chance to breathe clean air.

To get specifically to the point, to talk about the economy--because I think that is critical--Senator Paul's resolution is bad for this economy. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for our families.

That is why it is opposed by every health professional.

Let me say this. We are talking about 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if this resolution passes. We are talking about 34,000 cases of premature death.

I want to make a point here. If you are the head of household and you die prematurely because of filthy, polluted, poisonous air that is floating in from another State, you can't work and your family is in deep trouble. I will tell you this, the annual benefits by 2014-- annual, of this rule--are estimated to be $280 billion a year. So if anyone stands up here and says we are fighting for jobs, we are fighting for the people, we are fighting for the economy by rolling back clean air rules, don't believe it for a minute. If you don't want to listen to me or Senator Durbin, listen to the people I know you respect, from the American Association of Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association. Those nurses have held those babies.

How much time remains on our side?

I hope we vote down this resolution.

Madam President, I hope colleagues will take a moment to look at this picture, because this is what we are talking about: exhaling toxic air, and little kids and members of our families who have to use this kind of inhaler. Exhale pollutants, inhale with an inhaler. This is a poster done by the American Lung Association. Every respected public health group opposes the Paul resolution.

If your neighbor dumped toxic garbage on your front lawn, that would harm your family. You would do two things. No. 1, you would say clean it up and, No. 2, you would say never do it again. That is all the rule does that Senator Paul is trying to eviscerate here.

Vote no for jobs, for clean air, for our families. Sixty-seven percent of the American people, including 68 percent of Independents, oppose the Paul resolution. Please vote no.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, first of all, I want to say a big thank- you to colleagues for voting to defeat the Paul joint resolution, which was a real attack on the health of our families.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that from Thursday, November 10, through Monday, November 14, the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.