Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 272, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Long nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of Calendar No. 66, S. 1582; further, that the postcloture time with respect to the substitute amendment No. 2307 be expired, and Senator Merkley or his designee be recognized to table amendment No. 2310; further, that upon disposition of the motion to table amendment No. 2310, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and following the use or yielding back of that time, Senator Merkley or his designee be recognized to raise a budget point of order; further, that if the budget point of order is waived, the remaining pending amendments with respect to Calendar No. 66, S. 1582, except for the substitute amendment No. 2307, be withdrawn, and the Senate vote on adoption of the substitute amendment; finally, that if cloture is invoked on Calendar No. 66, S. 1582, as amended, if amended, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Tuesday, June 17.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Thursday, June 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session, resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 173, and execute the order with respect to the Long nomination at 12:30 p.m.; further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Reserving the right to object, and if my Democratic colleague could just yield for a very brief question for clarification, I think, for those listening: How do you define a small business?

And just for clarification of my colleague, that is actually 500 employees or less. So I think when we are talking about small businesses, I just want to clarify that we are talking about 500- employee businesses.

So, first of all, I also want to actually thank my colleague for caring about small businesses. Certainly, as a small business owner up until 4 months ago, I think we should have much more passion here in this Chamber around small businesses. So I truly commend you for that.

I also commend you in a very big and meaningful way for the vote you took 25 years ago when you voted against giving China normalization status with the United States. I think that was a courageous vote. You were on the right side of history.

That disastrous situation has led China to grow its GDP from $1.2 trillion back then, when you voted, to $25 trillion today. So the fact that you went against some of your colleagues and took that vote shows that you are somebody who is independently minded and understands what businesses go through.

I truly, truly commend you for that because there is no worse bill in American history than that act. That act destroyed companies, not just all over America but, specifically, in the Presiding Officer's State and in my State. We see it every day, don't we, when we go on the campaign trail, when we are driving around Missouri or driving around Ohio. We see the remnants of companies that once existed.

Well, let's talk about how we can liberate small businesses, and maybe we can agree on these plans. No. 1, in the 2017 tax reform, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, what is interesting to me, as a small business owner, is that very large companies had their taxes made permanent, but it was for small businesses that those tax rates expire. In fact, they expire this year.

And the bill that we are looking to advance here in the Senate is a bill that would make those tax rates permanent. Let me just repeat that. We are not looking to cut taxes, because that is what you hear from my colleagues quite a bit. We are looking to make the 2017 tax reform permanent--not for big companies, not for the massive companies that are headquartered in Massachusetts but for the small businesses in Ohio and Missouri and in other places around the country that are going to see a massive increase in their taxes if we don't take action.

To put it in numbers, it is a $4 trillion tax increase for businesses. So if we are going to liberate small businesses, join me in calling for the 2017 tax reform to be made permanent.

Let's reform onerous regulations, especially in the banking sector. If you were a small business over the last 4 years, it was really hard to get access to banking because banks were basically shutting out small businesses from lending. The big banks kept getting bigger. Community banks, which is what small businesses rely on, were getting absolutely tortured.

We need better energy policies. What that means is certainly not banning coal, which is important in my State; natural gas, of which we have a thousand years of reserves. And I have offered to my colleague that we will build a big, beautiful pipeline right to Massachusetts. You will never need energy again from Canada or any other place. You can get it right from Ohio.

Better workforce policies, ending the incredible amount of onerous overlitigation--those types of policies will liberate small businesses. How do I know it? Because I have been a small business owner my entire life.

So let's talk about the subject at hand, tariffs. Tariffs are exactly intended to help these kinds of companies. When a Mexican company came in and bought Republic Steel in Canton, OH, the first thing they did was take all the equipment that was valuable, shipped it to Mexico, massively laid off the employees, sucked all of the cash out of the business, and left a 258-acre environmental disaster in the heart of Canton, OH. Now, that same steel is made in Mexico, and they want to ship that steel into the United States completely tariff free.

What was the impact on small businesses around that steel mill-- restaurants, the hairdressers, the grocery stores, the doctors, the dentists--that relied on those employees? Devastation. Devastation rate.

In Lordstown, OH, we once had a General Motors facility that employed 10,000 people, 6 million square feet. They made the highest quality products of any facility in America. The production was shipped to Mexico. Now the facility remains basically idle. What was the effect on the small businesses of Lordstown, OH? Total and complete devastation.

So while I appreciate my colleague's desire--I really, really do. I have had a chance to meet you in your office. I think you are a good man. I say that with total earnestness on my part.

Let's actually liberate small businesses. Let's give them certainty on taxes. Let's keep their tax rates permanent, just like the big guys got.

Why did the big guys get permanency? And the little guys, who don't have access to the Halls of Congress, why do they get the tax rates that go up?

Let's give them better energy policies that allow them to have energy costs go down. Let's give them better workforce policy. Let's end the reign of terror of litigation that hits small businesses and drives up insurance costs. And let's give them good workforce policies. And let's support--let's unite as a country, as President Trump tries to undo, Senator, what you tried to do 25 years ago. And 25 years ago, you wanted this country to stand up to China and say: No, we will not give you normalization because if we do, you will destroy our economy.

And they have.

Let's rally around President Trump. It has been just over 100 and some-odd days. He is trying to reverse 25 years of bad behavior. We should be in this Chamber saying: Look, go out and do that. Negotiate. We have your back. Fight for America. Fight for American workers. Fight for American small businesses.

That is the message other countries need to hear. They shouldn't be hearing from this Chamber that we are not united as Americans in making the best deal for American workers.

And with that and therefore, I object.

Just real quickly. Again, I truly respect my colleague and his point of view. I want to remind him that there is a great Massachusetts family, the Hassenfelds. Do you know what they used to do--what they still do? The brothers created a company called Hasbro. Those toys used to be made in the United States of America. They were employing lots of American citizens. They shipped all that production to China and elsewhere, and communities suffered as a result.

As I said--if you notice, my colleague did not address any of the points that I made. If you talk to any small business owner, they will tell you the No. 1 priority right now is for us to make their tax rates permanent. It is not tax cuts. No matter how many times my colleagues will say it is tax cuts for billionaires, it is objectively not true. This is permanency of the current rates.

Only in Washington, DC, by the way, would keeping things the same be considered a tax cut. It is ludicrous, and it makes no sense.

Since you asked for the plan, here is the plan: We are going to make America the best place to do business. We are going to give American companies and American citizens the best tax rates so they can grow and thrive here. We are going to give them a regulatory environment that is not overbearing, that doesn't kneecap companies. We are going to make certain we protect critical industries like steel, which I appreciate that.

I think we should put, by the way, a full tariff on all major steel products--like, for example, appliances. This country was once the epicenter of appliance manufacturing, and now there is only one company--Whirlpool. I am proud they make their appliances primarily in Ohio. Yet they have to compete with cheap appliances coming in from China.

We have a plan. The plan is very simple. We are going to have fair and reciprocal trade. And you are right; it is not just China. It is Japan, which charges us tariffs and nontariff barriers, and we allow them to bring their products here.

South Korea--not only is that the case, but we also pay to defend them.

Australia. Great ally. Great people. They tariff our meat. Their meat can come in tariff-free.

Canada and Mexico are great allies and large trading partners, but they have allowed their borders to be open. They have allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to die of fentanyl. I am ecstatic that we have a President of the United States that says: No, we will not allow that to continue. And if you want to have a relationship with the United States of America, you are going to secure your borders, and you are going to make it darn well necessary to secure your borders to protect Americans.

So that is the plan. The plan is to usher in a golden age for this country where working-class Americans have the ability to live a good life, have a good job where a mom or a dad can provide for their kids, afford a home, afford a car, go on vacation every once in a while, and retire with dignity. That was once the dream of the Democratic Party. This is what we should unite around and rally around and make certain that all of our policies are pointed straight in that direction.

So, again, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. Hopefully, I think we can work together on some initiatives, as I laid out--good tax policy, good regulatory policy, good workforce policies that allow small businesses to thrive--because as somebody who did that 5 months ago for my whole entire life, I am happy to hear that conversation happening here in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1771, which is at the desk; further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

It is now indisputable that the last 4 years saw more injuries and more deaths of law enforcement officers than at any time in American history. Let me just read to you some of the data.

From 2021 to 2023, more officers were feloniously killed than in any other consecutive 3-year period of time over

the last 20 years. Let me repeat that. There were more deaths over the last 3 years than in any 3-year period in the last 20 years.

Let me give you the numbers. One hundred ninety-four officers were killed from 2021 to 2023. Last year, in 2024, 234 police officers were killed in the line of duty.

Tomorrow, we will see their families on the Capitol. We will see the moms that no longer have their kids, the kids that no longer have their moms and dads, the sisters that don't have their brothers, the brothers that don't have their sisters--234 officers just last year, including a Cleveland police officer that, Mr. President, I think you know well.

His name is Jamieson Ritter. I wear his badge today with honor. He was killed on the Fourth of July, responding to a police call in Cleveland. He was a good person. He went in there, gave all the notice he could. As the arrests were being made, the assailant shot and killed him.

Imagine that phone call. Mr. President, you have now almost adult kids and daughters. You have an adult son, I believe. Imagine getting that phone call that your child has been killed in the line of duty, a person who put their entire life under risk for us, for our communities.

My colleague from Connecticut, in his State, just a year ago--and I hope he remembers it, and I am sure he does because I assume he is a good man. There is a gentleman named Aaron Pelletier. He got killed a year ago. He was a Connecticut State trooper killed in the line of duty. He was one of those 234 people.

Just, sadly, a week and a half ago, Larry Henderson, my age, retired from the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office. You know how you go to some places and you go to a funeral, and they always say, ``He was a good man,'' and you are not sure if people meant it or not because it is a terrible time of tragedy? As I walked into the Cintas Center, a place where you have large gatherings of people, there was a line out the door, cars around the corner to pay tribute to him and his family.

You know what everybody said? Of all the people, how could it have happened to Larry, a good man.

I talked to his wife. I talked to her about this bill and how important this was to the community to get this done. As I was telling her that, she gave me a big hug and said: Please fight for Larry and for the others that wear the uniform so that this does not happen again.

In 2025, the list keeps growing. We continue to see more and more fallen officers. So what is the solution?

I understand my colleague is objecting, but I assume he is listening carefully and not just ignoring what I am saying, but rather willing to change your mind, because here is the reality. There are a lot of things that happen here on the Senate floor. There are a lot of things we may not agree with. There are lots of policies where we maybe have one viewpoint on the Republican side and one on the Democrat side, and that is fine and that is healthy. I think that is what this institution was intended to be. In my humble opinion, having been here 4\1/2\ months, I wish there was more debate--that there was more robust conversation about the issues--but here we are.

This is a very simple bill. This bill just says: Look, let's just make certain that there is Federal jurisdiction whenever a Federal law enforcement officer is killed or injured in the line of duty. Let's make certain that we have the police officers' backs like they have ours and put a mandatory 20-year prison sentence for anybody that harms a member of law enforcement. That is it.

It is not a 2,000-page bill, not a 4,000-page bill. It is a 3-page bill. It is just a simple way that this institution, this body, can come together. And in your case--to my colleague from Connecticut--you have had Aaron Pelletier. I am sure you and your community suffered greatly when you lost him in the line of duty, just as my community in Southwest Ohio and Cincinnati suffered when this great man, after retiring from the line of duty--after retiring--he is out directing traffic for a graduation at the University of Cincinnati and was absolutely murdered for the crime of wearing the uniform.

We can stop this. We can today. Today can be a day that people-- Americans--watching, who have less and less faith in our government's ability to come together to get things done, when they see bickering and arguing, and they don't quite understand what it is that we are doing here--today is the day we can come together and say: We, on both sides, not as Democrats or as Republicans but as Americans--that we support law enforcement.

That is what I am asking my Democratic colleague to consider--just a simple statement. We, the entire U.S. Senate, can come together for once, unanimously, and say we have the backs of law enforcement and pass the Larry Henderson Act.

First, let me say I appreciate my colleague's willingness to acknowledge that we have to support law enforcement.

The reason I went into elected office is to prevent these types of debates. I am proposing legislation that is clear you support. You want to make certain that we punish anybody who harms a member of law enforcement. It is very simple. The objection isn't about looking forward. The objection is saying: Well, I can't support something going forward because I am upset about something that happened in the past. That is a political comment. That isn't a matter of what is good for public policy. Tell Lori Henderson why her husband had to die because you are upset about something politically that happened in this Chamber.

I wasn't here last year. I wasn't here the year before that. I wasn't here the year before that, and I certainly wasn't here in 2001. If we are going to move forward as a nation, we have to come together on a forward-looking basis. We have to draw the line now and say: No more law enforcement officers should ever be harmed.

What this bill will do is it will send a massive, chilling effect to anybody looking to harm a member of law enforcement.

You should look at that and say: That is fantastic.

And if you want to have a conversation about what happened 4\1/2\ years ago--where you know better than I do; you have been here a lot longer--the Constitution gives the President full pardon power. Joe Biden pardoned almost 10,000 people, including 32 people who were on death row, and commuted their sentences to life instead of death, which is what they had been convicted of. I don't want to have that debate because it has nothing to do with Larry Henderson. This bill is about saying we will protect law enforcement.

The people watching this are so hungry for a government that works. We don't have to wear a Republican jersey and a Democrat jersey at every turn. We can come together as a country and say--look, you said you agree. You said you agree that it should be a standard for all Federal police officers. That is what I am proposing: every single member of the Capitol Police, every single member of the FBI, of ICE, of the U.S. Marshals--anybody who protects all of us. By the way, the people who look to do us harm don't know if we are Democrats or Republicans. I had a gentleman drive to my home in Toledo when I wasn't there. He knocked on our door. My wife is not used to not answering the door when somebody knocks. He was there to kill me. Thank God the Westlake Police Department is 90 seconds away. If we don't put a stop to this--if we don't just put down our little lapel pins that call us Democrat or Republican--we are never going to be able to do anything in this country.

Let me finish real quick. The point is very simple. I get it. I get it. Politics has become a sport. It is about one team winning and one team losing, but that is why I ran for office, and I hope you can remember back when you first ran for office. What is it that you wanted to really accomplish? Did you want to make this country better for your kids and grandkids? be able to look them in the eye someday and say, ``I made this country better''? We do that by coming together on things that we can easily agree on, and we agree--we agree--that we should defend law enforcement. Let's do it now, not next week, not next month because between now and then, we are going to lose more Larry Hendersons. I find that unacceptable.

Imagine, my colleague, if the families, tomorrow, of the 234 slain officers--what it would feel like for them to come to the U.S. Capitol and say: Look, in this time of Democrats versus Republicans, where they can't agree on anything, seemingly, they came together to say: Today, we will never allow another Federal police officer to be harmed in the line of duty.

I know you objected, but I will ask you one last time. I think it is--and we don't need to go on all evening. I don't have Cory Booker's stamina, but I will say this. Please consider the message you are sending to every single mom or dad who puts on the uniform that says there is a process question: I don't like the process in which this is happening. I am mad at my political enemy. I may have or others may have political aspirations, and this may hurt us.

Think about that family who does wake up every day to protect you just in the same way they protect me.

God bless them.

With that, I yield the floor.

As my colleague knows--again, better than I do--the President of the United States is given the constitutional authority on pardons--

--and there is no mechanism with which this body can change that, but what we can change--what we can change--is what happens from here forward. We can say that anybody who harms a police officer is going to do 20

years in prison. Now, Biden pardoned 9,500 people--9,500 people. This is not the debate that we are having.

Do you know what I have found in business that is maybe a little bit different than politics? The way to be successful is to look forward. If in business all you do is look in a mirror and blame and try to score points, you lose. We have to look forward.

You just said we have common cause. You don't want police officers-- by the way, you and I--

Hold on.

Mr. MURPHY: Let's decide--

Hold on.

As my colleague knows--let me just restate--

Let me just state this again very simply. I haven't interrupted you, and I would ask you to give me the same courtesy.

That is OK. Look, we don't know each other. We acknowledge that.

I actually believe that, in everybody, there is the innate desire to do good and that Democrats and Republicans love this country. This country is a gift to me. I came here from another country, as you know, and got the ability to live in this country. The issue at hand--in front of us--and what we can do right now is to pass the Larry Henderson Act, something that you have acknowledged that you agree with the elements in that bill: a mandatory 20 years for anybody who harms a Federal law enforcement officer. You said you agree on that.

We can have 100 distractions that go right back into another conversation. If you want to have a conversation, which, by the way, because I have gotten to preside--you have had that conversation multiple times. You and your colleagues have had it and you should and you deserve to have it. That is not the issue before us today. The issue before us today is, Do we want more Larry Hendersons?

So you asked me a question. I would ask you a question: If in the next week you knew that there was another Aaron Pelletier and we could have avoided that because we could have had a deterrent of a 20-year jail sentence for that person, what would you feel you would tell their family, ``I was fighting a 4\1/2\-year-old grudge''?

Do you know that you can make a difference right now? We can do this right now. That is what the American public may not know and that I didn't know until I got here. We can actually pass this bill in the U.S. Senate right now--right now. We would make news. We would make history. We passed a bill--somebody from Ohio whom you would consider to be, maybe as a pejorative, a MAGA extremist and somebody who would say, maybe, disparaging things about your political beliefs. Both you and I--we have never met. We have never had a conversation. We have never shared a cup of coffee. We could save the lives of law enforcement officers all over this country. We could do that tonight.

I will ask you a question: Is it worth risking the life of a law enforcement officer to score political points?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Rubinstein nomination be waived.

Mr. President, I have been in the U.S. Senate now for a total of 125 days. I have seen some outrageous comments over the last 125 days. My colleague has been here exactly 12,000 days more than I have. Let me just set the record straight.

On October 7, 2023, families, mothers, fathers were sitting at home, enjoying a peaceful existence in one of the most difficult places on Earth to live. They had a day planned of joy at a festival.

What happened? People came over and savagely--savagely--murdered children, raped women, took hundreds of hostages, killed more Jews than at any time since the Holocaust.

What you just heard for the last 15 minutes could be summarized as the absolute propaganda of Hamas. Let me just be clear. This war was started by Hamas. It could end today by Hamas if they released every last hostage, including an American citizen.

We are sitting here in the U.S. Senate and not even saying a word of the fact that there is a U.S. citizen being held hostage by a terrorist group in the Middle East. That is outrageous. That should be at the top of the agenda. Why have civilians been killed in Gaza? Because they hide weapons in hospitals, in schools, in homes.

Hamas is the enemy, not our greatest ally, which is Israel. I was just there 2 weeks ago. Two weeks ago, I was there. There is almost no Israeli that hasn't seen a mom, a dad, a son, a grandson, granddaughter that hasn't been either injured or killed to protect their country. The fact that we are disparaging our greatest ally at this level is completely outrageous.

I had plans to go home, see my wife and kids, but I rose today because I cannot stay silent after listening to that kind of nonsense spewed here in the U.S. Senate. It is a disgrace, and we should not ever forget that Israel is just fighting the war that we would otherwise fight.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, think about some numbers. I was 5 years old when I came to this country from South America, 18 when I became a citizen. Since that time, there have been 10 Presidents of the United States of America and only one that actually had the guts and the courage to stand up for working Americans.

We lost 90,000 factories in this country. If you take the logic of my colleague, let's shut down all of our factories and send manufacturing to the lowest wage countries on Earth that employ slave wages, that have massive government subsidies, and gut out what is left of the American manufacturing ecosystem.

Of course, that is completely illogical. But that is almost what we have done over the last four to five decades.

You drive through Ohio, Dayton was the computing capital of the world; you go to Toledo, it was the glass capital of the world; Youngstown, the steel capital of America; Akron, the rubber capital of the world.

Today, these cities are working to get past what they have gone through. But as I went on the campaign trail against a Democrat that always claimed to be on the side of the working men but then saw what their policies enacted, we beat him soundly.

I urge my Democratic colleagues to go back to your original North Star. The point of the Democratic Party for decades, as far as I knew, was that you were for the working men and women of this country. But that is not the Democratic Party today. They are the party of electric vehicle mandates, against tariffs, against fringe social issues.

If we want to talk about the specific resolution, look, there is no greater ally ever in the history of the United States of America with Israel than President Donald J. Trump. Every single Republican last week voted against Bernie Sanders' resolution to block arms sales to Israel. Fifteen Democrats voted to kneecap them while in the middle of a war. When we talk about Israel, they have already negotiated a situation with President Trump.

So let's talk about Ukraine. This is a country that both sides of the aisle--shockingly to me, quite honestly--have given hundreds of billions of dollars to this country of Ukraine when we have enormous needs in our country. What do we get in return? They impose a tax of 20 percent or more on our goods that we send there. Let me repeat that. We sent them hundreds of billions of dollars in aid, and then when we send them our products, they add a tax on our imports.

Look, President Trump is doing a masterful job of negotiating with countries and with companies to finally do what should have been done a long time ago, which is to rebuild this country from the inside out.

So for the reasons that President Trump laid out last week that we are going to rebuild this country with American hands, with American hearts, and with American pride, it is with that sentiment that I, therefore, object.

I actually read the resolution. Again, I will repeat it. There is no greater friend of Israel's in the White House, ever in the history of the United States of America, than Donald J. Trump.

He negotiated with these countries. We need to give him the latitude in terms of negotiating with these countries. In terms of bipartisan, go back through the record in the last 90 days and see almost the complete block voting on everything, including we have two votes coming up and another two votes at the end of the day. Let's see if there is one Democrat that doesn't vote in total unison with their party.

Look at the Republican side. We are much more freethinkers and we have differences of opinion and that comes out when we vote. When we talk about bipartisanship, I hope the Democrats get to a point where they are willing to work with us on common sense.

I had a bill that I presented to the floor about 3 weeks ago. Here is what it said: If you come into this country illegally, you can't claim asylum. And if you do, you invalidate your right for asylum for life, and you must only claim asylum at a designated port of entry. This is a 90-10 issue. Democrats blocked that.

I want to work in a bipartisan manner. I think the American public demands that we do. But when every Democrat votes in total and complete lockstep with their leadership every single time to block any progress, we are going to be unable to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 159, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 160, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour

be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time with respect to Executive Calendar No. 56, Elbridge Colby, be deemed expired and, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Colby nomination and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed on Saturday, April 5, ripen following confirmation of the Colby nomination; that following the confirmation vote on the Colby nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 54, George Glass; that if cloture is invoked on the Glass nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Glass nomination; that following disposition of the Glass nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 67, Mike Huckabee; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 159.