Floor Statements

Madam President, we currently have 17 district judges on the calendar, 14 reported by voice vote. For the people within the sound of my voice, what that means is they are not controversial. Twelve will fill judicial emergencies. These are places around the country where we have judges who are tremendously overworked on these important cases.

We have heard this kind of joke: What are you trying to do, make a Federal case out of it? What that means is the Federal system is so good that people look at it as being the best there is as far as judicial activity.

I am disappointed to say my Republican friends on the other side have informed me they will not agree on votes on any of these nominees. Republicans can offer no reason for blocking these bipartisan consensus district court nominees. I understand why they didn't want us to do circuit courts--I understand that. I may disagree, but I understand that because Democrats have set boundaries in the past, as when we would no longer accept circuit court judges. But this is district court judges.

Historically, the Senate has considered district court nominees as late as October in Presidential election years. In the past five Presidential election years, Democrats have never blocked a district court nominee from receiving a vote on the Senate floor, never. But our Republican colleagues are setting new standards for obstruction, not only in all the legislation but in judges.

For the 28 district court nominees we have considered this year, I filed cloture 19 times. In other words, we have had to break a Republican filibuster on 67 percent of the district judges we have considered and confirmed. President Obama's district court nominees have been forced to wait 300 percent more than President Bush's nominees; three times more. Only two people whom the President nominated this year have been confirmed. The kind of qualified consensus nominees who in years past would have been confirmed in a matter of minutes are now taking weeks and months, languishing with no action. These votes should be routine.

There should not be a fight that delays action on important job measures. In September 2008, right before the last Presidential election, Democrats confirmed 10 of President Bush's district court nominees in 1 day. More than half of the Nation's population, 160 million Americans, live in the part of the country where there has been a judicial emergency declared. That means more than half the people in this country seek justice from courts and judges that are strained to the breaking point under a backlog so intense an emergency has been declared.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, of course, knows I am here. He wants to be on the Senate floor, but the time did not work. He has done a remarkably good job getting the judges out. With 1 out of every 10 Federal judgeships standing vacant, Americans can no longer wait on fair and speedy trials, and that is what they have to do. They cannot rely on them.

Republicans should work with Democrats to confirm consensus district court nominees now. Refusing to do so is irresponsible. The Senate could act today and put highly qualified judges on the Federal bench, judges supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

I hope we can get something done before we leave. I don't want to file cloture on these nominees before the end of the year. It is not the way we should be working around here. We should be working together.

I have a consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 674, 675, 676, 760, 761, 762, 818, 828, 829, 830, 832, 833, 834, 835, 875, 876, and 877; that the nominations be confirmed; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and that no further motions be in order to any further nominations; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.

Further, Madam President, before you rule, we have the gamut. We have California, Utah, Connecticut, Maryland, Florida, Oklahoma, Michigan,

New York, and Pennsylvania. That is a classic, these two Pennsylvania judges.

During the August recess the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania said that I am the reason the two judges from Pennsylvania have not been confirmed.

Try that one on for logic. He actually said publicly that I was the reason that Matthew Brann and Edward Mannion are not being confirmed, that it is my fault.

Madam President, I will finish this consent request: that the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I am not going to prolong this much, but I would say this: No matter how we try to juggle the numbers, we still have 12 emergencies. I hope my friends on the other side would at least look at some of those emergencies and see if we could get some help for those beleaguered judges out there and the court personnel. It wasn't until May 7 of this year that we were able to vote on our first nominee for this year. They were all from last year that we did before that. I hope everyone understands we have 12 judicial emergencies. If some of these nominations were confirmed, it would take that away and make life for the court system much more fair.

Mr. President, for the last several days I have been telling everyone that we needed to do a couple of things before we leave. We have to do the CR, and we have to do the sportsmen's package.

Mr. President, just a second on the sportsmen's package. If we flip through the dictionary and find the word ``bipartisan,'' part of that definition would be Tester's sportsmen's package because it is a Republican and Democratic bill. It involves hunters, fishermen, and other sportsmen, including offroad vehicles. It is a very good piece of legislation for a group of people who are totally unrecognized most of the time. We are going to do those two things before we leave.

In order to bring us to that result, I will fill the tree and file cloture on the CR. Unless we get consent, the cloture vote on the CR will occur sometime after midnight on Saturday, at 1 a.m. or thereabouts. Once we invoke cloture on the CR, the 30 hours postcloture will run until 7:30 a.m. on Sunday, give or take an hour. We would vote at that time to pass the CR. Immediately thereafter we will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the sportsmen's package.

So here is where that leaves us: We file cloture on the CR and the motion to proceed to the sportsmen's package. That sets up two votes for very early Sunday morning in addition to tomorrow night, Saturday morning at 1 a.m. or thereabouts. We can do those votes now and finish everything today or we can wait. The choice is clear. We end up in the same place Sunday morning or we can get there today.

I have had some Senators come to me and say, well, we are not going to vote on the sportsmen's package. Well, yes, they are. We have that set up. There is a clear path. The problem with the rest of the stuff is not our problem; it is the Republicans' problem.

I worked something out in good faith with Rand Paul. He in good faith worked something out with me. I am not here to be a cheerleader for Rand Paul; I am here to tell everyone what happened. Now, if the Republicans don't want to vote on that, I think it would be too bad because Rand Paul, after all of this time--whether anyone agrees with what he wants to do or not--he and I in good faith worked something out.

We had a number of Senators come here, including the senior Senator from Arizona to name one, who said we need more time on that. I have no problem with that. Yesterday when he said he wanted more time, I said just take the hour because Senator Paul has been here talking about this for weeks and weeks. We have heard a lot from him, and he said: I have talked a lot on this--and I am paraphrasing--and 15 minutes would be enough for me. I thought I was being generous by setting up an hour rather than 15 minutes. If the senior Senator from Arizona wants more time, I don't care. I really don't care.

Also, I had some conversations with Lindsey Graham. He and Senator Lieberman have been pushing very hard on a containment resolution that deals with Iran. It is another bipartisan piece of legislation. Eighty Senators are cosponsors of it. The other 20, I bet, like it also. If not, the majority of the 20 do. It is something we overwhelmingly need to do. I think it would be good in that we are trying to work things out in Iraq, which is not stable at this time--at least not the way we want it to be. It would be nice if America had an ambassador to go to Iraq. That has been held up.

With all the problems we see with Pakistan, I think it would be a good idea if we had an American ambassador to Pakistan. That has been held up for a long time.

Again, to his credit, Senator Paul said have a vote on the containment resolution and have a vote on the two ambassadors. He is not standing in the way of that.

Momentarily, I am going to file cloture and procedurally block any other amendments on the continuing resolution. We will vote on that whenever the Republicans want, but no later than Saturday morning at a time we will decide. When I say ``we decide,'' it is a statutory clock, and that is when it runs out. Following that, we will have a vote on final passage of the CR and a motion to proceed to Tester's sportsmen's package. That is what we have to complete. For people to try to get out their stuff is just unfair.

I have seen newspaper accounts of Republican Senators who love the Tester legislation. I didn't ask them; I read it in the paper. They think it is good because it is good. It is bipartisan. It does something we have been trying to do for a long time; that is, a lot of these little bills have been held up--hundreds of them. Tester and the people who support this legislation have joined together 20 of these little bills into this one piece of legislation. It really is the right thing to do. I hope we can get this done.

Remember the choice--I repeat for the third time--is very clear. We can quickly complete everything tonight or we can come back here Saturday morning in the middle of the night sometime and early Sunday morning. We will be at the same place. Those votes are going to take place. It is up to the Republicans and what they want to do with Senator Paul and the unanimous consent request they objected to yesterday.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk as it relates to H.J. Res. 117.

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

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion which I ask the clerk to report with the permission of the Chair.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit the joint resolution with instructions, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I now have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 504, S. 3525.

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived with respect to both cloture motions.

Mr. President, the President pro tempore of the Senate is on the floor and seeks recognition.

Would my friend yield?

Madam President, we are going to have no more votes today-- no more votes today. It is obvious to me what is going on. I have been to a few of these rodeos. It is obvious a big stall is taking place, so one of the Senators who doesn't want to be in the debate tonight will not be in the debate. He can't use the Senate as an excuse.

There will be no more votes today.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have had the stall for several days now. I wanted to make sure that one of the Senators who wanted to go to a debate would be able to do that tonight. So he can go now, because as I announced half an hour ago there is plenty of time to do the debate.

As I have indicated before, we are anxious to finish the business we have to do this work period. I am happy to vote on the Paul amendment. I have said that. I am the one who arranged it so it is possible to vote on it. I have no regret as to having done that. I am happy to vote on the continuing resolution, something that has 80 or more sponsors.

I am happy to have all these votes. In fact, we can do the debate tonight on the containment resolution and the Paul amendment. But understand this: We are not separating the vote on the CR and a piece of legislation that groups around this country have been trying to get done for years. It has been held up here. As I have said before, everything shouldn't be a fight here.

The Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, has assembled a broad package of bipartisan legislation that has wide-ranging support from Republicans. They are noted publicly in publications here saying they support it. They will vote for it. It has the support of sportsmen throughout this country. Getting to vote on this bill should not have to be a big fight. This is the sort of thing we ought to be able to simply vote on, and we are going to do that. But we are not going to separate the two. We are going to have a vote on the CR; immediately thereafter, we will have a vote on the motion to proceed to the sportsmen's bill.

We can get the debate out of the way tonight. We can vote tomorrow. If not, we are going to vote tomorrow after midnight. That will take care of one vote, and the next will be sometime Sunday morning.

We are not having these votes today, so everyone should understand. We are not going to do that for the reasons I have already indicated. So if we want to do this, we can do it early in the morning--that is fine with me--or we can wait until tomorrow night after midnight and then come in Sunday morning.

So I object.

While we are educating Senators, I would like to add a little to that.

We are willing to vote on all these things, but we will do it tomorrow, not today. We want the debate to go forward. We are in very important Senate races across the country.

So we will vote early in the morning, get all the debate out of the way or we will do it tomorrow night after midnight because we are not going to separate the sportsmen's bill from the rest of the stuff for obvious reasons.

Madam President, there has been no new development. Everyone--Republican staff, Democratic staff, all my caucus--has known for a long time that we are going to have a vote on this sportsmen's package. This is no new development.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we have a very important matter at 4 today. The Secretary of State is coming to address all of us as to what is going on in the Middle East and around the world. There will be intelligence officers here and a lot of other people. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 4 to 5 today to accommodate this very important Senators-only briefing.

Madam President, it is my understanding we have a couple Senators who would like to speak before that.

I have no problem with the Senator from Texas speaking. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be recognized for up to 15 minutes; and when he completes that, the Senate go into recess for 1 hour.

Madam President, discussions continue about processing the business we need to address before we leave. As I have said repeatedly, we need to do just a couple things before we break for the elections. We need to pass the CR. We need to vote on proceeding to the sportsmen's package.

To help move the CR, we have been told that the Republicans now have decided they are willing to vote sometime on the Paul bill on foreign aid and also the Iran containment resolution. As I said yesterday, we are willing to do that.

In the worst case, under the rules, the cloture vote on the CR would occur tomorrow night--at 1 a.m. on Saturday. Once we invoke cloture on the continuing resolution, the 30 hours postcloture would run out at about 7:30 or 8 o'clock in the morning Sunday, and we would vote then to pass the CR, which would be immediately followed by a vote on the sportsmen's package.

I am happy to continue these discussions. We are working to see if we can schedule these votes to occur at a time that is more convenient to Senators. I

hope we can have more to report on that tomorrow. It appears at this stage there is no agreement on having any votes tomorrow, so we may have to finish our work tomorrow, beginning tomorrow night, very late.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it has been 20 years since our Nation's final nuclear weapons test. ``Divider'' was the name appropriately given to the final test on September 23, 1992; 8 days later, President George Bush, Sr., declared a moratorium on testing that is still in place today. That last test, along with nearly 1,000 others, was carried out at the Nevada National Security Site, formerly known as the Nevada Test Site.

This site has a storied history; it was used intensively during the Cold War to test nuclear weapons in our fight against tyranny and is remembered by all Americans for the iconic images the atomic bomb continues to invoke. Testing weapons and building our nuclear arsenal was necessary, but there was a price to pay--and it was the health of our hard-working and patriotic Cold War veterans and the many people who lived downwind of the test site.

Since January 11, 1951, hundreds of thousands of men and women-- including miners, millers, and haulers--played a critical role in building the nuclear deterrent that kept our Nation secure during the Cold War and still contributes to our national security today. These American heroes were on the front line of our national security. They served valiantly to help our Nation defend itself, but their personal sacrifice was immense. While serving their country honorably during one of the most dangerous conflicts in our Nation's history, many of Nevada's Cold War veterans sacrificed their health and well-being for their country.

After personally meeting with and listening to many unfortunate stories from brave Nevadans about illnesses they had gotten from their nuclear weapons work, I was pleased to help pass the bipartisan Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in 2000, as well as an expansion of the law in 2004. This important program provides vital monetary compensation and medical coverage to Nevada's test site workers suffering from radiation-induced cancers, beryllium disease, silicosis, and other illnesses caused by toxic chemicals.

In 2005, I began to hear from workers and survivors saying that they were being put through a seemingly endless stream of bureaucratic redtape only to be denied compensation in the end. I was enraged that workers who had developed cancer while protecting our Nation were being denied compensation simply because their employer failed to keep accurate records of each worker's radiation exposure.

While we succeeded in securing automatic compensation for workers during the atmospheric testing years, those who served their Nation during the underground testing years were let down by their country. I fought on their behalf and finally secured automatic compensation for thousands of workers during the underground testing years. I am proud that this important program resulted in the payment of almost $500 million to 4,599 sick test site workers and their survivors. Nevada's Cold War heroes have made immeasurable contributions to our Nation's security, and the sacrifices they have made--to their health and their lives--make it impossible for us to ever adequately thank them.

Today, the Nevada National Security Site has taken on new roles to address 21st-century threats. This includes detecting dangerous weapons, treaty verification, fighting terrorism and nuclear smuggling, and training first responders. The site can even play a role in clean energy demonstration and development to meet our Nation's energy needs using a resource southern Nevada has an abundance of--sunshine. I am also proud of the growing nonproliferation mission at the Nevada National Security Site. These critical activities are playing a vital role in the Nation's arms control efforts while putting Nevadans to work making our Nation more secure.

There are many more opportunities to utilize the Nevada National Security Site's ultrasecure location to bolster out Nation's security. It is an installation whose relevance is timeless because we will always need a place to test new technologies, house sensitive materials and equipment, train our security forces, and know for sure that unwanted eyes are not watching.

Finally, I am proud that while we work to grow and modernize the mission of the Nevada National Security Site, the site's storied past and the people behind it will never be forgotten. The National Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas is an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution and recently was named by Congress as a ``National'' museum. This important institution collects and publicly displays artifacts and documentation that tell the stories of how the Nevada Test Site helped protect our country during the Cold War.

I am proud to stand here today to recognize this historic day in Nevada and America's history, marking 20 years since we have ended nuclear testing.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 499, S. 3521, which is the tax extenders legislation reported out of the Finance Committee previously.

Madam President, following my remarks and those of my distinguished friend, the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 3457, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act. The time until noon will be equally divided on that matter. At noon there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Veterans Jobs Corps bill. The Senate will then recess until 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings.

At 2:15, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the continuing resolution. There could be additional votes with respect to the Veterans Jobs Corps Act this afternoon or subsequent to a vote at noon.

The Republican leader and I have had a conversation this morning where we have discussed the rest of the week and next week, perhaps, and we are trying to move forward and get this done. We have certain things we have to get done, but there is nothing--nothing--more important than getting the funding for the country. I appreciate the House sending it to us in the fashion they did. So I think it behooves us to get this done as quickly as possible.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 5949

Madam President, I am told H.R. 5949 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings.

Madam President, for months I believed Mitt Romney wanted to be President of all of the United States. This week we learned Mitt Romney only wants to be President of half the United States.

If Mitt Romney were President, he wouldn't waste time worrying about the 47 percent of Americans whom he believes are ``victims''--whom Romney believes are unwilling to take ``personal responsibility,'' and those are his words, not mine. He can only worry about how the other half lives, I guess. That is what Mitt Romney told donors at a closed- door fundraiser in Florida a month or so ago.

But it turns out it wasn't closed. Someone videotaped every word he said to his wealthy donors. This is, among other things, what he said:

There are 47 percent who . . . are dependent upon

government, who believe that they are victims, who believe

that government has a responsibility to care for them, who

believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to

housing, to you name it.

Mitt Romney said his job as President would not be ``to worry about those people.'' But half of Americans are ``those people.''

He went on to say: ``I'll never convince them''--this is a direct quote--``they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.''

So who are those Americans Mitt Romney disdains as ``victims'' and ``those people''? They are not avoiding their tax bills, using Cayman Islands tax shelters or Swiss bank accounts like Mitt Romney. Millions of the 47 percent are seniors on Social Security who don't have Bain Capital retirement funds or inherited stock to fall back on. Many of the 47 percent are students reaching to afford university tuition so they can become nurses or teachers or attend a community college to become an electrician or welder or a lab technician. Some of the 47 percent have disabilities whose challenges are already a full-time job, but still are actively seeking opportunities in their lives. Millions more of this 47 percent have been unemployed since the great recession--not because they are freeloaders or can't be bothered to get a job but because some private equity funds closed their factory and shipped their jobs off to China. Large numbers of the 47 percent are active-duty members of the military fighting for their country overseas. More of the 47 percent are veterans getting an education earned through dedicated service. Many of the 47 percent are mothers and fathers working minimum wage jobs but still struggling--and struggling every day. Others of the 47 percent are middle-class families raising children with a little help from the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit--a hand-up Republicans once bragged about helping to enact and, by the way, signed into law by that ``liberal'' Ronald Reagan. The 47 percent are ordinary hard-working Americans who deserve respect, especially from the man who wants to be their President. And these Americans pay a slew of other taxes, including State income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. But, in Mitt Romney's view, they still don't pay enough.

So let's ask a question: Whose taxes would Mitt Romney raise? Would Mitt Romney raise taxes on retirees who have paid into Social Security all their lives and are counting on it to get them through their golden years? That is a question.

Another question: Would Mitt Romney raise taxes on mothers and fathers who work hard but still struggle to put food in their children's mouths? Ronald Reagan thought there were certain people who maybe need a little help and so we shouldn't do that. I agree with Ronald Reagan.

Would Romney raise taxes on middle-class families stretching to afford diapers and day care at the same time? Would Romney raise taxes on Americans with disabilities striving to live full and productive lives? Would Romney raise taxes on students stretching every dollar to afford tuition? Would Romney raise taxes on men and women serving overseas in the military who make untold sacrifices to preserve America's freedom and democracy not because they are getting rich doing it but out of a deep sense of duty?

So whose taxes would Mitt Romney raise? We know he wouldn't raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires or companies that ship jobs overseas. He has made that very clear. If a person is a math teacher or a maid or a single mother, it won't be Mitt Romney's job to worry about those people. If a person is a multimillionaire, Mitt Romney won't rest until they get a quarter of a million dollar tax cut. That is what the Ryan budget does and Romney likes that.

For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who has paid no Federal income tax. Thousands of families making more than $1 million pay nothing in Federal income taxes each year. I will repeat that. Thousands of families making more than $1 million a year pay nothing in Federal income taxes. Is Mitt Romney among those? We will never know since he refuses to release his tax returns for the years before he was running for President. But from that one return--the only one we have seen--we know Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families, thanks to a number of things he has done, including Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Islands tax shelters. And we can only imagine what new secrets would be revealed if he showed the American people a dozen years of tax returns as his dad did.

Mitt Romney believes in two sets of rules--one for millionaires and another for the middle class and the poor. If a person has money to hide in Bermuda and Switzerland, can that person not afford to pay a few pennies more to balance the budget or to reduce the deficit? Mitt Romney says no. But if a person is retired or poor, disabled, a student, or even a returning hero who fought for our country, Romney believes that person can afford to pay more taxes.

This rare look at the real Mitt Romney--this rare look we got from a man who was at a fundraiser for him--proves one thing: He is completely out of touch with average Americans. If he won't stand up and fight for every American--every American--as President, then he does not deserve to serve any American as President.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I now move to withdraw my motion to proceed to Calendar No. 499.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 511, H.J. Res. 117, which is the continuing resolution.

Mr. President, I am momentarily going to send to the desk a cloture motion that I will ask be reported. But prior to that, I am filing cloture. What a shame. Why would we have to file cloture on the continuing resolution? It is absurd. But I will go through the process and do it. I think it is just such a shame.

I have a cloture motion at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, per our previous consent agreement which is now before the Senate, we will have the cloture vote after the caucus lunches, at 2:15 p.m. today.

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

Mr. President, we are trying to work through all the issues we have. There are a few of them--not too many but a few. But I want everyone to know we can finish all of our work tomorrow. We can finish it all tomorrow, but we are not going anyplace. We are staying here until Tuesday, probably 3 or 3:30, because we have Yom Kippur on Wednesday, and then we will be right back here on Thursday. We have to finish our work.

So that means if we can't work things out, we are going to be here Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I know we talk about this once in a while, and usually we are able to work things out, and I am glad we are. But just in case we can't, no one should think they are going to be able to catch an airplane out of here on Friday.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3525

Mr. President, I will be very quick. I know the assistant leader for the minority is here and I don't want to take a lot of his time.

The Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, has assembled a broad package of legislation. It is bipartisan in nature, and that is an understatement, to support the needs of sportsmen throughout the country. He has worked with these groups, and I have been in meetings with him where he has tried to get Democratic Senators to back off and let this package go forward, and there have been adjustments made because of problems Republicans had and Democrats had. So I appreciate very much his work.

What his bill does is to combine about 20 bills that are important to the sportsmen community around this country. These measures would promote hunting, fishing and recreational access and they would foster habitat conservation through voluntary programs. More than 50 national groups support this. These are sportsmen and conservation groups.

This is an example of leadership that is important in this body, to work on things that bring together a disparate group of bills, bipartisan in nature, and try to move forward. We ought to pass this package today.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 504, S. 3525, the Sportsmen's Act of 2012; that the bill be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, we are trying to work through and finish all the issues we need to address before we can finish this work period. I wish to make it very clear to everyone, as I said a couple hours ago on the floor, that we can finish all our work tomorrow. But if we don't finish it tomorrow, we are going to continue to work on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, until late in the afternoon.

We have to get done a few things that are important. I know there are a lot of things we aren't going to be able to do, but that has been the way it has been all Congress. I am prepared now to ask consent to move along on one very significant part of what we need to do. The consent I will read into the Record in just in a short time addresses voting on a continuing resolution we need to keep the government running. It addresses votes on very different concerns of others who have sought to hold up consideration on the continuing resolution. I believe, with this consent, we have gone that extra mile.

The junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, has been said to be holding up everything. We have two American Ambassadors, one to Iraq and one to Pakistan, and one would think we should be able to get this done. We have had something extremely important sponsored by, I think, 81 Senators, a containment resolution relating to Iran. So without belaboring the point, I have worked things out with Senator Paul, and we are going to have a vote on something he has wanted a vote on for a long time. We can do that.

I explained to a few Republicans earlier today--in fact, some last night--that I was working with Senator Paul and I think we have done that. He has been reasonable, and even though ideologically I sometimes disagree with him, I have always found him to be someone I can talk to. So I will be terribly disappointed if this person, whom it has been said by the Republicans appears to be holding up everything, now isn't holding up everything and that the Republicans, if there is an objection to this, are just hiding behind him because there is no reason we shouldn't

be able to move forward with this legislation.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3576, S.J. Res. 41, and H.J. Res. 117

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, at a time to be determined by me, after consultation with Senator McConnell, it be in order and the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 3576, which is the legislation I have just referred to by Senator Paul, the text of which is at the desk; that there be up to 60 minutes of debate, equally divided between Senators Paul and Kerry or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that if the bill does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, it be considered as having been read twice, placed on the calendar; that following the vote on passage of that legislation, S. 3576, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 418, S.J. Res. 41; that there be up to 60 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Kerry and Paul or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution; that if the joint resolution is not passed, it be returned to the calendar; that following the vote on the joint resolution, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 117, the continuing resolution; that the motion to proceed be agreed to, there be up to 60 minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the joint resolution; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold; that following the vote, the majority leader be recognized; and, finally, that no amendments, motions or points of order be in order during the consideration of these measures.

Mr. President, to everyone within the sound of my voice, I say again, we shouldn't be surprised. Even though there had been all this focus on Senator Paul, that he was holding up everything, that is not the way it is. He is not holding up everything. It is the Republicans.

All this has been cleared on my side. It is unfortunate. We will continue to work to reach an agreement. We need to move this vote on the CR. Unless we have some agreement, it is going to occur at 8:45 tomorrow night, which is when the 30 hours expires. So I think we need to continue to see if we can work our way through the logjam the Republicans have put up here.

If nothing happens, we will be out of here in a little bit tonight and proceed to vote tomorrow night. But Rand Paul is not holding up things, as has been rumored around here for weeks.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8 and S. 3412

Mr. President, on July 25, the Senate conducted two important votes on dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff. That day the Senate voted on extension of the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009. Democrats, and a majority of the Senate, voted to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families while at the same time reducing the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years. Republicans, on the other hand, insisted on a vote on their plan--a plan that provided tax breaks averaging $160,000 for millionaires at the same time it increased taxes by $1,000 for 25 million American middle-class families. On July 25, we held votes on those two plans. The Senate voted down the Republican plan on a bipartisan basis by a vote of 45 to 54. The Senate passed the Democrats' plan by a vote of 51 to 48.

Since then, the House of Representatives also voted on this matter and the House sent the Senate its revenue measure. Now that we have had the debate and the votes, it is time to go to conference with the House. The Senate has voted and so has the House. It is time for us to resolve our differences. We believe the tax extenders should not apply to people making more than $250,000 a year. We should extend them for people making less than $250,000 a year. So let's have a conference on this. This process would be important.

Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, my Republican friends often place roadblocks in the way of routine Senate business. This is simply routine. Just last week, Moody's said it would probably cut America's credit rating if congressional leaders couldn't reach an agreement to address the fiscal cliff and produce long-term deficit reduction. The bill the Senate passed in July is a big part of dealing with that fiscal cliff and the American people deserve their leaders to move to advance this legislation, and that is why I am going to ask the following consent, which is simply going to conference on a bill that has passed the House and a bill that has passed the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 502, H.R. 8; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3412, a bill extending the tax cuts I have referred to in 2001, 2003, and 2009 for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of all small businesses, which passed the Senate on July 25, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, consisting of the membership of the Finance Committee; with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I hope the Record can pick up the smile on my face. Why in the world--when the Senate has already acted, with a majority of the Senate saying we do not believe there should be taxes extended to the rich; that we believe in protecting the middle class-- would we agree to extending all these tax cuts? We can't do that. That was a bipartisan vote set out in the Senate. That was the Senate's position.

We are asking simply to go to conference on the Senate's position. The other side is insisting the minority position prevail. That is an unusual situation and that is not the way democracy in America works. So I would not accept his modification to my request.

It would be 60 minutes on the amendment, equally divided between Senator Kerry and Senator Paul. If the Senator wants more time, and we are not doing much now, we could have more time.

Mr. President, it would seem to me that the Senator's concern should be directed toward Senator Paul, not me. It sounds to me he may vote against the Paul amendment from what I have heard. If he is that concerned about it, I think we should get it up, and if we want more time, we could have more time on it. But at this stage, no amendments would be called for, and I think we should vote on the Paul amendment.

I think it is pretty clear as to what has gone on this past Congress. When the Republican leader says his No. 1 issue is to make sure Obama doesn't get reelected, I think that probably is what has held up this Congress from doing all kinds of things.

Now, let me rewind. Since I have been the majority leader--which has been 6 years--we have had to try to overcome 380 Republican filibusters. This is two now. During the same period of time--6 years-- that Lyndon Johnson was President--and he was majority leader before he became President--he had to file cloture once.

My friend from Arizona and I have served together now 30 years in the Congress. His agitation should not be directed toward me. They are the ones holding up hundreds of bills in the Energy Committee and basically everything we have tried to do because their No. 1 goal, if they follow their leader--and they have done a pretty good job doing that--has been to make sure the country is in such a shape that maybe they may get lucky and have Governor Romney elected.

So if there is going to be objection by the assistant majority leader, I understand that. But don't be blaming Rand Paul for everything being held up.

Here is what we have held up, and I will mention it just briefly. Wouldn't it be nice if America had an ambassador to Iraq? Wouldn't it be nice if America had an ambassador to Pakistan? Wouldn't it be nice if a piece of legislation that has 81 cosponsors dealing with the Iran containment resolution, that we could vote on that?

So as I have indicated--and this will be the third time today--we have work to do--not a lot but we have work to do. One is to pass the continuing resolution, and we will do that. We can either do it the hard way or the easy way. As you know from the vote on the motion to proceed to that, there is overwhelming support for that. That is as bipartisan as anything could be. The Speaker and I worked on this with our staffs, and we came up with something I think is pretty fair. So we are going to pass that. If the Republicans want to stall on that like they have on everything else, they can do that. But we are going to finish this.

The American people need that done, and we are going to get it done. It may take a vote on Saturday, it may take one on Sunday, but we are going to finish the CR. So everybody should understand we are not going anyplace. My No. 1 place to go is the Senate. That is my life, the Senate. So I am going to be here and make sure that we do as much of the people's business as we can, in spite of their No. 1 goal being to defeat Obama rather than trying to legislate for the American people.

As I understand it, the request that I made has been objected to, and the request of the Senator from Arizona has been objected to; is that right?

So we have dual objections.

Mr. President, last month the Senate Finance Committee reported bipartisan legislation on what are called the tax extenders.

The Finance Committee tax extender legislation addresses a significant part of the so-called fiscal cliff. The Finance Committee bill would extend relief from the alternative minimum tax through 2013. It would extend tax incentives for renewable energy and energy conservation through 2013, and it would extend through 2013 the traditional extenders, among which are the R&D tax credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the tuition deduction.

The Finance Committee reported that bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 19 to 5. The bill cuts taxes by $205 billion. It cuts taxes by $143 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone. Passing this bill today would help remove some of the uncertainties surrounding tax policy. Passing this bill today would help our economy. Passing this bill is the least we should do now.

So I ask unanimous consent the Senate Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9; that a Baucus amendment, which is at the desk, the text of which is identical to S. 3251, the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 as reported by the Finance Committee, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. President, we have already reached that position. That is not how things work in a democracy or, I doubt, anyplace else. So I object to my friend's suggested modification.

Sure.

Mr. President, to my friend--and he is my friend for whom I have admiration and respect--the senior Senator from Arizona makes my case. He is absolutely right. This is, I am sorry to say, the least productive Congress perhaps ever. Why? Because everything we have tried to do they have objected to. Everything.

Once in a while we are able to work together to get something done, but he has made my case for me, absolutely, because their No. 1 goal has been to defeat the President of the United States for reelection.

Now, we have had a lot of debates. Senator Paul has been here many times talking about this issue. I have no lock on wisdom around here. There are a lot of people who have much more wisdom than I do. But I do have the obligation to try to move legislation along on things that we have to work on here. If people want more time on this, fine. I have worked with Senator Paul. He has agreed to this. If there are some reasonable changes, I will agree to those. I am not locked in. But whoever wants to do this, I would suggest they go to Senator Paul, not to me. I am happy to be a conduit to try to get something done that is reasonable and fair.

If an hour is too short, we haven't been doing much today, there is plenty of time to debate legislation. So I am happy to do that.

Mr. President, I understand the rules of the Senate fairly well. This is not the first time a Senator has held things up. I came here during the days of the Senator from Ohio, Howard Metzenbaum, and he was pretty good at slowing things down and holding things up. Jesse Helms was really good at it, and we have had a number of others.

So as I have said on the Senate floor, I think we should change some rules around here. I am not for getting rid of the filibuster. I don't want to get rid of the filibuster, but we need to change the filibuster rule. Why should we have, on every piece of legislation, a motion to proceed? It takes the Senate a week to get on a bill when a single Senator objects to it. That doesn't sound very good to me.

I hope with a new Congress we can change some of the rules around here. But I am happy to work with my friend from Arizona. I know he is someone who travels the world. He has been in the forefront of changes that have taken place in this world. I understand his concern about this legislation.

If he has something else he thinks might work better than this, talk to Senator Paul. I am always reachable, any time of the night or day.

I will say this so it will save a lot of trouble for anybody. We are not going to have amendments to this. Amendment days are over. We have been blindsided many times on amendments.

I will be happy if my friend can come up with something that will allow maybe a side-by-side or something. I will be happy to do that. I am open to negotiations in any way that is reasonable. If someone does not want to contact Rand Paul, I will--if somebody feels awkward doing that, I do not. I feel totally free to talk to any Senator about anything. That is why I reached out to Rand Paul.

Mr. President, the reason I went into that is because my friend Senator McCain talked about how little we have accomplished. I didn't bring that up. I indicated why we have accomplished so little.

I also say to my two Republican friends who are on the floor--there are three actually--this: The resolution, a piece of legislation that Senator Paul is putting forward, I am not going to vote for it. Senator Paul knows that. Democrats are not going to vote for this. The problem is the Republicans are split, not us. They are split. Their own caucus is split on what to do with the Paul amendment, not us.

I am happy to work with everybody. I have conferred. I say to the Republican assistant leader, I talked to my leadership team this morning. I talked to my caucus today about this. Republicans have a caucus the same time we do and they knew, and they knew before the caucus because everybody knew, what was going on with this. It was no secret. I talked to Republican Senators before their caucus. This is no surprise.

The hour time I put was arbitrary. I acknowledge that. If somebody wants more time to debate this issue, I am fine. I don't care.

I appreciate my friends' involvement, both of them.

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

Mr. President, first of all, I extend my appreciation to the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He indicated he was going to say a few things about me and he told me beforehand, and I appreciate that. That is the way the Senate should operate. So I appreciate very much my friend from Iowa doing that.

He came to the floor and, in effect, said that I said--I have said it on a number of occasions, but he picked one date--that Governor Romney could not be confirmed as a Cabinet officer because to be a Cabinet officer, you have

to give at least 3 years of your tax returns. Sometimes they ask for more. So my friend Senator Grassley came to the floor and suggested he could be confirmed. Well, not really. The Senator from Iowa conceded my point. Mitt Romney could not be confirmed for Treasury Secretary. He could not be confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He could not be confirmed as Trade Representative. He could not even be confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs and a number of other positions.

But there is a larger point to be made here. And why they would bring this up again I do not know, but they did. But there is a larger point to be made here. When you are running for the highest office in the land--President of the United States--you are also held to a higher standard of conduct than someone who wants to be a Cabinet officer or sub-Cabinet officer who gives us their tax returns.

The least Mitt Romney owes the American people--the least he owes them--is some honesty and openness. That we do not have.

The Senator from Iowa is correct about one thing--and this is what he said: The contents of a candidate's taxes do speak volumes about his character. That is what Senator Grassley said, and I agree with him.

Let's not forget, Mitt Romney could solve this problem tomorrow-- tonight--by releasing his tax returns, which he refuses to do. Why?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, the week of September 17th marks the third annual celebration of Congress Week, sponsored by the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. The Association is an independent alliance of institutions that preserve the papers of Members of Congress and use those papers to promote the study of Congress.

Congress Week's theme this year is ``Congress: Chosen by the People.'' Congress is the only branch of the Federal Government that is elected by the people. It is important, as Members of Congress, to manage and preserve our own papers for future historical research and study of our democracy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the President of the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress and the Chair of the Congressional Papers Roundtable about Congress Week be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to honor Phil and Jennifer Satre, who have spent more than 35 years as dedicated stewards of their community and champions for education. These college sweethearts are model parents, grandparents, philanthropists, and business and community leaders in northern Nevada. I am pleased that KNBP Public Broadcasting is recognizing the Satres with a special honor at the 15th Annual Aged to Perfection Tribute Dinner.

Phil Satre's work in Nevada began in 1975 with the local law firm Vargas & Barlett in Reno. Five years later, Phil started his career with Harrah's Entertainment, where he held various positions, including chairman and CEO, until his retirement in 2005. Phil was named Best Chief Executive in the Casino and Hotel Industries by the Wall Street Journal and was inducted into the Gaming Hall of Fame by the American Gaming Association, just two of his many outstanding honors and

awards. Although Phil is retired, he remains active in the community, serving on boards such as the National World War II Museum and the National Center for Responsible Gaming, NCRG.

Jennifer Satre was the cofounder of the Satre Family Fund at the Community Foundation of Western Nevada. She has served the State on multiple boards, including the University of Nevada, Reno Foundation, where she was a board trustee from 2001 to 2006, board chair in 2006, and became a trustee emerita in 2007. Jennifer, a tireless advocate for education, taught at Peavine Elementary School in Reno for seven years, nourishing, developing, and enhancing young minds to continue her legacy of great service to the community.

Due to their tremendous personal and professional success, together, Mr. and Mrs. Satre have generously supported the University of Nevada, Reno, and Stanford University, their alma mater. They continue their philanthropic legacy to the State of Nevada through the Satre Family Fund, the Phil and Jennifer Satre Harrah's Employee Scholarship Award, and other initiatives focused on community empowerment and the quality of education.

I am pleased to stand here today to recognize their remarkable contributions to the Nevada family. I am grateful to Phil and Jennifer for their exceptional service, community engagement, and love for the Silver State. You will forever be recognized as great champions for the State of Nevada.

Mr. President, I stand before you to recognize and honor Mr. Bill Cline for his dedication to the development and expansion of businesses in Nevada, across the United States, and throughout the world.

Bill's leadership was essential to the establishment and growth of two U.S. Commercial Service offices: the first, in Las Vegas in 2001, and the second in Reno in 2004. The offices have assisted and continue to assist small- and medium-sized business in northern and southern Nevada expand their international exports of products and services. Bill has led international initiatives to develop strong, sustainable growth and improve international trade advocacy with the United States. These initiatives have endorsed green building, renewable energy, energy efficiency, water conservation and recycling, all of which hold great potential for U.S. exporters.

Bill's dedication to his community is demonstrated by his 36-year commitment to public service, business development, and training. Though Bill retires on October 1, 2012, as director of the U.S. Commercial Service in Reno, I look forward to his continued contributions to the Silver State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following resolutions, en bloc, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 562, S. Res. 563, S. Res. 564, S. Res. 565, S. Res. 566, S. Res. 567, S. Res. 568, S. Res. 569, and S. Res. 570.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 557 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.