Floor Statements

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

I now withdraw my motion to proceed to Calendar No. 410, S. 3220.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk on the motion to proceed to this matter.

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

I say to my friend, through the Chair, there is no one in this body who has a reputation for a bigger and better fighter than Barbara Mikulski, the senior Senator from Maryland. I entered the motion to reconsider the vote because I want the fight to continue.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the statement made by the Senator from Maryland, as usual. She will outline a way to proceed on this matter that will be dignified and strong.

I filed cloture on this motion to proceed to this very important bill relating to farm programs in America and nutrition programs in America--extremely important legislation. I am confident--maybe it is the wrong thing in the temperament of the Senate today--that we are going to be able to complete this bill. It is an important bill for America. It will be a good thing for this Congress to do this farm bill. The two managers of this bill, Senator Stabenow of Michigan and Senator Roberts of Kansas, have done a remarkably good job. This bill creates jobs and reduces subsidies by a significant amount. Where else would you find a bill that reduces the debt of this country by $24 billion? This is a fine piece of legislation, and I hope we can work something out so we do not have to have a vote on this matter on Thursday, that we can start legislating.

We have had good fortune shine upon us on the last couple of big bills we brought through here. We had the managers work with floor staff to work on the relevant amendments and then have a way to finish the bill. I hope we can do that.

I repeat, I have confidence in Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. They are very good legislators. We need to proceed on this bill. This bill is not a Democratic bill or Republican bill, it is a bill for America.

I will be happy to.

Yes. In the State of Nevada--I am sure it is maybe more than that in California--in the State of Nevada, women earn $400,000 less. A man in his lifetime makes X number of dollars, and in Nevada a woman makes $400,000 less--in fact, a little more.

I say to my friend, through the Chair, she is absolutely right. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans across America support this legislation. Eighty-one percent of men across America support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the extraordinary career of Phillip D. Morse, Sr., who served the United States Capitol Police with great distinction for 27 years, serving the final 5\1/2\ years as Chief of Police.

Chief Morse entered duty with the Capitol Police in May 1985. After training, his first duty assignment was providing security and law enforcement to the Senate. Since that time, he has worked in many different areas throughout the department, including the Containment and Emergency Response Team, Patrol Mobile Response Division, Capitol Division, and Office of Professional Standards and Compliance. Chief Morse eventually moved to the Dignitary Protection Division, where he implemented new financial management controls for the division and managed the overall security planning for the 2004 Democratic and Republican Conventions.

In 2004, he was promoted to the rank of Captain and returned to the Capitol Division. Upon his promotion to Inspector, Chief Morse assumed command of the Capitol Division and oversaw all police, security, and protective operations at the Capitol Building. During this time, Chief Morse established a Capitol Security Survey,

which addressed emergency procedures and protocols for prevention, response, and mitigation of critical incidents. In addition, he planned the security, evacuation, and emergency response for the 55th Presidential Inauguration. He later served as deputy chief of the Uniformed Services Bureau, the largest component of the Capitol Police.

On October 30, 2006, he was appointed as chief of the Capitol Police. As leader of the nearly 1,800-officer force, Chief Morse has overseen enhancements in numerous areas, including recruiting, training, technology, community outreach, and emergency preparedness. During his tenure, Chief Morse oversaw the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center and the merger between the Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police.

Throughout his career, Chief Morse has continuously exhibited exceptional skills as a crisis manager, security coordinator, innovator, and team builder. Always leading by example, Chief Morse motivated all who came into contact with him through his enthusiasm and flexibility. Thanks to his leadership and service, the Capitol Police today is a stronger, more professional, and effective law enforcement agency.

Born in Wilmington, NC, Chief Morse holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science degree in management from the Johns Hopkins University. He is a loving and devoted husband and father of three children.

Speaking both for himself and the ranks of law enforcement officers who serve the Congress, Chief Morse once stated, ``The security and protection of this great institution is not only our job, but we consider it a sacred duty and privilege to serve you, the Congressional staff, and the millions of visitors from every corner of the world who come to the United States Capitol complex every year.'' We have all benefited from his distinction and dedication.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I congratulate Chief Morse on his well- earned retirement from the United States Capitol Police and salute his distinguished career.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 410, S. 3220.

Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed to this measure called the Paycheck Fairness Act. At 5 p.m. this afternoon the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Timothy Hillman to be U.S. District Judge for Massachusetts. There will be 30 minutes of debate at that time led by Senator Leahy. At 5:30 p.m., there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Hillman nomination.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--

S.J. Res. 41

Mr. President, S.J. Res. 41 is at the desk and now due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this joint resolution.

Mr. President, back in 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, women at that time were working year-round and took home about 59 cents for every dollar paid to their male coworkers doing the same job. While passage of that landmark legislation helped narrow the pay gap, today American women still only take home 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male colleagues for doing the exact same job.

Jane, who works in a job, gets 77 cents, while Jack, who also works at that job, gets $1. That is why women are concerned about how they are being treated. It is simply not fair that any woman working the same hours at the same job should make less money.

Often these inequities stretch over decades, and many women don't even know they are victims. It took one Las Vegas woman 15 years to find out she made $20,000 per year less than her male colleagues although she did the same work and worked just as hard. That is $20,000 a year over 15 years. She was paid about 66 cents on the dollar compared to her male coworkers despite being a top sales associate with a Las Vegas payroll company.

Over the decade and a half she worked there, her employers cheated her out of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of pay. Why? Because she is a woman. Her story, though, has a happy ending. She got a lawyer, settled out of court, and has now gone on with her own successful business.

But many victims don't have that happy ending. Many victims of years or even decades of gender-based pay discrimination have nothing to be happy about. The average woman who works full time, year-round in Nevada makes $7,300 less than a man doing the same job. I am sure, Mr. President, it is about the same in Connecticut.

Although the wage gap has narrowed in the last half century since Congress declared women are entitled to equal pay for equal work, gender discrimination remains a serious problem in the workplace. That is why Democrats overcame the Republican obstructionism last Congress to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It was the second thing we did in a very productive Congress.

Why did we do it? Lilly Ledbetter had worked for years and years doing the same job as her male counterparts until she finally found out one day they were being paid a lot more money than she was for doing the same work. So she went to court. The court said the statute of limitations had run out.

The Presiding Officer is one of the most gifted lawyers we have in the Senate. He was a long-time attorney general in the State of Connecticut and understands the law very well. Lilly Ledbetter's case was so unfair because she didn't bring her case soon enough. She didn't know she was being cheated. They said people have a certain period of time to bring up this matter--I think it was 3 years. Even though it had been well more than a decade she had been working there, she was out of luck.

So we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act. I met her on a number of occasions and, boy, she has a lot of spunk in her. And rightfully so because a lot of people would not have fought. She took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court and she lost there. That is why we had to do something legislatively.

This law, the Lilly Ledbetter legislation, makes it possible for victims of gender discrimination to successfully challenge unequal pay even if the indiscretion has been going on for years.

Despite that achievement in the last Congress, there is a great deal of work to be done to ensure that American women earn comparable pay for a day's work. It is crucial that we pass the bill that is now before this body, the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is common sense. It would give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination, bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary information, and help ensure more adequate compensation for victims with gender-based pay discrimination.

I am fortunate that I have five children. My oldest is my daughter. She was a good student and a wonderful daughter. No one could be a better daughter than my daughter Lana. She graduated from college, and she came to Washington to spend some time with her parents before she decided what she wanted to do permanently. She went around looking for a job on Capitol Hill.

The first question every person she interviewed with asked was, Do you type? Can you imagine that? She could type. How do you start a debate with that? They asked her that because she is a woman. Women get an unfair shake in modern-day America, and we are trying to do something about it.

We want workers to have stronger tools to combat wage discrimination. We want to bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary information. Some people get fired because they have gone around and found out that a man working the same job as them makes a lot more money than they do. They get fired for just telling another employee what they made.

We also want this paycheck fairness bill to pass because it would help ensure more adequate compensation for victims of gender-based pay discrimination. Today women make up nearly half of the workforce, and an increasing number of women are the primary wage earners for their families.

When I went to law school in Washington--a good school, George Washington University--I can only recall one woman in our class. There may have been two or three, but I don't think so. Now over half the women in law schools in America are women. There is no reason that a woman graduating from law school should get paid less than a man graduating from law school when they are doing the same work.

Today women make up nearly half of the workforce. As I said, an increasing number of women are the primary wage earners for the family. We can tell that by what is going on in college. More than half of the students in college are women. So this problem affects women, children, and families across the country. And it really does.

With the economy struggling and families stretching every dollar, closing the pay gap is more important than ever. No woman working to support herself or her family should be paid less than a male counterpart. They are doing the same job, so they should be paid the same.

Some employers have taken advantage of women, knowing they would work for less. It might be a single parent, and they have said: We don't have to pay her what we pay him. Now with all of this going on, with the examples I have given, the Republicans are filibustering this bill. They will not even let us vote on it. But what else is new? They have filibustered even what they agree with. They don't agree with this. They don't want women to make the same amount of money, so they are filibustering this bill--they are filibustering even letting us get on the bill. They are filibustering what is called a motion-to-proceed rule that I think needs to be changed in this body, and it will someday.

They are filibustering the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation would help even the playing field for women in the workplace. If it seems unbelievable that the Republicans would block such a commonsense measure. Consider their track record in this Congress. Republicans have blocked legislation to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and first responders. They blocked that. They stalled important jobs measures such as the aviation bill. The FAA bill had 22 extensions. They finally got it done, but it was so hard. The FAA was closed down on one occasion for a week.

The highway bill has been stalled for months. It is in conference now. They opposed legislation to restore basic fairness to our Tax Code. What does that mean? We agree with the American people. About 80 percent of the American people believe someone who is making more than $1 million a year should pay more than somebody making $100,000 a year. But not our Republican friends. So they opposed legislation to restore basic fairness to our Tax Code. They twice derailed attempts to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling which put affordable education at risk for 7 million students.

What I am saying is if we don't get something done by the end of this month, the interest on a large number of student loans--the so-called Stafford loans--will grow from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It will double. They have stopped that twice.

They put women's lives at risk by holding the Violence Against Women Act in limbo on a hypertechnical issue. When I say ``hypertechnical,'' I mean just that. They would not let us go to conference on what we had passed and done here because it had a tax measure in it. By Washington standards, almost no money, a few million dollars. I know that is a lot, but is it a reason to stop this bill? Of course not.

They launched a series of attacks on women, their access to health care, and

even contraception. They have amassed an impressive record of destruction, of being on the wrong side of almost every issue. Unfortunately, it seems that the Paycheck Fairness Act may have two strikes against it. No. 1, it will be good for women and good for the economy, so Republicans are going to oppose it. Paycheck fairness is right for the country, but it appears Republicans will wind up on the wrong side of this issue as well. They will send the message to little girls across the country that their work is less valuable because they happen to be born female.

Little kids are so impressionistic. I hope everybody in this country saw the picture that appeared in major newspapers around the country last week.

There is a man who served as a U.S. marine at the White House. It is an important job--helping to provide security to the White House. It is traditional for Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. When the marine finishes their tour, the President brings that person and their family into the Oval Office to say thanks and goodbye. Well, the man who came in and who is represented in these pictures had a wife and two children, including a cute little 5-year-old boy all dressed up with a tie. The President asked the boys if they had a question. The 5- year-old had a big brother who was 9 or 10 years old. The little boy had a question, demonstrating the honesty of a 5-year-old.

The President couldn't hear him the first time. He said: What did you say?

The little boy said: Is your hair like mine?

He is a little African-American boy.

Is your hair like mine?

I am sure this little boy--I don't know, but I am sure people had questioned his hair, and he wanted to know if the President of the United States had hair just like his.

So the President leaned over and said: You can feel it.

When he felt the President's hair, he said: It is just like mine.

Doesn't that speak volumes about little children? That is what I am talking about. This little boy knew that even though his hair was different than everybody's hair whom he went to school with, he could be President just like the man whose hair he was able to feel.

What I have said here today is that it appears Republicans wind up on the wrong side of this issue we have talked about--paycheck fairness-- sending the message to little girls across the country that their work is less valuable because they happen to be born female. I hope the Republicans will change. They are not going to--we all know that--but hope springs eternal.

Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Reservation of Leader Time

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are now considering S. 3187, the FDA user fees legislation. There is an agreement now reached to complete this legislation today. Under the agreement, debate time will expire at 2 p.m. today, but if we are able to yield back time, up to 12 rollcall votes could begin earlier in order to complete action on the bill and to have a couple of votes in relation to the student loan interest rate hike. We will notify everyone if time is yielded back, but people should be aware of the need to come here--we hope before noon--to have a couple of votes. There will be no votes between 1 and 2 o'clock because of meetings both sides have.

We also worked out a tentative agreement yesterday on flood insurance, which is important to 6 million people. We need to get that done today also. I hope we can get that done.

I was pleased yesterday to reach an agreement with the Republican leader on how to move forward with this FDA bill. This legislation addresses shortages of lifesaving medicines by establishing a protocol to accomplish just that. It will ensure that FDA resources are there to approve new drugs and medical devices quickly and efficiently. We are going to consider, as I indicated, a number of relevant amendments. I am optimistic we will pass this strong, bipartisan bill.

This week has been productive. We have not had to break or try to break a single Republican filibuster. That is a good day in Washington. It doesn't happen very often. I hope it happens more often. If this trend continues, we could return to the way we used to be; that is, do what is good for the country and not be trying to stop everything that comes along.

I am also hopeful that this week the Senate will be able to find a path ahead to temporarily renew the Flood Insurance Program, as I have already indicated. We need a long-term solution to this problem. We have about 40,000 loans every day that are approved, and they are approved because you can make that check that you do have flood insurance. If there is no way to buy flood insurance, you cannot make that check in that box and you cannot get a loan. This would be devastating to our fragile economy, so we have to

get this done and get it done before the end of this month.

The collaborative work on that measure and the FDA bill renews my hope that Congress will reach an agreement to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling for 7 million young men and women. We will move to two proposals to freeze student interest rates at their current levels. The Republican proposal is paid for by stripping Americans of lifesaving preventive health care. I can't say it any more clearly than that. It would be a shame to use that pay-for. That program has already been stripped bare. To take any more from it would really hurt the health of America. Our proposal is paid for by closing a loophole that allowed wealthy Americans to dodge their taxes. I am certainly aware of how things work around here. Neither one of these is going to pass, I am sorry to say. These two proposals were not created equal. But I hope a few reasonable Republicans will join with us. We should not put Americans' health at risk. We need to come to an agreement on the student loan issue. We only have until the end of June to do this.

I also hope to resolve an issue dealing with paycheck fairness over the next work period. In addition to that, we are going to deal with the farm bill, flood insurance, as I have talked about, a small business tax relief program, cybersecurity, and some appropriations bills.

In the last Congress we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named after a stalwart woman from the South who was in effect cheated out of pay she deserved. She did the same work as men for many years but didn't get the same money. She sought redress in the courts, and they said: No, you can't do that; you should have done that when you first started working there. She didn't know she was being cheated at that time. We changed the law. Now people in the same situation as Lilly Ledbetter are not going to be bound by some phony set of rules that prevent someone from filing a lawsuit when they have been aggrieved.

While the wage gap has narrowed in the five decades since Congress declared women entitled to equal pay for equal work, gender discrimination remains a serious problem in the workplace. The work we did with Lilly Ledbetter was the single most important piece of legislation to ensure women have a chance to protect themselves. It is something we should have done before. We didn't. It is done now. Women make up about half of today's workforce. More than half the students in our law schools are women. More than half the students in medical schools are women. They still, though, will only earn 77 cents on every dollar compared to their male colleagues for doing the same work, and with an increasing number of women leading American households, this is a problem that affects children and families across the country.

The legislation, led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is a logical extension of protections under the Equal Pay Act. It will help close the gap by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay and creating strong incentives for employers to obey the laws already in place.

Republicans deny waging war on women. Yet they have launched a series of attacks on women's access to health care and contraception this year. Now they have an opportunity to back up their excuses with action, and we are going to give them that opportunity. We hope they will join us and send a clear message that America values the incredible contributions women make every day.

Would the Chair be so kind as to announce the work we are going to do here today.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the time, as usual, did not run as quickly as we wanted. I ask unanimous consent that we only have two votes prior to lunch today, and that the next vote start at 5 minutes until 2 today after we complete this vote.

Mr. President, I have had, during this short period of time, four different Senators come to me and say: Please hold the votes to 10 minutes, with the 5-minute penalty. So we are going to do that. A number of Senators already missed votes today. We are going to cut those votes off. If you are not here, there is no excuse. These votes have been scheduled since yesterday. So we are going to turn in these votes exactly at 15 minutes. The clerks understand that. If a Senator is late, they are late.

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, I know people are very anxious to move on. I am, too, but I have to say just a word. I have said in my own caucus how much I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Enzi. He is a fine Senator. He and Senator Harkin have worked so well together. It is exemplary for what the rest of us should do. I appreciate very much the work they have done. I repeat, it is how we should get other work done.

This is an important piece of legislation, and we made it look simple; it was not. But because of these two fine Senators, we were able to get this done in a very short period of time and get good things done for the American people.

I am going to use the leader time, not the 5 minutes we were allocated.

Madam President, we have all heard of reverse engineering. What we just heard is reverse reasoning. This is one of the most interesting things I have heard--that makes no sense. We have been trying to get on this bill for weeks. The Republicans have refused to allow us to get on the bill.

The student loan issue is important. We should have already completed this--had we been allowed to get on the bill--but we were not allowed to get on the bill. We were faced with one of our many filibusters-- scores of them. Not one, two, three or four, scores of them. This is another example of them stopping us from legislating on a bill. Now to come here and say we could have been doing something--my friend knows the rules of this Senate as well as I do. He knows his suggestion is absurd.

I object.

Has all time expired?

Time has been yielded back. We think there will be two more votes. I can't say there will be no more votes. We have a few more items to be worked out, such as flood insurance. I can't give everyone that assurance at this time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as we have noted on the floor many times in the last few days, the Flood Insurance Program covers almost 6 million people. It was set to expire next week. If it were to expire, new housing construction would stall--in fact, it may come to a halt--real estate transactions would come to a screaming halt, and taxpayers would be on the hook for future disasters. We have no choice. We have to get this done.

I appreciate the work of Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Tester, and Ranking Member Vitter. I also appreciate the work that was put into this effort by Senator Coburn, who worked closely with Senator Schumer, and we were able to get this extension done. I am grateful for everyone's help. It was team work that got us where we are.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 407, H.R. 5740, flood insurance extension; that a Johnson of South Dakota substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. And if anyone has anything to say about this, they can put it in the Record.

Mr. President, this will be the last vote coming up. No speeches. We will start voting.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to calendar No. 410,

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived, and the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3220 occur at 2:15 p.m., on Tuesday, June 5.

Mr. President, we are going to arrange a vote Monday night on one of the nominees who is trying to become a judge.

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

Mr. President, last month, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization on a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 31. Fifteen Republican Senators--including all the women on the other side of the aisle--joined Senate Democrats to support this important legislation. Senate Democrats strongly stand behind the bill we passed. It makes clear that all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault should enjoy the protections of the Violence Against Women Act. We don't believe we should be in the business of picking and choosing which victims deserve protection.

In contrast, the bill passed by House Republicans fails to include crucial protections for Native American women--I have 22 tribal organizations in my State, for example--gay and lesbian victims, battered immigrant women, and victims on college campuses and in subsidized housing. The House bill would roll back many important and longstanding protections in current law for abused immigrant victims-- protections that have never been controversial and previously have enjoyed widespread bipartisan support.

So there are many differences to be worked out between the House and the Senate in this crucial piece of legislation. The right place to work out these differences is in conference. That is why we seek today to go to conference with the House on this important legislation, and that is why we object to simply passing the House bill that has been sent to us.

The House has raised, I think unfortunately, the so-called blue slip problem, which seems to be an issue they raise all the time when there is a bill they do not like.

Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5652, Calendar No. 398; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the language of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, as passed by the Senate on April 26 by a vote of 68 to 31, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with all the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Republican leader is now proposing an amendment to the Senate-passed bill--a Senate-passed bill that we are very proud of. It has been engineered and advocated by all Democratic Senators but mainly by the 12 women who are part of our caucus. This is an important piece of legislation. We all feel very strongly about this.

I haven't looked at all the details of this amendment, but I understand it. My first response is that the amendment is something the conferees should be working on. We can't do that without the proper input from all the interested parties, and we have 52, other than myself, on my side of the Capitol. That is why I have sought to go to conference with the product the Senate passed.

It may be that sometime in the future, after we evaluate all these pieces that have been suggested by my friend, the Republican leader, we may be able to proceed along this route, if, in fact, we get to conference. But we have to get to conference, and we have to have wider discussions airing the proposed amendment we have had just a little time to look at, at this stage.

I understand my friend's proposal, and I object to it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the exemplary citizenship of Gary Bates. This is recognition for a life that has been lived and is continuing to be lived well--the kind of honorable life that too often goes unrecognized.

Gary's life has been defined by fighting. He began life in Henderson, NV fighting to avoid the challenges of a difficult home. He took this fighting spirit into the Marine Corps, where he served honorably until 1966 when he began an impressive career as a professional heavyweight boxer. As a regular name on the Las Vegas strip, he faced off with big names like Ken Norton, Ron Lyle and Gerry Cooney. There is nothing to idealize about many of the choices he made and paths he took in this phase of his life, but what is admirable is how he fought to turn his life around. He learned from the mistakes he made, and turned potential stumbling blocks into effective stepping stones to a productive life.

Recognizing a better way of living, Gary settled down by marrying his wife Carmen and raising two daughters. But Gary did not stop fighting. Finding inspiration in his Catholic faith, he picked up the fight for the less fortunate and endangered. Some of Gary's feats border on the incredible. He once saved the life of a complete stranger, Charles H. Case. While visiting Las Vegas, Charles crashed into an off-ramp rail and his car exploded into flames. Luckily for Charles, Gary witnessed the crash, broke the front left window and freed his pinned body from the enflamed car. Another time, while working in a downtown casino, Gary chased a fleeing thief through an alley into another casino and, as the police reported, decked him with a single punch to the right cheekbone. Gary was never motivated by or sought praise for these actions, a fact that is evidenced by many other low-profile acts of service. He has donated more than 25 gallons of his blood. Additionally, Gary has uniquely compatible blood marrow that he has amazingly matched with five non-relatives. He will tell you that of all his feats he is most proud of his marrow donation that saved the life of a 1-year-old boy.

I am pleased to recognize my friend Gary Bates and to give him some of the praise he has never asked, but certainly deserves. He has said he would take a bullet for me, but I think he would take one for anyone in need. Even at 67 he exercises daily so that he can be physically, not just mentally, ready to meet the call of anyone in distress. He continues to be an example to Nevadans and Americans that anyone can turn in their boxing gloves or brass knuckles for the work gloves of a citizen making our society a better place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of Presidential Nomination 1520, David J. Lane of Florida, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as U.S. Representative to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture; that the nomination be confirmed; the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of PN 1565, 16 Public Health Service nominations received by the Senate on April 26, 2012, beginning with Joseph R. Fontana and ending with Joy A. Mobley; and PN 1679, 114 Public Health Service nominations received by the Senate on May 15, 2012, beginning with Mary J. Choi and ending with Meghan M. Zomorodi; that the nominations be confirmed; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 640, and that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 261, 338, 339, 340, 665, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 706, 707, 708, 710, 711, 712, 713, 715, 716, 717, 725, 727 through 757, and 758; and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Foreign Service, Marine Corps, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.