Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Republican leader is on the floor. He is going to offer an amendment. The one on this side is not ready. There has been an agreement, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be allowed to lay down his amendment. When the one on the Democratic side is laid down, which will be momentarily, it will be considered the first amendment in order.

Would my friend from South Carolina allow a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2112, an act making consolidated appropriations for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and related programs; that there be up to 90 minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report; further, that the vote on adoption be subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold.

Before there is a response to my request, I would tell everyone we are going to be in session tomorrow. I have spoken to the two managers of the bill. We will likely not have votes tomorrow. In fact, I don't think we will have votes tomorrow. But I would say to all Senators if they have amendments to offer, they should offer them because the time for the Defense authorization bill is winding down. People can't sit around and say we will do something next week because next week may be a lot shorter.

I would like to change that from 90 minutes to 120 minutes.

We can make it effective after a half hour of discussion.

I accept the modification with pleasure.

Finally, we will get some people offering some amendments.

Can we get the consent?

The Senator from South Carolina has the floor.

I would say to my friend, my friend from South Carolina yielded to me for a unanimous consent request.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we would yield back whatever time is left on the Democratic side.

Mr. President, we are going to continue to work tomorrow on the DOD authorization bill. Everyone has been told by the two managers of this bill that if they have amendments, they should offer them.

We are working on the Energy and Water bill. While we are making progress on that with Senators Feinstein and Lamar Alexander, we have some nominations we are working on.

The next vote will be at 5:30 on November 28.

We will be in session tomorrow.

Following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. The majority will control the first half and the Republicans the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We will continue to work on an agreement for the bill and notify Senators when votes are scheduled.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few days. We cannot have the Defense authorization bill eat up a lot of time after we get back from the recess we will have for Thanksgiving. So everyone should understand that we are going to move forward on the Defense authorization bill. It may not be tomorrow, it may not be the next day, but we have to do it before Thanksgiving. So I hope everyone understands. I know everyone wants to get home for Thanksgiving--we all do--but we have an obligation here.

In the Christmas period; that is, after Thanksgiving, we will have just a few weeks to get everything done. As important as the Defense authorization bill is, we can't eat days and days of that time in December. We have to finish that bill now. I know that won't be easy, so I would hope that people understand, if they have an idea that they are going to stop us from moving forward on the bill, on the motion to proceed, we are going to get that done and more. So that might mean we have to work past Thursday, past Friday, and if we have procedural obstacles on that very important legislation, it will mean we will have to work the weekend and into next week. So I want to make sure everyone understands that. So all Senators who are watching and listening, and especially the staff, just make sure you have alternate reservations to leave Washington.

Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much these days, although I had a meeting with some veterans groups earlier today, and I indicated to them that maybe they are going to bring us some good luck because we were able to pass part of the President's jobs bill--the veterans employment--with an overwhelming majority. That was really good news, and I hope that is the beginning of some good days ahead of us.

We do agree Congress must do something about the unemployment crisis we face. We have 14 million Americans out of work. There is no more pressing issue facing Congress or the country than jobs. Our plan, the Democrats' plan to address this problem, has been very straightforward. We have advocated for policies that will create jobs by investing in what makes this country great--our infrastructure, our education system, and our innovative workforce. Despite Republican obstructionism, we have continued to fight for middle-class jobs, bringing to the Senate floor bill after bill designed to bring Americans back to work.

I met yesterday with the Business Roundtable, a stellar organization with the finest business executives we have in America today. I told them that I know they are all doing well financially, and I went over what we had proposed a week or so ago; that is, we need to do something about infrastructure that is deteriorating.

I said we were able to put forward a piece of legislation that said: Let's

spend $50 billion creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We would not punish millionaires and billionaires. What we would do is, people fortunate enough to make $1 million in a given year, we would say that on any money they make over $1 million, they would have to pay a surtax of seven-tenths of 1 percent. I said: Does anybody out here think that is an onerous suggestion? Nobody raised their hand because it isn't. But on a straight party-line vote, it failed.

So we are going to continue to fight for middle-class jobs, bringing to the Senate floor bill after bill, as we have done, and we will bring some more in the future to put Americans back to work.

The Republicans have taken a different approach. I talked about it yesterday. They have advocated a wholesale repeal of so-called job- killing regulations. We know and we were able to show yesterday that of the jobs that have been lost, about three-tenths of 1 percent have been because of regulations. Does that mean all regulations are perfect? Of course not. That is why the Obama administration--as did the Bush administration, as did the Clinton administration--had a review of what regulations are onerous and we should change or get rid of. So we understand that. For Republicans, that is their job-creating mantra: Get rid of regulations. It doesn't work. They say that rolling back everything from limits on air pollution to rules that keep our worksites safe will create jobs and revive our economy. The problem is it is just not true.

Business leaders and economists of every political stripe agree that this GOP mantra is a falsehood. A respected academic adviser to two Republican Presidents called this myth spread by Republicans to cover up their woeful lack of meaningful work plans to create jobs ``nonsense'' and ``made up.'' I talked about him in some detail yesterday.

The evidence, in fact, shows that government safeguards have little impact, if any, on employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics study found that last year only three-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs were caused by regulation. That is according to executives who ordered those layoffs. Nearly 85 times as many jobs were lost last year because of the slow economy.

But rather than work with us to turn this weak economy around, creating hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs, Republicans spent 11 months fighting Democratic policies that would have created these jobs. Meanwhile, they spent these past 11 months focused on killing regulations that make America safer, healthier, more efficient, and more productive.

For example, Republicans want to halt updates to the Clean Air Act. Since its passage 40 years ago during the Presidency of Richard Nixon-- do you know why President Nixon and the Congress got kind of interested in that? In Ohio, the Cuyahoga River kept catching fire. The river started burning, they would put it out, and it would start burning again. So President Nixon and others felt that maybe we should do something about the Clean Water Act. We also, during that same period of time, did something about the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Air Act alone has reduced emission of key pollutants by 70 percent, while the economy has grown by some 200 percent during that same period of time. Long-planned updates to the law would reduce emissions of mercury, acid gases, and other life-threatening pollutants into the air, saving lives.

Last year alone, the Clean Air Act saved the lives of more than 160,000 Americans, and it prevented 86,000 emergency room visits and 13 million lost workdays. This is money in the bank for all of us when we can save lives, prevent emergency room visits, and keep people working and not being sick. The Clean Air Act has prevented hundreds of thousands of cases of heart disease, chronic bronchitis, and asthma.

It is wonderful that we have helped clean the air, but we also have medicines that help. I can remember as a little boy going out to visit a woman who lived on the outskirts of Searchlight--that is really a couple miles out of the main part of Searchlight--and I have never forgotten this. She had asthma, and my mom went out to see if there was anything she could do to help. There wasn't a thing she could do to help. This woman was in such a state of distress. She said, ``I can't breathe,'' and she was making horrible noises that I have never forgotten. So things are better. One reason they are better is because of medicines but also cleaner air.

The Clean Air Act has prevented hundreds of thousands of cases of heart disease, as I have indicated, chronic bronchitis, and asthma, and last year alone it saved American companies and consumers $1.3 trillion by reducing medical costs and increasing productivity.

Of course, all these benefits come with a price tag, but for every dollar spent complying with the Clean Air Act, this Nation saves $30 in emergency room bills, lost work days, and environmental cleanup. And repealing the law of the Clean Air Act wouldn't make the costs go away. Instead, it would shift them from corporations to consumers. Complying with environmental safeguards is one of the costs of doing business in the United States. It is a part of being a good corporate citizen. That is why two-thirds of voters say that scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, not politicians in Congress, should set pollution standards. Seventy-one percent of voters, including the majority of Republicans, support the stronger environmental protections that are attacked by congressional Republicans. Eighty percent of voters believe those safeguards will improve public health and air quality.

There is plenty of evidence that smart, fair regulations save lives and communities lots of money and also consumers lots of money. There is more evidence that stronger watchdogs could have prevented disasters such as the 2008 financial crisis or the West Virginia mining accident that killed 21 people last year. Simply repeating the fiction that regulations kill jobs doesn't make it a fact. But even if there is one ounce of truth in the fable, there are many ways to steer the economy out of the ditch and create jobs that don't risk American lives.

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

Mr. President, we started out this week hoping we could complete a minibus--that means to do what we did a couple weeks ago and complete three appropriations bills at the same time. We had three good subjects. We had the underlying bill, Energy and Water. We moved from that and added to that Financial Services and Foreign Operations. We were unable to get a consent agreement that we could treat the package of bills the same way we treat other appropriations bills; that is, you cannot legislate on an appropriations bill and there have to be germane amendments offered. I was disappointed that we didn't get that agreement. I accept that.

The best news out of this is that, with the underlying bill, we have two of the finest Senators the Senate has ever had, Senators Feinstein and Alexander. They are knowledgeable,

easy to work with, and they understand that legislation is the art of compromise. They have done a wonderful job in the last 24 hours, working down the amendments. We have a number of amendments on the Republican side--a finite list--and we should have a Democratic list very quickly. We need to work it down a little more.

I appreciate very much the good work of Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein. The normal process would be to pull the bill. We are not going to do that. We are going to leave the bill on the calendar so we can move to it in a minute's notice, really. We will keep it around, and we hope to be able to move to that soon. We are going to have some down time, and anytime we do that, we should be able to finish this bill in a day or day and a half once we get the amendments worked out.

This will give us the opportunity to move to the Defense authorization bill. I indicated to Senators Levin and McCain well over a month ago that I would move to this bill. Not everything is worked out in it, but that is nothing unusual. It is a huge bill. Senators Levin, McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others have worked hard to try to work out one of the problem areas we have had, and significant progress has been made. It really doesn't matter.

I have spoken to one Democratic Senator, and he still isn't very happy about some information that is in that bill. I told him he could offer an amendment quickly and try to assert his position.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1867

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business tomorrow, Thursday, November 17, 2011, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 230, S. 1867, which is the Defense authorization bill.

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

Mr. President, it is important to announce to the Senate because of this that there will be no rollcall votes tonight.

The Republican leader and I will make a few remarks today. After that, the majority will hold the first half and the Republicans the final half of 1 hour in morning business. Following morning business, the Senate will be in executive session to consider the Gleason and Rogers nominations. At this stage, we have two scheduled votes. We are going to work with the managers, Senators Leahy and Grassley, and see whether we need that second vote, and that decision will be made later this morning. At around 12, there will be, as I indicated, up to two rollcall votes on confirmation of these nominations. Following that vote, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. At 2:15, we will resume consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

As I indicated yesterday, we have a lot to do. Thanksgiving is the week after the day after tomorrow, and we have a lot of things we have to complete.

I gave my word that we are going to do the Defense authorization bill. It still hasn't been worked out to the satisfaction of everyone, but there comes a time when we have to stop negotiating and move to the legislation. We are going to do that following our finishing the next minibus we have. It will be wonderful if we can complete that quickly. As I indicated yesterday, I am not going to fill the legislative tree, but I don't know how much time we are going to be able to spend on this with never-ending amendments. What I would like to do is what we have done in the past, which is to have people offer amendments. But we have to have some kind of a limit that will be self-imposed--that we will have maybe 10 stacked amendments and we will have to figure out some way to dispose of those before we move to another batch of amendments. We will work our way through that. Our staffs, Mr. Myrick and Mr. Schiappa, have been working to see if they can help us work through these issues we have.

We also have the CR we have to do. We hope we will have the first minibus conference completed on that, and we will finish that this work period.

So there is a lot to do. When we come back after Thanksgiving, we only have 3 or 4 weeks until we are there at Christmas.

As I said yesterday, it looks as if we are going to be able to finish our work here at a reasonable time this week. I hope we don't have to work this weekend, and I hope we don't have to work next week. I don't think we will have to do that, but everyone should be prepared in case we do because we have some things that have to be done, such as the CR.

When we come back after the Thanksgiving recess, I tell everyone now that we are not going to be able to do our normal short weeks here. So people are going to have to spend less time at home because the workload after Thanksgiving is really full of lots to do. Again, we have expiring tax provisions we have to work on. If we are fortunate, if the committee comes up with something, that is 30 hours they will have to debate that issue. So we have to be prepared after Thanksgiving to just be here until we are ready to leave for Christmas.

Madam President, it is impossible to open a newspaper or watch cable news these days without hearing my Republican colleagues talk about the evils of ``job-killing regulations.'' Each day, they arrive on the Senate floor to rail against the safeguards that keep our water clean, our air fresh, and our mines safe. According to the GOP, these safeguards are actually the source of all this Nation's economic woes--these terrible, horrible, time-consuming government regulations that hinder the economic progress of America.

Republicans will have you believe that these commonsense rules that check the greed of Wall Street banks, keep huge corporations honest, and stop Big Oil's unnecessary risk-taking are also causing small businesses great harm. Indeed, that would be a terrible thing if that were true. And it isn't.

While it is proper to guard against and remove onerous regulations-- and we need to do that--my Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That is because there isn't any.

Conversely, there is plenty of evidence to prove those regulations save lives, prevent asthma attacks, and ensure that mom-and-pops face a fair fight against these multinational corporations and moneyed interest groups. There is plenty of evidence to prove that disasters such as the BP oilspill and the financial crisis of 2008 could have been prevented by better, stronger government watchdog regulations.

But Republicans aren't relying on evidence as they propagate the myth of the job-killing regulations; they are relying on repetition. There are many people, but let's just take one--Bruce Bartlett, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, and a trusted conservative voice on economics. I had many to choose from, but I chose this one to talk a little bit about today. He offered a number of strong words on the regulation monster under big business's bed:

No hard evidence is offered for this claim: It is simply

asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout

the conservative echo chamber . . . In my opinion, regulatory

uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows

them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda

supported by the business community year in and year out. In

other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism,

not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.

Listen to what he said again because it is worth repeating.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim: It is simply

asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout

the conservative echo chamber . . . In my opinion, regulatory

uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows

them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda

supported by the business community year in and year out. In

other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism,

not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.

But why use regulations proven to protect the health of every mom, dad, man, woman, and child in this Nation as a scapegoat? What are the origins of this myth?

I believe, as Bartlett does, that Republicans are attacking regulation because they don't have a plan to create jobs and turn our economy around--no plan. While Democrats have been pushing time-tested remedies for a flagging economy, such as infrastructure investments or middle-class tax cuts, Republican colleagues have been peddling a cure- all tonic of deregulation.

Bartlett says:

People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but

Republicans have nothing to offer them.

They have offered up the spectre of overreaching government regulation to distract from the fact that they haven't offered a single idea for how to put America back to work. They use the argument to justify rolling back everything from clean air and water safeguards to Wall Street and health insurance industry reforms. We voted on a number of those last week.

What is more, they spread the tall tale that removing these regulations and letting big business do exactly as it pleases will not only prevent job losses but actually create new jobs. Bartlett called that logical leap ``nonsense. It's just made up.''

So let's talk fact, not fiction. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which asked executives why they downsized, only a tiny, tiny fraction of layoffs had anything to do with tighter regulation. Last year, only three-tenths of 1 percent of people who lost their jobs were let go principally because of government regulations or government intervention. On the other hand, 25 percent of them were laid off because of no business, lack of business. In a recent survey by the Small Business Majority, only 13 percent of small businesses cited regulation as their biggest concern. Half said economic uncertainty was the greatest challenge they had.

That is why Democrats have been offering real solutions to our job crisis and policies that help small firms hire, grow, and thrive again. The truth is, we have enough to worry about in these tough economic times. We can't allow the myth to distract us from the real crisis of high unemployment facing this great Nation.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

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

Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2354, which the clerk will report.

Mr. President, I have been authorized by the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee to withdraw the committee-reported substitute amendment.

Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Without losing my right to the floor, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.

Without losing the floor, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Senator Rubio.

Mr. President, let me take a moment to explain what has happened.

I offered the substitute amendment to include versions of the Energy and Water, Financial Services, and State/Foreign Ops appropriations bills that the Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, had reported. Senator Menendez then raised a point of order against that substitute amendment. He had a right to do that. Senator Menendez has explained he objects to provisions of the committee-reported Financial Services bill that were linked to Cuba. That has been underscored by my friend Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and my friend Marco Rubio from Florida.

The amendment I just offered is exactly the same as my last substitute amendment in the last minibus, except that it does not include the Cuba-related provisions to which Senator Menendez objected. It deletes sections 620 and 624 of the Financial Services bill reported to the Senate. I hope this amendment can give us the basis to move forward on this bill.

Amendment No. 957

Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 957, which consists of the text of the withdrawn committee-reported amendment as division A, the text of S. 1573 with the exception of sections 620 and 624, to which I have just referred, Calendar No. 171, as division B and the text of S. 1601, Calendar No. 179, as division C; provided further that H.R. 2434, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee and division C of amendment No. 957, be deemed House-passed text in H.R. 2354 for purposes of rule XVI; finally, that amendment No. 957 for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Rule XVI be considered a committee amendment.

Mr. President, I have a full statement that I want to give as to why I am going to move through the next process, but I understand my friend from Louisiana is here. Before going to him, I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment.

Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I yield to my friend from Louisiana for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, the bills we brought before the Senate-- Energy and Water, Financial Services, Foreign Operations--are all within the agreement we made in July, the deficit reduction package, debt ceiling package we passed. It passed the Senate, passed the House, was signed by the President. So my friend from Louisiana is trying to renegotiate something that was passed after we did 3 months' work on it.

I regret that there has been objection to my request, but what I just sought was the same understanding we had in the last appropriations measure, which worked pretty well. We passed those three bills. The conference should be completed momentarily. We will have to vote on that this coming week. Included in that is the CR to fund the government until sometime in the middle of December. But there has been an objection to proceeding along those same lines.

Everything that was raised by my friend from Louisiana--is what the amendment process is all about. But we wanted it to be the way we have

done it in the past--that on these appropriations matters, the amendments would have to be germane. But he was unwilling to live by that standard and offered amendments that had nothing to do with the underlying bill. That is what the American people can't stand.

The Senate has rules that govern appropriations measures. These Senate rules are necessary because appropriations matters are must-pass bills, and we need some rules to prevent them from becoming Christmas trees. The Senate rules thus prevent nongermane amendments, and the Senate rules prevent legislating on appropriations bills. So those two things have the protection only on appropriations bills. If we didn't have these rules, these appropriations measures would become unmanageable.

So what I sought with my unanimous consent request was to create an environment where the regular rules of the Senate for appropriations measures could be in effect. Regrettably, we didn't get that agreement. If we did those bills individually, that would be automatic.

Without such an agreement, though, we have another thing about which we have to worry: Funding for the government runs out at the end of this week. So before we leave this week, the Senate needs to pass the continuing resolution contained in the conference report on the Agriculture appropriations bill, which also included other appropriations matters. We can't allow the Senate to get tied up in knots in a way that would prevent us from getting that work done.

As I said this morning, I have made a commitment to Senators Levin and McCain that we are going to move to the authorization bill as soon as we finish this appropriations package, and I intend to do that. So we will engage in further discussions about how we can move forward with these important measures. In the meantime, we need to take steps to at least temporarily hold matters where they are. So, as I indicated, I have the yeas and nays pending on the substitute.

I have a first-degree amendment which is perfecting in nature at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to be stricken.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I have a motion to recommit the bill with instructions. That is also at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

I have an amendment to the instruction at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I indicated during the last week that I did not want to have to fill the tree. It is unfortunate that an objection was raised. We were able to move forward, as I indicated, in the last so-called minibus with three appropriations bills made into one. So we are now in a situation where we have no way to move forward unless we have an agreement on the underlying bill, which is the Energy and Water bill.

I have some knowledge of that bill. I was on the Appropriations Committee from the day I came to the Senate, and I worked on that subcommittee for many years--several decades--and I was chairman of that subcommittee quite a few times. I worked with Senator Domenici when we would go back and forth as to who was the Chair, and we worked extremely well together. We were able to get the bill done quickly and satisfy the needs of the Members of this body.

If I can have the efforts of my friends, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, to move forward on this in a way that we can have some view of how we can end this legislation fairly quickly, with the ability to have amendments, I would have no problem because, as I have indicated, we have a lot of things to do before we leave here.

We cannot come back here in December with a lot of unfinished business. I talked to my caucus today about the Defense authorization bill. I think we have to finish that bill before we leave here for Thanksgiving. So we have the minibus conference report, we now have this Energy and Water appropriations bill, which I believe is so important, and we have, of course, the Defense authorization bill. So I say to everyone here, if we can work something out, good. I hope we can.

I have absolute confidence in the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. They are two of our finest. They have a reputation here of working to get things done on a bipartisan basis, and that is certainly necessary on this most important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. President, as I indicated, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander are working very hard to

come up with an agreement that we can move forward with on the Energy and Water bill. I am terribly disappointed we weren't able to do the so-called minibus, consisting of three appropriations bills, as we did a couple weeks ago. It is too bad, unfortunate, that we were not able to do so, but an objection was raised that caused us not to be able to do that. They have not been able to reach an agreement tonight, so we will continue working and, hopefully, tomorrow something good will happen.

It is my understanding the Republicans have run a hotline with their Members to see if they can reduce the number of amendments on the Energy and Water bill. Remember, we can't legislate on an appropriations bill, and it has to be germane, so at least we have those restrictions.

I would also say that while my friends on the Republican side are working through amendments--if, in fact, there is an agreement--there are Democrats who also want to offer amendments, so it is not going to be just amendments offered by Republicans. If, in fact, we can work something out, Democrats also wish to offer amendments. So I hope, and I am cautiously optimistic, that the two fine Senators can work through this morass we have and move forward. I sure hope we can do that.

We are not going to spend a lot of time on this. We wasted most of the day on procedural issues relating to this. But Thanksgiving is fast approaching. We have a lot of stuff to do other than this Energy and Water appropriations bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 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 express my appreciation for the passage of S. Res. 199 by unanimous consent last night. This resolution supports the goals and ideals of Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Week.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, known collectively as inflammatory bowel disease, are chronic disorders of the gastrointestinal tract which afflict approximately 1.4 million Americans, 30 percent of whom are diagnosed in their childhood years. IBD can cause severe abdominal pain, fever, and intestinal bleeding. Complications related to IBD can include: arthritis, osteoporosis, anemia, liver disease, growth and developmental challenges, and colorectal cancer. Inflammatory bowel disease is being diagnosed with increased frequency in children and can be especially devastating for these young patients and their families.

Despite the prevalence of IBD, a lack of awareness among both the general public and health professionals may contribute to the misdiagnosis and mismanagement of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. S. Res. 199 will support efforts to increase awareness and education about these illnesses. It will also recognize the individuals and families who must contend with IBD as part of their daily lives, as well as the health care professionals who care for

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients and the biomedical researchers who work to advance research aimed at the development of new treatments and a cure for these illnesses. The passage of this resolution will give hope to millions of Americans struggling with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis--particularly young children-- that we will continue to focus our attention on these very difficult conditions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 241 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 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 table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the matter be printed in the Record.